Table of Contents

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 1.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 2.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 3.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 4.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 5.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 6.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 7.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 8.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 9.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 10.

Ephesians 1.

Ephesians 2.

Ephesians 3.

Ephesians 4.

Ephesians 5.

Ephesians 6.

Ephesians 1.

Ephesians 2.

Ephesians 3.

Ephesians 4.

Ephesians 5.

Ephesians 6.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 11.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 12.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 13.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 14.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 15.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 16.

COL. 1: 24.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 17.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 18.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 19.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 20.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. N1.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. N2.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. N3.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. N4.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. N5-6.

WKELLY - Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury:

Bible Treasury [2]

William Kelly

This document may be found online at www.stempublishing.com

You are welcome to freely access and use this material for personal study or sending to other Bible students, compiling extracts for notes etc, but please do not republish without permission.

With the prayerful desire that the Lord Jesus Christ will use this God-given ministry in this form for His glory and the blessing of many in these last days before His coming. © Les Hodgett (contact@stempublishing.com) (2011)

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 1.

January 1st, 1857. Bible treasury, Volume 1, page 133.

THE DAY-STAR ARISING IN THE HEART.

2 Peter 1: 19, 20. What is the precise meaning of the latter clause of verse 19, "until the day dawn and the day-star arise in your hearts"? Does it not refer to the fixed hope of the Lord's coming for His Church, which should be as the light of day in their hearts, in contrast with the lamp of prophecy, which yet gives a true light as far as it goes, though it does not give the proper hope of the Church?

What is the meaning of no prophecy of scripture being of "private interpretation?" Is it, that none must be viewed by itself, but all taken in connection with Christ and His glory? "BETA"

["Beta" has sent us matter, which, if a question in form, is an answer in effect, and a correct one too.

The apostle alludes to the confirmation which the prophetic word (respecting the kingdom of Messiah in the Old Testament) received from the vision on the holy mount. Next, he says, that the saints he addresses did well in attending to that word, as to a lamp shining in a dark place. But then he intimates that there is a light as much superior to the prophetic lamp, precious though it is, as the sun's brightness surpasses that which furnishes lesser, but most seasonable, help in the midst of darkness. The true force of the clause is, "till daylight dawn and the day-star arise in your hearts." It is not the day, or the epoch of the Lord's appearing in power and glory upon the world. The text speaks not of what is to surprise and fill the earth with blessing, after judgment, but of the hearts of the saints being filled with their heavenly hope. Prophecy was excellent in its place: it warns of evil at work, of future vengeance on it, and of final triumph for all that is of God. The heavenly hope is still better, the full brightness of which the apostle desires might dawn upon them. It is noticeable that the only day-star of which the prophetic word had spoken before Peter's time, was not Christ, but rather Antichrist, typified by the king of Babylon in Isaiah 14: 12. And in the Revelation the Lord is called the morning-star, not in the details of prophetic visions, but in the address to one of the churches, and in the closing word to all the book. It is Christ as the proper object of our hope and longing desire, independent of these earthly events, past or future, with which prophecy is occupied, important as they are in their place. Such a lamp is good indeed, till we get the best light which God can give our hearts, viz., the waiting for Christ our Bridegroom.

The meaning of verse 20 is that no prophecy of scripture is its own interpreter. Christ is the Holy Ghost's object in prophecy, as He was the Father's on the mount of transfiguration. Isolate any part from Christ, and real understanding of its scope is gone.]

March 1st, 1857. Bible treasury, Volume 1, page 164.

1. Genesis 1, 1. Is not the Hebrew word bara, (to create,) interchangeable with the word asah, (to make,) if not yatsar, (to form)? May we not, then, limit the Mosaic account to the making heaven and earth with a view to man, leaving untouched its origination out of nothing in the depths of antecedent ages? Bishop Pearson (Exposition of the Creed, ii, p. 61, Oxford, 1797,) affirms that the three verbs in question are promiscuously used, as, e.g., Isaiah 53: 7. Dr. Pusey also, in a note to Buckland's Bridgewater Treatise, denies that the first of them means "to make out of nothing." R.

Our answer is simple. The word bara answers as exactly as possible to our English "create," or bring into existence. But just as in our own tongue, so in the Hebrew, the word is applied in a figurative way, flowing out of the idea of creation, but more or less remote from this strictly proper sense, according to the subject. Thus, when an artist talks of "creating a classical taste," or when a merchant speaks of "creating capital," every one understands what is meant by their phraseology; but this in no way impairs the true and absolute force of the word, when used of God's creating the universe. Moreover, the occasional interchange of the words under certain circumstances by no means interferes with the precise and peculiar meaning of each. Thus, the same thing may be created, made and fashioned; but this does not warrant the inference that the three words, or the thoughts conveyed by them, are identical. Asah is used most largely in the Bible for all sorts of things made or done, whether by God or man; yatsar is used for working things into shape, and is metaphorically applied to thoughts and persons also; and all agree that the three words are in no way incompatible; but it is lack of discrimination to treat them as exact synonyms, whether employed strictly or ever so freely. Thus, asah is, with the utmost beauty and truth, said of the six days work, (Exodus 20: 11,) whereas both bara and asah are used as strikingly in Genesis 2: 3, literally "created to make." Next, there is the greatest propriety in the use of bara in Genesis 1:1, where a making up, or a forming into shape of what existed already, would be out of place. In other words, bara, in the most rigorous sense of originating or producing out of nothing, is here required, and therefore neither asah nor yatsar would be seasonable. For if we suppose that this first verse merely speaks of a reorganization, or some kindred process, of existing materials, then it would be false to say "in the beginning," for the hypothesis makes them to have had a being before. In other words, if it really be the beginning, the word expressive of giving existence to that which ulteriorly had none, is needed. Whatever making or forming accompanied or followed the act, creation is the thought here, and bara is the right Hebrew word to convey it. So Gesenius, and the recent Jewish translation of Genesis (Bagster's.) It is important to bear in mind that there is no ground for identifying the condition of the created heavens and earth in verse 1, with the chaotic state described in verse 2. Thousands or myriads of years may have intervened between the creation and this confusion — we say not, did intervene, but may have filled up the interval. It would be strange, indeed, to suppose that God created a mass of confusion, when it is written that He in the beginning created the heaven and the earth. It is not written that in the beginning the earth was desolate and void, and that darkness was upon the face of the murmuring deep. We are told that such was the state of things when the Spirit of God hovered on the face of the waters AFTER the creation, and BEFORE THE SIX DAYS which at length beheld the Adamic world in its primeval beauty. But how long the original state after creation lasted, or how long or often the chaos, we are not informed, as lying entirely outside the moral objects of God's revelation.

THE BASKET OF FIRST FRUITS.

2. Deuteronomy 26. M.F. asks, whether the basket of first-fruits is limited to the entrance of Israel into the land, or whether it was a repeated and constant oblation? also, wherein it is verified in believers now?

That it applies to Israel's possession of the land at any time is plain. The last words of the first verse imply as much: "And it shall be when thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, and possessest it, and dwellest therein, that thou shalt take," etc. Exodus 23: 19; Leviticus 23; and Numbers 18: 13, fully confirm this. It was a standing ordinance in the land. The spirit of the offering is also clear: a full profession before God that they possessed the things which He had promised to their fathers. Their father had been a Syrian ready to perish, a slave in Egypt, and redemption had brought them out thence, and into the good land of which they were now in full enjoyment. Therefore were they come up to own the Giver, in offering to Him the first-fruits. They worshipped and rejoiced in every good thing the Lord had given them, and this in grace, with the Levite and the stranger. How all this bears on the way in which the believer now makes the offering is evident. All his worship is but the answer, the reflex, and bringing back to God of the fruit — the first-fruits, if true faith and godliness be there, of what God has revealed Himself to be to him, and of that heavenly joy into which He has introduced him. Such is properly what the Lord calls "that which is your own;" for on the earth we are pilgrims, in the desert it is not "ours". The characteristic of piety will be found to be, in scripture, and everywhere, and ever, that the first effect of blessing is the turning back to God and owning it there, not the personal enjoyment of it, which, without this, turns us from God. The love that gave it is more present than even the gift. See Eliezer at the well, (Genesis 24,) the cleansed Samaritan leper (Luke 17,) and a multitude of other examples. He who gives is more and more before us than the gift itself. This is the elevating character of divine enjoyment. Then surely we do enjoy it, freely and blessedly, and the stream of grace flows out to the Levite and the stranger — to those whose hearts are in need, and who have not an inheritance in the land we enjoy. It is, then, the return of the heart to God in the enjoyment of the heavenly blessings which are the fruit of redemption. The Christian too can enjoy or so worship when he has the consciousness that heavenly things are his. It is the profession, the open avowal of this; if he has not this consciousness, neither can he bring his basket of first-fruits. "A Syrian ready to perish" was a thing past. The worship was grounded on possession of the blessing and on a known inheritance — "type of sitting in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." It is not thankfulness for promises, however surely that has its place, but thankfulness that they are accomplished — in Christ, yea and amen. Redemption is owned as an accomplished thing that has put us in possession, though for the redemption of the body we have yet to wait.

Indeed, this is the general character of Deuteronomy. It is not drawing near to God in the sanctuary by means of sacrifice, but the people — and not merely the priest for them — are themselves in possession, and hence the sentiments towards God Himself, and towards the desolate of men, in the enjoyment of the blessing; for free grace becomes him who has received all through grace. Compare Deuteronomy 16, where even the various degrees of this are traced in the three principal feasts of the Lord. Hence also the responsibility of the people as to the continuance of the enjoyment of the blessing; for it is in the path of obedience that such enjoyment is known. Deuteronomy is a book of the deepest practical instruction in this respect.

THE TEN VIRGINS.

3. Matthew 25, 1-11. E.J.H. asks, whether the virgins, in Matthew 25, went to meet the bridegroom on his way to the bride's dwelling, or whether they met him on his return home with the bride? He inclines to the latter view, especially as the Syriac, Arabic and Vulgate add "and the bride" to the close of verse 1, which at least indicates the custom that prevailed when these versions were made, even if the addition were unwarranted. Are the virgins of the parable identical with the 144,000 of Revelation 14, "for they are virgins," and with those addressed in Revelation 19: 9, as "blessed are they which are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb?" If the oil symbolizes the unction of the Holy Spirit, could the foolish virgins have had any in their lamps, as some suppose? Does verse 7 imply more than that they too lit or relit their lamps, which showed light for a certain time, because the wick would burn, but being unsupplied with oil it soon burnt out?

Though the Arabic is erroneously included, the external evidence is a good deal stronger than E.J.H. supposes. The famous Codex Bezae Cantab. (D) with eight cursive manuscripts, the Peschito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Itala, the Vulgate, the Persian, the Armenian, the Francic and the Saxon versions, with three or four fathers, add "and the bride." Notwithstanding, the vast mass of the best MSS. is adverse, (including the unicals, technically known as B, C, E, F, G, H, K, L, M, S, U, V, X, Δ,) not to speak of the Coptic and Sclavonic versions, &c. The internal evidence is so decidedly opposed to the words as to leave no doubt that the usual text is correct, and the addition a mere but not unnatural gloss. This, understood by some, was expressed by others, and thus it probably crept into a few manuscripts and many versions. As to the sense, it seems plain that the bridegroom is represented as coming to the home of his bride. Not, however, she, but the marriage reunion is the object of the Spirit here. "Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins." It is a general picture of the finally contrasted portion of "the wise" and "foolish", who bore the name of Christ during His absence, embracing the state of things from the first expectation of the Bridegroom till His return. "Then" seems to refer to Matthew 24: 50, 51, and shows that, when the Lord comes in judgment, the lot of many will be decided, who might look very well at first going out with the true-hearted saints to meet the Bridegroom, and who afterwards, when slumber overspread all, even the wise, might look no worse. But when the "day" and the "hour" arrive, how vain to have taken the lamp of profession without the oil, the Holy Spirit, who alone can sustain in testimony and in waiting for Christ. The foolish "took NO oil with them" is distinct and conclusive, as to the last question. We ought not to identify the virgins here with those in Revelation 14. In the last the remnant so described owe it to their purity (verse 4) in contrast with the mass who defiled themselves with Babylon, that great city, which made all nations drink the wine of the wrath of her fornication. (Verse 8.) Here the figure of virgins, equally applied to the foolish and the wise, is simply taken from the familiar circumstances of a nuptial train in the East. There might at first sight seem to be more affinity with the guests at the marriage supper of the Lamb in Revelation 19: 9. But there is this essential difference, that in Matthew the scene is on earth, (the bride not being named, as being outside the mind of the Lord there,) while in Revelation it is a heavenly scene, and the bride is the prominent figure next to the Lamb, though we find that there are others blessed at the same time, who are distinct from her. In Matthew 25, whether we receive or reject "and the bride," it is clear that Christians are set forth, not by the bride, but by the virgins, who leave all and go out to meet the Bridegroom, Christ rejected, but yet returning from heaven. This calling was long forgotten during His delay. Those who had gone out, according to this position, but who had actually got back into ease in the world, are again awakened by the cry of His speedy advent, which is raised at "midnight." Separation practically takes place in due time, according to the real possession or the absence of the Spirit. For the Lord lingers long enough, after the cry which aroused all, to put this to the test.

THE LORD RETURNING FROM THE WEDDING.

4. Luke 12: 36. It is asked whether this verse coincides, or is to be connected, with the parable of the virgins in Matthew 25. It would rather seem to be a comparison to show the responsibility of the saints and the grace of the Lord; but it is not a history or prophecy thrown into parabolic form, as we have in Matthew 25, and therefore a comparison with the virgins would be apt to mislead.

"NOT TO COMPANY"

5. 1 Corinthians 5: 9, 10. J.D. raises a question as to the accuracy of the English Bible, in rendering οὐ πάντως, "not altogether." He enquires whether the words are not rather to be viewed as emphatically negativing any companionship or intercourse with the worldly characters which are afterwards enumerated, and whether verse 11 is not a supplement, regarding professed Christian brethren, who are to be yet more stringently dealt with. The best versions, ancient and modern, which are accessible to me, (including the Syriac, Vulgate, Beza, Luther, De Wette, the Elberfeld, the Dutch, Diodati, Ostervald, the Lausanne, etc.,) appear to give the same sense as the authorized V., which in my opinion, necessarily flows from the last clause of the verse. For what is ἐπεὶ ὀφείλετε ἄρα ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ἐξελθεῖν, but a proof of the futility of an absolute avoidance of worldly bad men? — "for then ye must needs go out of the world." The apostle proceeds to show that the command not to keep company refers to communion in any way with guilty brethren so-called.

OBEDIENCE AND SPRINKLING OF THE BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST.

6. 1 Peter 1: 2, 3. Do the words, "of Jesus Christ," apply to one term or both? and what the Jewish allusions?

The words apply to both, doubtless. The whole passage characterizes the position of the Christian with reference to that of the Jew, in virtue of being begotten again to a living hope. (Compare 1 Peter 2: 4, 5, and Matthew 16: 16.) Our inheritance is incorruptible, in heaven. The election of the saints is according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, made effectual, not by such earthly deliverance as Jehovah had wrought, but by sanctification of the Spirit: all natural references, by contrast, to Israel's portion, especially as Peter writes to the sojourners of the dispersion. So again, the double character of Christian standing before God. It is Christ, not the sealing of a legal covenant, not the blood of bulls and goats. We are set apart, by the quickening power of the Holy Ghost, to the sprinkling of Christ's blood, and the obedience in which He walked on earth — practical obedience. The obedience of Christ differed from the law in every way. Law promises life when we have kept required and imposed commandments; Christ's obedience was the expression of life in love. Self-will — lust — exists in us: law forbids its gratification. If I submit, I am counted obedient. Christ never obeyed thus; He came to do God's will. Obedience was never for Him a bridle put on a contrary will. We need, alas! such a bridle still; but proper Christian obedience is the delight of our new nature in doing the will of God, whose commandments and word are the perfect expression of it for us. It is what James calls "the perfect law of liberty." Christ's motive for action was the will and word of His Father; so it is ours as Christians. "Begotten again," for the spiritual Jew conveyed the idea of a new state, such as Ezekiel 36 presents, and referred to in John 3. The whole truth being now made clear, we know that this takes place by the communication of a new nature in Christ. He becomes our life, being a quickening spirit. Hence it involves a new position, even His own, as the object of faith now.

THE POSITION OF THE APOSTLES IN GLORY.

7. Matthew 19: 28. Mr. C. enquires as to the heavenly place and portion of the twelve, seeing that they are here promised the highest seats of dignity and rule in relation to the tribes of Israel, "in the regeneration," or the times of restitution, the true year of Jubilee here below. The other side of the glory, which is theirs, is seen in Revelation 21, where the names of the apostles are not merely written on the gates, but in the twelve foundations of the heavenly city. They will have their place in the glorified Church on high, as ordered in the eternal councils of God, but this will not clash with their special connection with Israel on earth. God has made known to us the mystery of His will, that for the administration of the fulness of times He is to head up all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth, even in Him, in whom also we have obtained an inheritance.

May 1st, 1857. Bible Treasury, Volume 1, page 196.

"THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD."

Romans 1: 16, 17. What does the expression, "the righteousness of God," mean? It is evidently of the very essence of the gospel; yet the common explanations are to me most unsatisfactory. The obedience of Christ in his life (blessed and perfect as it was) could not have saved sinners from the wrath of God. Will you, Mr. Editor, kindly give your thoughts upon the subject? "BETA."

"The righteousness of God" embraces the entire display of God's ways in Christ, one of the least of which, if we are to compare things which are all perfect in their place, was His accomplishment of the law here below. For the law was not intended to express fully and absolutely God's nature and character. It stated, if we may so say, the lowest terms on which man could live before Him. It was the demand of what God could not but require, even from a sinful Israelite, if he pretended to obey God. Whereas, though the Lord Jesus was made under the law, and submitted in His grace to all its claims, He went much farther, even in His living obedience, and infinitely beyond it in His death. For the righteousness of the law threatens no death to the righteous, but necessarily proclaims life for his portion, who magnified and made it honourable. But God's righteousness goes immeasurably deeper as well as higher. It is a justifying righteousness, not a condemning one, as that of the law must be so to the sinner who has it not. Hence the Lord Himself established the sanctions of the law in the most solemn way by suffering unto death under its curse: He bore the penalty of the ungodly, of which substitution the Ten words knew nothing, because they are law, and so to die is grace. There was no mitigation, much less annulling of the law's authority. Divine righteousness provided One who could and would settle the whole question for the sinner with God. Nor this only; for God raised Christ from the dead. He was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. He was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father; His moral being, His purposes, His truth, His love, His relationship, His glory, in short, was at stake in the grave of Christ. But God raised Him up, and set Him at His own right hand in heaven, as a part of His divine righteousness; for no seat, no reward inferior to that, could suit the One who had vindicated God in all His majesty, holiness, grace, and truth, who had, so to speak, enabled God to carry out His precious design of justifying the ungodly, Himself just all the while. Thenceforward, to him who has faith, it is no longer a question of the law or of legal righteousness, which rested on the responsibility of man, but Christ having gone down into death in atonement, and thus glorified God to the uttermost, the ground is changed, and it becomes a question of God's righteousness. If man has been proved by the law to have brought forth wrongs, and only wrongs, God must have His rights, the very first of which is raising up Christ from the dead, and giving Him glory. Hence the Holy Spirit is said, in John 16, to convince the world of righteousness; and this, not because Christ fulfilled that which we violated, but because He is gone to the Father, and is seen no more till he return in judgment. It is not righteousness on earth, but its heavenly course and character, in the ascension of Christ, which is here spoken of. So again, in 2 Corinthians 5, it is in Christ glorified in heaven that we are made, or become, divine righteousness. It is plain, then, that the phrase, though no doubt embracing what Christian's mean when they speak of Christ's righteousness imputed to us,  is a far larger and more glorious thing. It includes not only that which glorified God on earth in living obedience, but the death of the cross, which if it met the deepest need of the sinner, broke the power of Satan in his last stronghold, and laid the immutable foundation for God's grace to reign through righteousness. Thus in Romans 1: 17, God's righteousness is said to be revealed in the gospel in contrast with man's righteousness claimed in the law; and being revealed, it is "from faith," not from law-works: that is, it is a revelation on the principle of faith, not a work to be rendered on the ground of human responsibility. Therefore it is to "faith." He that believes gets the blessing. In Romans 3: 21, 22, it is formally contrasted with anything under the law, though the law and the prophets witnessed respecting it. It is "God's righteousness without law," by faith of Jesus Christ, and hence "towards all men" in native tendency, but taking effect only "upon all them that believe." It is here in special connection with redemption, and therefore it is added through faith in His blood. See verses 24-26. In Romans 10, it is shown to be incompatible with seeking to establish one's own righteousness, God's righteousness being complete, and the object of faith in Christ has to be submitted to, or we have no part or lot in it. 2 Corinthians 5 rises higher, and shows what the saint is, according to the gospel of the glory of Christ — made divine righteousness in Him risen and glorified. Hence in the later epistle to the Philippians, the ripe sample and development of Christian experience, Paul, transported even to the last with this new and divine righteousness, shows us that, compared with it, he would not have the righteousness of the law if he could. For what was of the law had glory no longer in his eyes because of the glory that excelled — that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness of God through faith. (Philippians 3.) Far from superseding practical godliness, this righteousness of God in Christ strikes deep roots in the heart, and springs up in a harvest of kindred fruit, which is by Jesus Christ to God's glory and praise. (Philippians 1: 11.)

It is a singular fact that, while God used Romans 1: 17 to Luther's conversion, and we may say to the Reformation, neither he, nor his companions, or their followers, ever apprehended the full truth conveyed by this blessed expression — "righteousness of God". Hence it is habitually mistranslated in Luther's German Bible, where δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is rendered "the righteousness which is available before God." This, evidently, is far short of the truth; for a legal righteousness, if accomplished by man. would have availed before God. But Good, in His grace, has accomplished in Christ and given an incomparably higher, i.e., a divine, righteousness, and nothing less than this are we made in Christ. Perhaps the imperfect view entertained by the great German Reformer may account in large measure for the fluctuations in his enjoyment of peace. The same thing applies to most Protestants up to our day, even where they are devoted Christians, and perhaps from a similar cause; for they have advanced little, if at all, beyond the light on this head possessed by Luther.

1 Corinthians 15: 29. What is meant by "being baptized for the dead?" L.W.

For the due understanding of this verse, it is necessary to bear in mind that a parenthesis extends from verse 20 to 28 inclusively. The connection therefore, of verse 29 and seq. is with the reasoning which precedes that parenthetic revelation.

Now the apostle had already shown that "if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised; and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins: then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished," closing with the further word, "if in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." (verses 16-19.) Having thus proved the extreme gravity of denying the resurrection of dead persons, as overthrowing the foundation of salvation for the saints alive or dead, and neutralising that hope which sustained those who now suffer with Christ, he interrupts the thread of argument by the positive statement, "but not is Christ risen from the dead." Then he draws out the glorious consequence of His victory as man — resurrection after His own pattern for those who are His at His coming, and a kingdom which he will not deliver to the Father till He hath put all enemies under His feet, till the wicked dead are raised for judgment, and death is destroyed. "And when all things are subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." For it is not here a question of His divine glory, but of a special authority vouchsafed to Him, as the exalted man, for a given purpose and time; this over, God (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) is all in all.

Having terminated this most instructive digression, which flowed out of the statement of Christ's resurrection, the apostle takes up the argument he had dropped, and referring to verse 16, he urges, "else what shall the baptized for the dead do? If dead [persons] rise not at all, why also are they baptised for them?" And if he puts this case more strongly than in his first allusion to it, if he exposes the absurdity of people following the steps of those who are supposed to have perished, he in the next verses develops our present misery of Christians, and his own especially, "if in this life only we have hope in Christ." Whether dead or living, the saints would be badly off indeed.

"To be baptised for the dead," then, means to begin the Christian career, as the successors of persons whom some of them held to have died never to rise again. To be baptised for such, with any view or reference to them, was folly, if they were not to rise. To stand in jeopardy every hour, to die daily, to pass through such a conflict as the apostle had had with his Ephesian enemies, was to persist in madness, "it the dead rise not." But if the dead are to rise and reign, if all outside them are merely enjoying the pleasures of sin for a season, which will give place to sure and stern eternal judgment, the only wisdom was to enter their ranks, come what might to mow them down or harass in this life. God is only rightly known as the God of resurrection. Sin — this present evil world — tends to confuse and falsify all just thoughts of God, of His character, and His counsels. Resurrection, as revealed of Him, puts everything in its true place and light, and amongst others the suffering place of the Christian, from its commencement to its close here below. Resurrection is its key, its encouragement, and its reward.

June 1st, 1857. Bible treasury, Volume 1, page 213.

SUFFERING IN THE FLESH.

1. 1 Peter 4: 1. Who and what is meant by "he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin?" Does it apply to Christ, the believer, or both, and how? F.

The will of the flesh is the practical principle of all sin. Will is not obedience to God, and hence is sin in its very principle, but being the will of the flesh show itself in the flesh's lusts. It does not turn towards God, but the contrary, and does turn towards what the flesh desires. It is the acting of the nature at enmity with God's. Suffering in the flesh is the opposite of this will, or acting of the nature. This is applied both to Christ and us; but in the case of Christ it is applied to His death. (see 1 Peter 3: 18.) Rather than be disobedient in anything, and perfect in obedience, from the divine surrender of all will in Psalm 40, to take the place of obedience, He goes on to death, as man's weakness, Satan's power, God's wrath, and was obedient through all these, and in the former passed through both the latter rather than not obey. He was perfect in obedience, not sparing the flesh in anything, and died to sin once; that is, He went on to death in its fullest forms, rather than withdraw from doing God's will, or have one of His own. His nature died rather than He would have a will or aught but God's will. Thus sin found no inlet or place. An apple served to lead Adam into sin; nothing could lead Christ into it. Not only He had never any sin, but He went through everything that could induce will, and all failed to lead Him into it. He suffered in the flesh; sin was baffled for ever, and totally — the whole proof gone through, and nothing served to introduce it; all possible trial is over, for He has gone through it in weakness, as to His human nature. He has thus rested from all further question of sin, has a divine and eternal sabbath as to it. How blessed! On the earth He had not. He had always victory over it — never let anything but obedience in His heart — proved He had a nature contrary to it, on purpose to obey, and nothing else. This was perfection, and the rather because He was tempted; but it was not a sabbath or rest. Between Him and his Father, in the exercise of love in obeying, He had joy, but till He died, οὐ (πέπαυται) He had not rest from it. This has, as a great principle, its application to us. "He that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin," is an abstract principle. When the will of my flesh works, I have not ceased from sin; but when, by the power of the Holy Ghost, I act entirely and fell entirely in the new nature, and the flesh has no will allowed, nor a thought belonging to it has entrance, because I am full of what the Spirit gives me, and obey in the delight of obedience, though suffering as regards man, in that I have ceased from sin. As sin is in the flesh, it may be in us a question of degree. It is partial, temporary, perhaps, in its realization; but the principle remains ever true, and suffering, that is as far as suffering in the flesh, sin has no place in me, my thoughts, mind, and moral being. The flesh is not changed, but if I only suffer in it, it in me then has no operation as to will. It is important that scripture truth — perfect moral truth — should be given us unmodified in its own truth and nature; because then we can see what it is, and judge the comparative degree of attainment. Besides the spirit is refreshed by the thing itself. We have the same thing in John's epistle, who never introduces the modifications resulting from the adverse action of the flesh or any hindrance. The difficulty of the passage in Peter is its abstract nature. The point important to hold clear is that it is Christ's death that is spoken of in His case, though, of course, all His life was consistent with it.

VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE CHURCH.

2. It is asked who first introduced the phrase, "visible," and "invisible Church?" We believe it was the celebrated Aurelius Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, in the fourth century, though we are from circumstances unable to verify this by express citations from his writings.

It is more important to remark that the idea of an invisible church (i.e. of individual believers, in the midst of a professing body, which was severed from other men by religious rites) finds its real counterpart in the Jewish state of things, not in the Church of God as presented in the New Testament. In fact, it was out of such a condition that God gathered, on the day of Pentecost and afterwards, "such as should be saved;" and these, gathered into one by the Holy Ghost, constituted the first nucleus of "the Church of God." They were baptized by the Spirit into one body.

It is true that when the church deserted the ground on which God had called her out in separation from the world to the name of the Lord Jesus, when she gave up the guidance of the Holy Ghost according to the word of God, and the world subsequently came in like a flood, the Church did, as a fact, become "invisible;" but this was her shame and sin. It is not, nor ever was, the design of God. And the believer is ever responsible to return to the divine ground on which the Church was meant, and is always bound, to stand. "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." It is a question of the will and glory of God, and hence to us a question of faith. This does not make the "two or three" to be the Church of God; (which would ignore its present ruin-state;) but it puts them on Church-ground; and they are that part of the Church which is visible.

August 1st, 1857. Bible treasury, Volume 1, page 243.

2 CORINTHIANS 5: 10 — IS THE MANIFESTATION TO BE BEFORE BRETHREN, OR THE LORD SIMPLY?

I find nothing in scripture which speaks of manifestation to brethren. The question is apt to connect itself very closely with the state of the conscience. It presses on it when there is anything from which it is not entirely purged before God. There may be a conviction that God will not impute without the conscience being de facto pure or purged. When purged before God, or practically pure in walk, (though this, as the apostle says, does not justify,) the soul is not anxious about being manifested at the judgment-seat, because it is manifested to God now. This is of great practical importance.

The passages on the subject are these. They will be seen to be of two classes.

Romans 14: 12. So then every one of us shall give an account of himself to God, connected with verse 10, We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 2 Corinthians 5: 10. For we must all be manifested (appear) before the judgment-seat of Christ to receive the things done in the body.

1 Corinthians 4: 4,5. For I know nothing by myself; (no evil of myself;) yet am I not hereby justified: he that judgeth me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who shall bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and shall make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

Romans 2: 16. In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men's hearts according to my gospel.

This is one class of texts. The other here follows: -

Matthew 10: 26. Fear them not, therefore, for there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed, and hid that shall not be known.

Mark 4: 22. Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel or under a bed, and not to be set on a candlestick? For there is nothing hid which shall not be manifested, neither was anything kept secret, but that it should come abroad.

Luke 8: 16, 17. No man, when he hath lighted a candle, covereth it with a vessel or putteth it under a bed, but setteth it on a candlestick, that they which enter in may see the light. For nothing is secret that shall not be made manifest; neither anything hid that shall not be known and come abroad. Take heed, therefore, how ye hear, etc.

Luke 12: 1, 2. Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy, for there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed, neither hid that shall not be known.

Three great principles are here presented. First, the great general truth, that man can keep nothing secret, though it may seem so, and can conceal nothing. All must be in light. God must have the upper hand and light shall prevail. Secondly, that we are to give an account of ourselves to God. And thirdly, that we are not to fear the secret machinations of men, but to fear God and bear witness according to the light given to us. When I say men can conceal nothing, it is scarcely absolute enough. There is nothing secret but that it should be manifested.

This is a very important principle. It maintains the authority of God as light. For could anything be withdrawn from this, it would escape His power and judgment, and evil should be maintained independent of Him. It maintains also integrity of conscience.

In the second point, our personal responsibility to God is maintained in everything. Each one shall give an account of himself. We may be helped by every vessel of grace and light in the Church, but man cannot meddle with our individual responsibility to God. Each one shall give an account of himself.

The third point maintains confidence in God, in presence of what might seem otherwise a wickedness which was of a depth with which it was impossible to deal, and for which Christian truthfulness was no match.

All this is to maintain the conscience in the light before God, where there is anxiety as to manifestation before the brethren. Shame before men has still power over the heart and will: self-love and character govern the mind. We are not in the light before God, nor has sin its right character in our eyes, because self has yet its power and place.

All is to be brought into the light, all thought of concealment rooted out and destroyed in the heart; but God will not maintain the influence of men and reputation by presenting a manifestation to them in the word, which is exactly what falsifies the moral judgment; and He does not. If the heart is comforting itself with the thought that it will not be known, He breaks through the heart's deceit relentlessly, and says it will be known; everything hidden shall come to light. He does not neutralize His own authority and destroy the purity of moral principle, in saying it will be known before your brethren in that day.

Everything will be in the light, thank God; it is for the blessing, and for the joy, too, of every upright soul.

It is not necessarily simply in the day of judgment that this takes place, the Lord may deal with it now. "Thou hast done this thing secretly," says God, by Nathan, to David, "but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun."

Thus the bringing of sin to light and judgment may be here from the hand of God. Men are chastened of the Lord that they may not be condemned with the world.

One passage remains, demanding more particular notice — 2 Corinthians 5 — "For we must all be manifested before the judgment seat of the Christ, that each may receive the things done by the body, according to that he has done, whether it be good or bad."

I would first say, to remove what obscures the passage, that I am satisfied that the passage is general, and embraces all men. I cannot conceive how the context can leave a shadow of doubt on this point in any mind. It ought not. It is not a question of the time of appearing, but of the fact. Secondly, it is very important to remark that as regards the saints there is no calling into question their righteousness. The manner of the arrival before the judgment-seat and their state in arriving, clearly show this, as well as the declaration of the Lord, (John 5,) that they shall not come into judgment. But how do they arrive on high? "I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to myself, that where I am there you may be also." Christ comes Himself to complete His work of perfect grace in bringing us there. In that state we "wait for the Lord Jesus Christ [as] Saviour, who shall change our vile body, and fashion it like his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things to himself." (Philippians 3: 20.) We shall be already like Christ, conformed to the image of God's Son, bearing the image of the heavenly. He who sits to judge according to His righteousness, according to what He is, is our righteousness.

The judgment of the saints begins when righteousness and glory are complete, when we are the same as Christ in them by grace.

What immense gain will our manifestation now be to ourselves! We shall know as we are known. If now, when perfect peace is possessed before God in a purged conscience, the Christian looks back at all his past life before and since his conversion, what a lesson of grace, patience, holy government for his good, that he may be partaker of His holiness — of care against unseen dangers, of instruction and of love will his new history afford the Christian! How much more, when freed from the very nature which produced the evil in him, he knows as he is known, and can trace now perfectly God's ways with him! It will immensely increase and enhance his appreciation of what God has been for him, and of His patient, perfect grace and purpose of love. It is surely a solemn thing, but of immense price and value to us. It is all wrought out in the conscience, as we learn from Romans 14: 12. Here it is the fact. Remark the true effect on a right state of mind. First, not a thought of judgment as to righteousness has any place whatever. The judgment-seat only awakens that love which thinks of those still exposed to it. "Knowing the terror of the Lord, we persuade men." Secondly, it is realized so as to put him who realizes it responsibly in the presence of God. Now, "we are manifested to God." Oh, what a healthful and blessed thing this is for the soul! The rest is a mere effect readily hoped for — "I trust that we are manifested in your consciences." The other considerations produced a conduct proper to have this effect; but if a man was before God it was of little matter, did not affect the soul, save in the desire of others' good and Christ's glory. This double effect will certainly be produced in any such manifestation before others, and we then shall as certainly desire nothing else. The shame of a nature we have left will not be there then; the just judgment of evil will. I say this, however, in respect of the present condition of the soul. Anxiety on this point is a proof that the soul is not wholly in the sight of God. There is disappears because we are wholly there. Scripture never brings in the thought of brethren as concerned in this manifestation, and could not; but it does maintain, in the fullest way, manifestation in the light, so that if the heart reserves anything, has not brought it wholly out before God, it should be ill at ease. We are certainly perfectly manifested to the Lord, consciously I mean, (for we always are so,) and to ourselves. If it be for His glory that anything should be known to the saints also, we shall not regret it then; but our proper, full manifestation is certainly to God, and in our own souls. All that is need to verify the government of God will, I doubt not, be made manifest. All that has been, through evil, sought to be hidden, so that the heart was false, the counsel of the heart evil, will be brought to light; but where men have walked in the light, the counsels of the heart, however man may have judged them, will be made plain; for in that day God will judge the secrets of men's hearts. His grace and His government may have wrought all this in the world, and some men's sins and good works go before to judgment, but those that are otherwise cannot be hid.

My answer then is, that the brethren are never, and can never be those, manifestation to or before whom can be the subject of the revelation of scripture — everything being brought into light is. God is light, and the light manifests everything; He will bring every secret work into judgment. Further, as to responsibility, our thoughts are directed to God, and to the judgment-seat of Christ. But all that is need to display God's ways and government, and His approval of the saints, will surely be brought out, as the passages quoted clearly prove. The saint loves the light, as he loves and blesses God for the grace which enables him to stand in it, and makes him to be partaker of the inheritance of the saints in it. This, though doubtless imperfect, is, I believe, the true scriptural answer to the question. Where the thought of shame is introduced, it is referred entirely to the presence of Christ, and regards the service and work done for Him. (1 John 2: 28.)

September 1st, 1857. Bible Treasury, Volume 1, page 261.

Is not obedience too much forgotten when you insist on justification by faith? Does not St. Paul exhort us to "fear" and "labour" to enter into that rest? E.P.

Scripture maintains obedience and practice in the right place: that is, good works do not make, but they manifest and become the Christian. They cannot exist before a man is regenerate; though they may to a certain extent before he enjoys peace with God and the consciousness of acceptance. He who is not a believer, is by nature a child of wrath, and inevitably fulfils the desires of the flesh and of the mind. "There is no difference, for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." They travel the same road, each his own way, it is true, but all with their backs toward God. Some may have travelled long and fast, others a comparatively short way and time; these may be outstripped by those in self-destructive madness and rebellion, but both agree alas! in their terrible condition of sin, ruin, and death. To speak to such of obedience as a means of salvation, simply proves entire ignorance of ourselves and of God — shows that, like Israel at Sinai, we confound responsibility with power. Doubtless, men ought to obey, but can they? Beyond controversy, God gives Christians the spirit of power, love, and a sound mind. Therefore are we to be partakers of the afflictions of the gospel, according to the power of God, who hath saved us and called us with an holy calling, NOT according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace. (2 Timothy 1: 7-9) This is the divine description of the Christian accepted, but not yet glorified. The apostle clearly speaks of believers on earth — not in heaven, where are no afflictions of the gospel, and no temptations to forget our holy calling. On the other hand, the rest in Hebrews 4 is future rest — the rest that remains for God's people. We are there viewed as journeying through the wilderness, and in danger of carelessness, ease, and settling down. Hence the apostle exhorts to fear and labour. Had the question been of justification, he would have said, do not fear, do not labour; "for to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."

October 1st, 1857. Bible treasury, Volume 1, page 278.

1. Psalm 22. Is it not an evil use of this Psalm (though done in ignorance, doubtless) when it is applied for the encouragement of persons in an unhappy state of mind, as if the Lord had known such experience? Now it seems to me that He endured this heart-breaking anguish when "He was made sin" that His people might never know it. Consequently it must be wrong to draw any such comparison. Am I right? I cannot see how a Christian can ever be "forsaken" of God, since he is accepted in Christ; and surely He is ever the object of the Father's delight. "BETA."

Our correspondent is right. Psalm 22 speaks of the Lord Jesus, not merely in a "day of trouble" which others might share, but in that suffering from, and desertion by, God, which were His portion exclusively — the bitterest draught in His bitter cup -now by grace our deep joy as we ponder it over and adore Him and the God who gave Him so to die for us. When systematically carried out, such an error becomes positive and deadly heresy. Happily this is not often the case. Where one hears it sometimes misused, it is for the most part mere confusion, and ignorance of the blessed consequences of a redemption which is finished and accepted unchangeably. Still all error is bad, and is dangerous just so far as the will is allowed to work against God and His word; so that it is well to meet it firmly whenever it appears, and especially where combined, as it often is, with some pretension to sound doctrine.

2. Philippians 3: 11. Is not the apostle to be understood here as longing to know more of the power if the life which he already had in Christ, since resurrection (as commonly understood) in no sense depends upon attainment? Will the editor kindly give his thoughts on the passage in connection with the preceding and following context? "BETA."

St. Paul is presenting us in the context with true Christian experience, of which resurrection from the dead by the presence of God is the goal. Verse 11 does not make that resurrection dependent on our efforts, but shows that it was so blessed an end to the heart of the apostle that he did not mind what the pathway ("if by any means") might be which lay between; yea, rather, he desired, and valued the fellowship of Christ's sufferings. instead of seeking some easy road. "Attain" here simply implies that he had not as yet reached the prize in view.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 2.

January 1st, 1858. Bible Treasury, Volume 2, page 16.

John 21: 15-17. G__y enquires what is the difference between ἀγαπάω and φιλέω? You will observe that Jesus says to Peter the first and second times ἀγαπᾳσ me, and that Peter replies φιλῶ σε. The third time, Jesus says φιλεῖσ me. It has remarked that one means "love," and the other simply "friendly feeling." But on referring to the Englishman's Greek Concordance, I find φιλῶ used in John 5: 20, ("for the Father loveth the Son,") and also in John 15: 27, ("for the Father himself loveth you," etc.)

It is not surprising that our correspondent is little satisfied with the usual explanation. The true difference seems to be simple.   Ἀγαπάω is the generic term for loving, and is applicable in all directions — to superiors, inferiors and equals. It is said of God's feeling toward man, and of man's toward God. It is predicated of God's love in giving His only-begotten Son, and of Christ's love in giving Himself for the Church. On the other hand, φιλῶ seems to be a narrower word,  and properly implies special affection and endearment. Hence it is often used to describe the outward sign of fondness and also vaguely that feeling which produces a habit of certain actions, though this last is true of ἀγαπάω also. Booth are said of God's love to His Son. The notion that ἀγαπάω denotes reverential love, and φιλέω mere human affection is untenable. We are not called to love our enemies reverentially. (Matt. 5: 43,44; Matt. 6: 24.) Nor was it thus that Christ loved the rich young man; nor will it be pretended that God reverentially loved the world. Yet this is not a tithe, perhaps, of the absurdity that attends such a thought. As little can φιλέω be reduced to the purely human regard of the heart. It is not so that the Father loves the Son or even us; nor can anything be more opposed to the true scope of 1 Corinthians 16: 22; Titus 3: 15; Revelation 3: 19, etc., where φιλέω occurs.

It would rather appear that while the Lord thoroughly judges Peter's confidence in his own love to Him, He not only hears Peter's 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 very heart, and drew out the deeply-felt and humble confession that it was only the Lord's omniscience which could at all discern such affection. It may be added that in the first case, the Lord's word is, "feed my lambs," in the second, "shepherd, or rule, my sheep," and in the third, "feed my sheep." Peter's last answer appeals to the Lord's knowledge, both subjective, οἷδασ, and γινώσκεισ, objective.

February 1st, 1858. Bible Treasury, Volume 2, page 31.

Why may not a believer use the prayer, "Be not angry with us forever?" Is not God displeased, or angry with us, when we sin? Must we not, in this case, seek to be forgiven? And is not God displeased with us until we have sought His forgiveness?

The first point that requires to be noticed is, that the word of God expressly declares the believer to be free from condemnation. "There is now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus." (Romans 8: 1.) Nor is this their present privilege alone: its continuance is pledged to them by the same word. "He that heareth my words, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life." (John 5: 24.) Besides, the state of the believer in this respect is contrasted in scripture with that of the unbeliever. "He that believeth not on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3: 36.) If then that which distinguishes the one class from the other be, that the wrath of God abides on the unbeliever, while from the believer it has passed away, how evident that no believer van intelligently use the prayer, "Be not angry with us forever."

As to the remaining queries, it is of all-importance to distinguish between the natural relation we all sustain to God, as creatures, and those new, blessed relations to Him on which we enter, the moment it can be truly said of us that we are believers in Christ. As creatures, we are responsible to God, the holy, righteous Judge of all. As fallen creatures, we are utterly and hopelessly condemned. "Enter not into judgment with thy servant, for in thy sight shall no man living be justified." (Psalm 143: 2) Such was the confession of the psalmist, prior to the accomplishment of redemption, and the full triumph of grace in the death, resurrection, and ascension of our Lord. It was because of our total inability to stand thus in judgment before God that Christ took our place, and bare our sins in his own body on the tree. If grace has drawn our hearts to that blessed Saviour, we have God's word to assure us that in His death on the cross, our whole standing as condemned, sinful creatures before God came to an end. Believing in Him, "we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins." (Ephesians 1: 7.) The believer is himself a justified, accepted person. "Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." (Romans 3: 24.) "Accepted in the beloved." (Ephesians 1: 6.) The believer enters thus, the moment he is a believer, on entirely new relations to God. He is no longer condemned and under wrath, but a pardoned, justified, accepted person, through the boundless grace of God, and the infinite efficacy of Christ's precious work. He is adopted, moreover, into God's family; yea, born of God, and thus really His child. He is one with Christ, as a member of His body, "for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." (Ephesians 5: 30.)

April 1st, 1858. Bible treasury, Volume 2, page 63.

ARE THERE TWO HALF WEEKS IN THE APOCALYPSE?

In reply to the questions of your correspondent, J.M., etc., in the number for February, I reply. First, if the seven vials are the details of what passes under the seventh trumpet, the question is decided. But where is the proof of this? I have always held Revelation 15 as a distinct vision. "I saw another great sign in the heaven," 12-14, to be continuous, or rather to belong to one subject, giving the origin and different aspects of the same series of events up to the final judgment executed at the coming of the Son of man, and then 15 to give another special course of judicial events up to the destruction of Babylon, before the coming of the Lord, which is only brought in subsequently in Rev. 19. This part of the difficulty, therefore, falls to the ground, for 15-18 precedes the last event of 14. The question whether 15-18 is included in the last trumpet remains untouched, but at any rate to be proved, and not, as yet, a proof of anything.

Next it is assumed that Revelation 11: 7, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit means, who then ascends out of the bottomless pit; but of this there is no proof. It is a characteristic, and not a date. Is it not rather to be believed that he takes this character when Satan is cast down from heaven, and has great rage, and that the dragon then gives him his throne and great authority?

Further, your correspondent assumes too much when he says on Revelation 12: 10, that heavenly celebration long precedes earthly accomplishment, if he would use it as proving that the announcement that the worldly kingdom is come, may precede by three years and a half its coming. The cause of the celebration in Rev. 12: 10, which does anticipate, I do not doubt, anterior results, is given, and is a present thing, and it is not said worldly, του κοσμου τουτου, — a very notable difference. The cause is that after open war, Satan or the dragon is cast down, and though there is an application to the state of certain suffering saints, the heavens only, and its inhabitants, are called on to rejoice. To the earth and its inhabitants woe is announced from the power of Satan. Surely this is a different thing from Christ's kingdom of this world is come. Though they might well say, Now is come salvation and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ; for the accuser is cast down. For in truth the whole state of things was changed, and the heavenly saints delivered, and power established in heaven, in contrast with the meeting accusations. There remains only one difficulty, that three and a half days occur before God interposes in deliverance. The same difficulty presented itself to me, long ago, on the other scheme. For if the seventh trumpet be the beginning of the last half week, as it is alleged to be by the connection of Revelation 12: 10 with Revelation 11: 15, then we have at least three days and a half, and something more from Revelation 11: 14 (cometh quickly) intercalated between the end of the first half week and the beginning of the second. I hardly think the fact that a short interval elapsed between the last act of the beast, and the public execution of judgment upon him, can make a substantial difficulty. It may be the time of the gathering of the armies, when Christ is coming as a thief, or the reaping of the earth before the vintage, neither of which could be called the practising of the beast. The difficulty seems to me to be less than intercalating something more than three days and a half between the half weeks. If the three days and a half be put into the last half week, which would not be, in itself, I apprehend, a difficulty, the whole connection of Revelation 11 with Revelation 12 and the explanation of Revelation 12: 10, and following verses, falls to the ground. Yet that we have, certainly, some definite half week in Revelation 12 seems clear. I can only here answer the difficulties presented by J. M., which do not seem to me to result, as yet, in the rejection of the thought that there is only one half week spoken of in the Apocalypse. The removal of an objection is not a proof necessarily of the thing objected to. For that I still wait, with my mind entirely free.

2. What is the connection, and what the difference, between the promised presence of the Lord Jesus (Matt. 18: 20) and the promised presence of the Spirit of Truth (John 14: 16-19)? J.P.

I apprehend that it is by virtue of the Holy Ghost's presence, (as in John 14) which is actual and personal, that the presence of Jesus is made good to an assembly, if it consisted of but two or three, as in Matthew 18. The former is absolutely and always true; for as Christ prayed the Father, so He sent that other Comforter. The latter demands faith in the presence of the Spirit and that the assembly be subject to the Lord by the Holy Ghost left free to act therein according to the Word of God. The presence of Jesus is there where is saints are thus met in dependence on Himself through the Spirit, identified with His interests and with the glory of His name. In short, Matthew 18 speaks of the presence of Jesus in spirit, and not as a literal fact like that of the Holy Ghost since Pentecost, who is present in person, and of this John 14 witnesses.

3. Matthew 26: 29. How is this to be understood?

I think that it refers to the joy of, or consequent on, the new covenant which the Lord will bring in, not in spirit only as now, but in fact of all the fulness of its terms when He comes in the kingdom of His Father. Not till then would He be associated with the disciples, as the representatives of God's remnant in Israel, in the full joy and blessedness which crown the fulfilment of that covenant. Then will His heart's joy have its just scope and satisfaction, when the Lord shall hear the heavens, and they shall hear the earth, and the earth shall hear the corn, and the wine, and the oil, and they shall hear Jezreel (i.e. the seed of God.) Yea, there is more than this intimated here, for Hosea does not reach up to the higher, deeper scene of the Father's kingdom, save so far as it may be vaguely left room for in "the heavens". It was not to be yet — not "till that day." His personal joy with them is postponed till then. There was rich and profound love in that word, "I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." There was a hindrance now, for which His blood would provide. There should be none by and by, when all should be divine joy, the Father the blessed source, and Himself the centre and the substance of it. He would not drink till then, but then, in all its freshness, He would drink with them of that which gladdens the heart of God and man.

4. Romans 4: 25. "Who was delivered for our offences and raised again for our justification."

Is the above a gospel statement, true to all, believer and unconverted alike; or is the passage true of the believer alone? If the former, on what scripture ground can any Christian object to its being used individually of unconverted persons; and if the latter, how can the verse be truthfully quoted when addressed to a mixed assembly? Is it not here that the Lord Jesus was raised for our justifying rather than because (Romans 8: 29) of our justification? THEOPHILUS.

Beyond question, it appears to me, that the apostle treats of that which could only be said of the believers and to believers. It is scriptural to hold and preach that God has set forth Christ as a propitiatory or mercy-seat, through faith in His blood, that God's righteousness is now manifested by faith of Jesus Christ toward all men, and not only upon all that believe. For surely He, by the grace of God, tasted death for every one. He is the Mediator between God and men. He is long-suffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But scripture, while thus large and plain in declaring the universality of the aspect of God's grace, never says that Christ bore the sins of any save the elect: much less does it speak of the justification of any save such as actually believe. In other words, none is justified simply by the purpose of God, nor by the work of Christ. We are justified by faith; for justification implies that the justified appropriate Christ by faith, and not merely that Christ is dead and risen for them. It is a frightful principle to allow that an elect person has Christ and is justified, who may still be going on rejecting Christ and in all sorts of evil. And yet such seems to be the necessary result, if you interpret Romans 4: 25, because of our justification. The common way of taking it is right. Living faith is necessary to justification. Christ has been raised again for our justifying.

5. R. S. W. wishes to know (1.) whether Revelation 20: 4-6 can be explained consistently with the view of the rapture of the Church before the antichrist's reign; (2.) whether the word warrants the thought that the martyrs and confessors at the end will be raised apart from those spoken of in 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4; (3.) what the relationship is of those saints who pass through the great tribulation; (4) who the ten virgins of Matthew 25 are, and why to be distinguished from those spoken of in the preceding chapter; and how (5.) Isaiah 60: 19 etc., and (6.) Revelation 21: 27, are to be understood and applied?

(1. & 2.) If we had no other account of the resurrection than Revelation 20: 4-6, we ought, I think, to see that a previous resurrection of saints is necessarily implied in the vision of thrones already filled with saints, to whom judgment is committed, followed by the distinct classes of holy sufferers, who are seen as yet in the separate state. "And [I saw] the souls of them who had been beheaded," etc., answering to Revelation 6: 9; "and those who had not worshipped the beast," etc., answering to Revelation 15: 2. These were, as yet, unrisen, and of course, not enthroned; and therefore it is added that "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." This was needless to say of those first named as already occupying thrones; of the two last only it is said that the prophet saw their "souls," "and they lived." And this entirely harmonizes with the rest of the book, which intimates that there is a complete body of glorified saints on high, under the symbol of the twenty-four elders — of course, therefore, already caught up to meet the Lord in the air, and then presented to the Father in heaven — before the death and resurrection of these two classes, whom we may, for distinction, call the apocalyptic sufferers. (3.) There is no doubt that these last are equally saints, as those caught up before their testimony begins, and that they, no less than ourselves, shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years. If our rapture takes place between Revelation 3 and Revelation 4, and their resurrection is not to be till Christ appears, in the judgment of the beast, this does not affect their title to share in "the first resurrection."

(4.) The ten virgins are, I think, clearly professing Christians, but this does not identify them with the Jewish saints in Matthew 24: 15-31, any more than that with the Gentiles in Matthew 25: 31-46. The fact is, that the Lord's prophecy starts from the hopes and trials of a Jewish remnant, which was the actual condition of the disciples when addressed; then it passes on into instructions which apply to Christians generally, under the parables of the servants, the virgins, and the talents; and finally, it shows how the nations will be dealt with, who shall be on the earth when the Son of Man shall have come in His glory, and shall be on His throne, judging the quick. (5.) I apprehend that Isaiah 60: 19 etc., is a strong figure of the blessedness of the earthly Jerusalem, when the Redeemer shall have come to Zion. It is comparatively and morally true then, just like Isaiah 65: 16, etc. Its complete fulfilment awaits a later day, the spirit and power of which it will have already shared. Even in that day it will be fully and for ever true of the New Jerusalem. (6.) I take Revelation 21: 27, in a general way, as stating who they are that have to do with the New Jerusalem — those written in the Lamb's book of life. For we must ever remember that the Church, or the bride, is that holy city, instead of the city being the mere region of our future glory.

May 1st, 1858. Bible treasury, Volume 2, page 80.

1. Matthew 25: 31-46. T.N. asks if the sheep be the living spared, godly Gentiles at the beginning of the millennium, how we may understand the destruction of the Gentiles in Revelation 20: 7-9?

Supposing even that all the spared Gentiles were godly when the millennium comes, which it is not necessary to suppose, and of which no scripture proof appears, it is easy to see that that long season of unbroken peace will afford ample time for generations to be born, who need not be regenerate like their parents, who will render a feigned obedience to the great King revealed in His glory, and who will only break out into rebellion when Satan is once more and for the last time let loose, thus proving that all flesh is grass, and grass always.

2. Hebrews 10: 5. D.S. invites remark on current lowerings of the holy Person of our Lord, and the attempt of some unhappy men in our day, as in times gone by, to insinuate that because He was truly and perfectly a man, His body was a dying body like any other's, and Himself all His life under the curse of God, not merely made a curse on the cross.

I agree with our brother that such views are the fruit of the enemy's effort to dishonour the Son of God on the side of His humanity; that capable of dying the Lord was, and that as a fact, (the blessed foundation of all our peace and hopes, as well as the vindication of God's grace and truth in dealing with men,) He died, as every believer knows and confesses; but that this is quite distinct from being, like a sinful man per se under a necessity of dying; and that, whatever the importance to us, and the divine perfection of His ways of goodness and holy suffering during His life, never till the cross did He suffer atoningly, never was He forsaken of God till there and then. Ignorance is one thing and, more or less, is our common lot; opposition to fully declared light of God, is quite another. Thus, even Calvin held that our Lord went into the hell of the damned to suffer there, else His work had not been complete. But it would be a very different thing, now that the truth as to atonement is better understood, for people to systematize crotchets like this. Such antagonsim to truth is the enemy's work, and tends to heresy.

June 1st, 1858. Bible treasury, Volume 2, page 111.

Romans 10: 3; and 2 Corinthians 5: 21.

1. What is the meaning of "submitting to the righteousness of God?" Some say that it is bowing to God's way of saving by faith in Jesus: but how can the soul "be made" that? Has the expression "righteousness of God," a different sense in the two passages? N.

It is an altogether feeble, and even a false sense, to construe "the righteousness of God" into His method of salvation by faith. On the other hand, the idea of certain theologians, that thereby is meant merely Christ's obedience of the law closed by His suffering on the cross, is almost equally unsatisfactory. The expression means what it says, — "the righteousness of God," in contrast with man's which the law demanded. Divine righteousness, on the contrary, is a righteousness already accomplished in Christ, a righteousness which is given by faith, and which justifies the ungodly, instead of condemning such, as the law necessarily does. Hence this righteousness embraces not only the holy obedience of Christ in all the extent of His life here below, but also the righteous dealing of God "for us" in His death, resurrection, and ascension. (Compare Romans 3: 21-26; Romans 4: 22-25; and John 16: 8, 10.) I do not see that the expression has a different force in the two texts. He who receives Christ, submits to God's righteousness, and is made it in Him. The last is the strongest way of expressing the fact, and the measure of the believer's righteousness in Christ. It is, as the grammarians say, "abstract for concrete."

2. Is "in the spirit," Revelation 1: 10, to be understood in the same way as in Revelation 4: 2; Revelation 17: 3; and Revelation 21: 10?

It is clear that the first two and the last two chime respectively as to form of expression. But substantially all agree in this that John was, or was carried to a given point, in the power of the Spirit.

3. Do the twenty-four elders in Revelation 4, Revelation 5 etc. represent the Church, the Bride, the Lamb's wife, or all the redeemed right down to the rapture when Christ comes? and again, who are the four living creatures seen with the elders? T.K.

I apprehend that, in strictness, the elders include the Old Testament saints and the Church of God in their common privileges on high. This is quite consistent with a special place which they may have and not we, and which we may have and not they. And it may be remarked, when the Bride is announced as ready for the marriage in Revelation 19, that others are spoken of as present in a blessed way, yet distinct from her — "Blessed are they who are called unto the marriage-supper of the Lamb." They are there in the capacity of guests. Next, as to the living creatures, there is no appearance of their representing the redeemed if we are to omit "us" in Revelation 5: 9. Further, even if the common text could be maintained, I doubt that the possession of harps and golden vials, or consequently that the singing mentioned there extends beyond the elders, though they both fell down before the Lamb. Nevertheless, the object of the Revelation being to disclose, not grace, but judgment, these living creatures, as being the symbols of God's judicial power, are necessarily, as I think, the most prominent in the description, and the nearest to the throne. If relationship, not to the throne, but to Him who filled it, if spiritual privilege, had been the question, I am of opinion that we should have seen the elders immeasurably nearer than the living creatures. But in a book of divine judgments, those who represent, or preside over, their execution, most suitably come into proximity to the throne. They are not merely κυκλόθεν but κύκλῳ τοῦ θρόνου — the supports of the throne, rather than a favoured class who surround it as a sovereignly given position.

4. Is "the harvest of the earth," in Revelation 14: 15, the same as that spoken of in Matthew 13? Does it refer to the rapture of the heavenly saints, or does it, like the vintage, set forth the judgment of the wicked, only of course in a different form? R. S. W.

There seem to me to be several points of marked difference. As to sphere, in Matthew the field is the world; in Revelation "the earth," in its limited and prophetic sense, is in question. Next, as to time, Matthew embraces a period which consists of various dealings. Revelation 14: 15, seems to be a point or brief space not characterized by independent or separate acts. In a word, Matthew 13 takes in the rapture of the heavenly saints, while Revelation 14 looks exclusively at dealings with the earth, and verse 15 is one of its closing scenes. The harvest is discriminating judgment; the vintage is pure vengeance.

August 1st, 1858. Bible treasury, Volume 2, page 128.

1. "THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT."

Must this be considered as addressed to the disciples only, (setting forth the true principles of the kingdom,) or more generally to the multitude also?

In Matthew 7 we read of the people's astonishment, for He taught them "as having authority, and not as the scribes," who were their general instructors. It is a point of some practical importance, for how often Matthew 7: 7, is indiscriminately quoted for instance, and thus persons put upon doing (is it not?) in one form, who need to be convinced of their utter ruin, and the worthlessness of their prayers. Take, also, the Lord's prayer, so commonly taught. Is it not a mockery in the lips of a dead sinner? V.

The multitudes were present, but the discourse was addressed to His disciples. This Matthew 5: 4, clearly shows. If Luke 7: 1, be compared, the facts appear pretty clearly. There it is said: "Now, when he had ended all his sayings in the audience of the people." The moral bearing of the fact is more important. The sermon on the mount characterises the Lord's teaching in Israel, as introducing His doctrines. At the close of His ministry He has to denounce their rejection of it. Hence, here, as has been remarked, He begins with blessings, and in Matthew 23 closes with woes. It will be observed that in the close of the preceding chapter, the power displayed in His ministry, and its effect in attracting the people from all quarters, had been stated. He preached the good news of the kingdom. In the sermon on the mount, He lays down its principles, describes the character of those who would enjoy its privileges, and gives positive directions for the government of their conduct. Meanwhile He was in the way with Israel, judgment awaiting them, if they did not agree quickly on the way. Hence, also, moral principles and precepts, not redemption, are the subject of the discourse. If this be understood, it is easy to perceive why the direct application of the discourse is to those who had received His word, and were entering into the kingdom, though as laying down the principles of the kingdom announced to all, all — at least those who had ears to hear — among the multitude were concerned in its contents. It may be remarked that in Luke the disciples are more formally distinguished — "Blessed are ye poor, for yours," and hence woes are added. Just as in Matthew 3: 7, the Pharisees and Sadducees are denounced, in Luke 3: 7, the whole multitude. While this address was continued to Israel, by Him who had the ministry of the circumcision for the truth of God — in a word, until Jesus was rejected, men were under trial, and, though God knew all things, were not treated as finally rejected; but the death of Christ, and we may add, the resisting of the testimony of the Holy Ghost, has closed the history of that trial, and the fig-tree is judged for ever to be fruitless and unprofitable. It did not then become so, but was proved to be so; and in Israel this was proved of every child of Adam, so that a new creation, connected with the second Adam, risen and glorified, was needed. Hence we know fully the Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost.

2. Acts 8: 22. — On what ground do you conceive Peter to have exhorted Simon to pray? A man whom he goes on to declare to be "in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity" — language which appears to me to be too strong to apply to any Christian, however he may have fallen. No one would check an awakened sinner crying to God for mercy; but that is different from putting prayer before him. V.

Our correspondent has omitted a very important part of the verse. "Repent of this thy wickedness, and pray God if peradventure the thought of thine heart be forgiven thee." The passage thus becomes a call to repentance — the universal appeal of the testimony both of John the Baptist, Christ, and His apostles; only applying that appeal to a particular point, which ought to press on the conscience of the person addressed, and as to which he was called on in an especial way to look to God to forgiveness. When a conscience is truly affected and the soul brought to forgiveness, it will always judge itself distinctly for its own proper and peculiar sins.

September 1st, 1858. Bible treasury, Volume 2, page 144.

1. John 11: 25, 26.

Does the Lord in these verses intend only to show in the abstract that He is the Resurrection and the Life, and how He is such to the sinner; or does He mean to apply that truth to a particular period, i.e. when He comes to raise His sleeping saints and change His living ones? D.

I think that the Lord states two things. First, there is the abstract or general principle that He is the resurrection and the life, putting the resurrection in the foreground, as the need of it was in question and for the encouragement of faith. It is the power of His person for body and soul, apart from time, in contradistinction to the predicted resurrection at the last day. Next, the after statement, though general perhaps, finds its only proper and full application at the coming of the Lord, when the dead in Christ shall rise first; (answering to "he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live;") then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them, i.e. the risen saints, in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so shall we ever be with the Lord. This last answers to "whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die." "For we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." (1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15.) It is impossible that either clause can in strictness apply to the sinner. For if the sinner believe, he can no longer be said to be spiritually dead in trespasses and sins. And if spiritual life were the subject in hand, the second clause would be "he that believeth in me and liveth," rather than "whosoever liveth and believeth," etc.

2. Why is it that a form of praise, etc. in a hymn should be considered lawful, when a form of prayer is held to be and interference with due dependence upon the Spirit of God?

We have the positive direction of Scripture to speak to one another in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs; but psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs mean compositions rhythmically and metrically arranged; so that I judge that the use of such compositions is scripturally authorised. I would add that I think the spiritual mind will detect at once what is really given of the Spirit in such compositions and what is not, even when merely added to make up the measure or rhyme. Moreover, also, those who believe in the action of the Holy Ghost as the true and only power of blessing, look for the liberty of the Spirit of God, not bondage — liberty in everything that is of Him for edification. The binding to a form of prayer is not this, but the exclusion of hymns is not that liberty either. Only it is to be sought that hymns should be really composed under His influence and not mere human poetry.

October 1st, 1858. Bible treasury, Volume 2, page 159.

1. What light does the Old Testament throw on the connection of angels with the law, referred to in Acts 7: 53, Galatians 3: 19; and Hebrews 2: 2? J. S.

It seems clear from Psalm 68 that the display of external glory of fire, etc., on mount Sinai was by the ministration of angels. This was the solemn sanction given to the law at its promulgation. Compare the details, Exodus 19: 16-18. This is fully confirmed by Deuteronomy 33: 2. Compare Hebrews 1: 7, quoting Psalm 104: 4, 2 Kings 2: 2, and 2 Kings 6: 17, afford analogous examples of Jehovah's making His ministers a flame of fire. So even in the bush, when there was as to its form an angelic manifestation of God, the bush burned with fire. Moses spoke with the angel in the bush. What is particularly referred to in the passages we are considering is that the angels were the immediate instruments through which they received the law, the manifest glory which gave it its sanction. Not that they spoke or personally addressed the people. Josephus (Antiq. xv. c. 5. s. 3.) says, τῶν μὲν Ἑλλήνων ἱεροὺς καὶ ἀσύλους εἶναι τοὺσ κήρυκας φαμένων, ἡμῶν δὲ τα κάλλιστα τῶν δογμάτων καὶ τὰ ὁσιώτατα τῶν ἐν τοῖς νόμοις δἰ ἀγγέλων παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ μαθοντων. That is, the functions of ambassadors are treated as akin to those of the angels, or divine legates. The character of authority attached to the law was angelic, not the incarnation of God Himself, whether speaking on earth or from heaven. In Josephus, as we have seen, Herod uses the word angel as God's ambassador to prove the sacredness of their persons, the Arabs having killed his. This is merely cited to show the Jews' apprehension of it. Galatians 3: 19 is, in sense, being enjoined through angels by the hand of a mediator. Εις διαταγας, in Acts 7: 53, is "at," "by occasion of;" as, "they repented at the preaching of Jonas," by occasion of, through the means of. The passages quoted from the Old Testament make the character of their intervention pretty plain. The whole of the two first chapters of Hebrews is to shew the superiority of Christ to angels, first, as a divine person, and secondly. in the counsels of God as to the exaltation of man.

2. What is the force and the connection of 1 Peter 4: 6? E.

1 Peter 4: 6, refers to verse 5. Christ is ready to judge the quick and the dead. Good news of promise were addressed to those now dead, that they might be thus judged; not for that only, but that through grace they might live in the Spirit. In respect of their human position in flesh, they were to be judged for the deeds done in the body, but if they received the message, live spiritually to God. Their being judged shows clearly, I think, that it is no preaching to spirits, that they might be judged for that. Read, it has been preached. It was preached to those now dead. It must be remembered to the strangers of the dispersion or scattered Jews. Christ has suffered. They are suffering among the ungodly, no longer doing the will of the Gentiles as other Jews were. Now Christ, being exalted, is ready to judge. The Church has only to be complete and caught up for Him to do it. He is exalted and ready; and if He comes and judges the quick among whom they were suffering, His authority to judge extended to the dead also who had received promises, (compare Hebrews 4: 2) that if they did not live in the Spirit to God, as the believing Jews had to do now without a rest or present Messiah according to promise, they might be judged as responsible men in flesh. He had made a previous statement to the same purport in respect of those who were in the time of Noah. The Christian Jews were now a little flock; so were the spared in Noah's time. They had Christ only in spirit (a trial and reproach for a Jew who spoke of Messiah's being come); and so had Noah. (Compare 1 Peter 1: 11). But what was the effect of their rejecting of Noah's preaching? Their spirit's were now in prison, a proof that the Lord knew, as he says elsewhere, to deliver the godly out of temptation, and reserve the unjust to the day of judgment to be punished. So the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks, in contrast, of the spirits of just men made perfect. It would be a strange thing, if those of whom it was said "My Spirit shall not always strive with man, but his days shall be 120 years," should be the only ones selected to be preached to afterwards. But this by the by.

3. Does the fellowship in 1 John 1: 7 mean between God and the saints, or between the saints mutually? E.

I have not the least doubt that fellowship with one another, in 1 John 1: 7, is fellowship between saints. The apostle had said they had fellowship with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. Now he comes down to show the necessary moral character of this. A man walking without the true knowledge of God is in darkness and is darkness. There is no communion of souls in this selfish and ungracious state; but brought into the light of God Himself, and being light and having the Spirit to enjoy it, we have a common joy in that which we all enjoy. God who is light is the common object. But how can we stand and abide there? The blood of Christ cleanses from all sin. I am clean in the light, and therefore enjoy, with those who are, this wonderful blessing.

4. What is the true reading and sense of 1 Corinthians 9: 21? THEOPHILUS.

It is in verse 20 that a remarkable clause appears, omitted in the common Greek text, but attested by the best MSS. and versions. The words are μὴ ὢν αὐτὸς ἡπὸ νόμον, i.e. "not myself being under law," and evidently guarding against a possible deduction from the preceding clause. So in 21, the parenthesis is a similar guard, "being not without law to God, but lawfully subject to Christ." It is a mere allusion to the word "law" and means due subjection.

5. A.Z. asks, (1) how the twenty-four elders, (i.e. the symbol of all the glorified saints up to the Lord's coming) can be seen complete in heaven, while others of the redeemed are still on earth. (2) Why the living creatures sing the song of redemption, if they are not the redeemed. (3) How every creature in heaven and on earth, etc., can join in the chorus of blessing, before the last week opens and while the earth is still unpurged.

Revelation 7 is a simple answer to the first difficulty; for there, not to speak of the 144,000 of sealed Israel, we see the vast multitude of saved Gentiles, who emerge from the great tribulation of the last days, manifestly distinct from the elders. Indeed, all the central part of Revelation shows us saints on earth, while the elders are complete in heaven. (See chapters 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.) (2) I think that in the Remarks on Revelation 5 it has been shown to be, at least, doubtful whether the living creatures do sing the new song of redemption. Recent critics read it so as to intimate that the elders who sing, celebrate the redemption of others who succeed themselves on the earth. (3) I regard the chorus of every creature in Revelation 5 as anticipative, and prophetically linked on to the Lamb's taking the book, etc.

December 1st, 1858. Bible treasury, Volume 2, page 192.

1. 1 John 1: 7.

How is the last clause of this verse to be understood? "Cleanseth" is in the present tense. When believers have failed, they often speak of "going afresh to the blood of sprinkling." But is that right? since "by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." But yet 1 John 1: 7 does seem to speak of a continuous thing, and is manifestly said to and of those who have believed God's testimony to His Son.

The truth taught is the present and abiding cleansing power of Christ's blood, and therefore not repeated recurrence to it merely, which practically would amount to the frequent sacrifices of a Jew.

2. Ephesians 1: 13, 14.

Is the seal spoken of here, the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit; and why is it said "of promise?" Is "earnest," in verse 14, to be understood in the sense of a part of the inheritance? D.

First, it is the Spirit Himself indwelling who is the seal to the individual believer, and secondly, He is called "the Spirit of Promise," probably, because He is "the promise of the Father, which," saith Christ, "ye have heard of me." (See Luke 24, John 14, John 16, Acts 1.) Thirdly, He is the pledge of the coming inheritance, not a part of it, which would be derogatory to His glory. He is the earnest of that inheritance; not a future outpouring of the Spirit, which is reserved for millennial Jews and Gentiles, when the Church will be reigning in heavenly glory.

3. May I ask your mind on Luke 16: 9? T. A. J.

I believe that the solution of the last clause, which is probably the one chiefly enquired after, depends on the simple fact that St. Luke frequently uses the third person plural of the active verb, in a sort of indefinite way, to express that which would be best rendered by the English passive voice. It is thus that our translators have rightly given Luke 12: 20, "thy soul shall be required," though literally it runs, "do they require thy soul." Clearly, if anyone is meant, it is God, not men or angels. So in Luke 16: 9, the version should have been "you may be received," instead of a literal rendering which leaves the door open to human and popish fancies. Here, again, if any person is particularly meant, it is not the poor or angels, as some have fondly imagined, but God Himself; but the general form is perhaps best. (Compare also Luke 6: 38,) δώσουσιν εἰς τὸν κόλπῶν ὑμῶν, which like our text, is given literally, but erroneously in the authorized version. "Shall men give" misleads. It ought to be, shall be given.

Bible Treasury Volume 2, p. 224. February 1859.

Q. What means 1 John 5: 6, and how is it connected with the contested passage that follows?

A. I am of opinion that the two clauses "by water and blood" are not a mere repetition of each other, and that each carries its own import. First of all, it is written, "This is he that came by water and blood." (δἰ ὕδατος κ.τ.λ.) The Lord Jesus is so characterized. He did not come as a conquering Messiah, with power and glory, introducing the predicted kingdom. He came by water and blood. The reference is to His death, not His birth or His baptism. I suppose, therefore, that we are to connect with this St. John's remarkable testimony to Christ's death in the gospel. (John 19: 34, 35.) He alone relates the circumstance, and this with the utmost feeling and solemnity. Here, in the epistle, the fact is alluded to and used in a dogmatic or doctrinal way. He is not exhibiting Him as Son of David according to the prophets; that would not have shown out what the world was, nor Christ Himself either, anything like so much as what we now know. In a dead Christ we see incomparably more. All the rest remains true; for He will reign on the throne of His father David, and over all nations, peoples, and tongues, as Son of man. But meanwhile, before the kingdom comes in power, we have something nearer and deeper. I find in Him dead,  the One who brings me into perfect peace with God, and into practical purity too. The blood has met my sin before God; the water my defilement before myself and others — both made good through the Spirit of God bringing home to me the testimony of God. "This is he that came by water and blood." No doubt, John the Baptist baptized with water, testifying of the coming One, but here He is come and characterized by water and blood. Out of His pierced side came blood and water. Thence the Holy Ghost traces the two-fold effect of His death — the water as cleansing from impurity, and the blood as atoning for guilt. St. John adds, "not by water only, but by water and blood." Here the phraseology changes, and the face of the Greek (οὐκ ἐν τῳ ὕδατι κ.τ.λ.) means, not in the power of water only, but in the power of water and blood. That is, it is not the character of Christ's coming, but its positive effect. The efficacy of the work done is implied, to my mind, in the latter clause; and accordingly the Spirit next comes in. "And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth." In the Gospel, He leads John to notice the fact of the blood and water that issued from the side of the Lord; here He brings it out as the significant emblem of the believer's portion in Christ's death. The Christian stands, in virtue of it, completely absolved from guilt, and possessed of a new and holy nature. He is born of water and of the Spirit. Thus, the Holy Ghost, instead of merely exposing what the man is, bears witness of the death of Jesus, whereby the believer is pardoned and purged. "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3: 5-7.)

"For they are three that bear witness — the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one." These witnesses are now taken inversely, the Holy Ghost being first named, as He is the living agent by whom the testimony is borne in power to the soul. As to the words that intervene in the common text, (i.e., from "in heaven" to "in earth" inclusive,) I am clear that there is no sufficient warrant for them. This is not to make but to exclude a change already made. We are bound to go back to the oldest and best text. The point here is that, though there are those three witnesses, they bear but one witness. And if we receive the witness of men (as we do ordinarily from credible people,) the witness of God is greater.

Bible Treasury, Volume 2, p. 287. June 1859.

Q. What is the general scope of the Psalms and the distinctive character of their divisions?

A. The Psalms, in general exhibit the Lord Jesus, and the godly (properly and specifically from among the Jews) in their mutual relations. He is identified with them and they with Him; brought through darkness, trial, the contradiction of sinners, the often apparent, and in one sense and time the real, desertion of God into security, peace, and blessing. This furnished the occasion, sometimes offered in the past circumstances of righteous Israelites and of David especially, for the Spirit of Christ in them to launch out into higher scenes and subjects, even the sufferings of Christ and the glories that should follow. At one and the same time, there is an intermingling of the particular things and persons of the day in which these strains were written, and there is the anticipation of the latter-day tribulation, through which the Jewish remnant are destined to pass into the wide field of millennial glory. Thus is drawn out the Holy Ghost's revealed expression of the feelings and experience suitable to each and all.

The Psalms, consequently, do not bring the Church, as a distinctive body to light, if we expect some indirect allusions which we understand, now that the mystery, hidden from ages and generations, is made manifest. In this respect, they resemble the Old Testament prophecies. But there is also this striking difference, that while the prophets, for the most part, narrate the sufferings and triumphs of Christ as the head of Israel and the Gentiles as predicted facts, the Psalms lay bare the inmost privacy of His and their hearts as brought into exercise by these circumstances. Hence, while the prophecies chiefly reveal the feelings of God about Christ and His servants, the Psalms chiefly reveal the feelings of Christ and His servants about God. There are no doubt large and frequent exceptions, but this is, I think, a generally characteristic difference between these portions of the Bible.

But again, the Psalms are, as familiar to the reader of the Hebrew Bible, divided into five books. Nor are these divisions arbitrary. Various marks are impressed on them by God, which show that this is no Rabbinical fancy. Thus, even externally, it is plain that at the end of Psalm 41, of Psalm 72, and of Psalm 89, we have "Amen and Amen," next at the end of Psalm 106, "Amen. Praise ye the Lord," and thence, to the end of all, another class. These, with other common features in the verse where they occur, define the various books.

But the subjects, internally, differ thus:-

Book I (Psalms 1-41) embraces Messiah's sympathy with the godly remnant in "the beginning of sorrows." They are not yet driven out, but are outwardly associated with the mass od people, even in worship. Hence the name of Jehovah is regularly there.

Book II (Psalms 42-72) views the remnant as no longer in the land, but the object of hostility, not only of Gentiles, but of Jews united with them. The abomination of desolation is set up, and the tribulation is come. Accordingly, God is spoken of as such, save where hope is expressed.

Book III (Psalms 73-89) is occupied, not with Judah only, but with Israel; and also with a wider range of foreign enemies. It is founded on God's ways with the whole people.

Book IV (Psalms 90-106) celebrates the bringing Christ again into the world, and hence is the book of Millennial blessedness.

Book V (Psalms 107-150) reviews all, opens out the principles of God's dealings, and of relationships with Him, and gives the grand result of all the discipline, and the subsequent blessing of God. Its thanksgivings at the end are thus the moral answer to the groanings of the Spirit in book I.

Q. Is it scriptural to call an excommunicated person a brother in Christ?

A. I think that it is not. He who persisted in gross evil (as in 1 Corinthians 5) is treated as a wicked person; and this is the more in point, as the Holy Ghost knew him, spite of his frightful sin, to be converted, as we know afterwards from 2 Corinthians 2: 7. But the saints are bound to act, not on what is known only to God, but on what He discovers to them. Hence, if the conduct of one, "called a brother" were manifestedly wicked, is he dealt with as a "wicked person," even when the desire and aim were that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus? So in Matthew 18, the trespasser who is deaf to all the appeals of grace, though called "thy brother" in the first instance, is, if he neglect to hear the church in the last resort, to be viewed as "heathen man and a publican." 2 Thessalonians 3 refers to a rather different case. I do not see that the admonished individual was necessarily excommunicated.

Bible Treasury, Volume 2, p. 336. September 1859.

Q. Ephesians 1: 13. In what way is the believer now sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise? There was a manifested presence of the Holy Ghost in the early Christians. "Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law?" To what extent may we apply such confident assertions as, "Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things?" (1 John 1: 20; see also verse 27 of the same chapter.) Can this be said of believers now? R.B.

A. It is extremely important not to carry any passage as doctrine beyond what is stated in it. The question with the Galatians was how they received the Holy Ghost. Was it in connection with works or with faith? How they knew they had received it is not touched upon. I have no doubt that its presence there was manifested in such a way as enabled the Apostle to appeal to it as a known thing. Nor was it necessarily the personal experience each one had of it in his soul that was the means of his knowing it was there, though that knowledge could not be separated from its presence in the man. "But ye know Him, for He dwelleth with you and shall be in you." But He does abide and dwell with us, and for ever — does not leave the Church as Jesus did His disciples. The manner of His displaying His presence is another thing. This may be outwardly sensible or inwardly known. If outwardly sensible, it can be publicly appealed to; if inwardly known, the person who has it can be appealed to as to his knowledge of it. And so can any body of Christians who own His presence in the degree in which that presence is felt, as it often is very really. But the Holy Ghost, once given, does not leave the Church again. This is certain from the Lord's words. The manifestation of the Spirit, of which the Scripture also speaks, is another thing. It may be by gifts that are signs. It may be by gifts that are only for edification, flowing from the head. The first may fail as ornaments put on the body, but in principle, the latter forms an essential work of God in Christ. God was in Christ . . . . . . committing the ministry of reconciliation. He called His own servants, and gave them money to trade with; and then returned and takes account. Men are to hear, and they cannot hear without a preacher. Now this is a gift. He gave evangelists. But the presence of the Holy Ghost is shown in another way, more important even than this. A man might be even partaker of the Holy Ghost as power, and be lost, but not one sealed, or bearing fruit: that 'accompanies salvation.' This (not presence, but) special character of the presence and work of the Holy Ghost in the believer personally, is twofold. There is liberty, joy, and love shed abroad in the heart, the crying Abba Father on the one hand, and the producing fruits on the other. This is not the public display of His presence in outward signs of power, but is connected with divine life. The fruits of the Spirit are such and such. "God is not unfaithful to forget your work and labour of love." This accompanied salvation. Hence what is ascribed to the Holy Ghost in Ephesians is considered as life in the Colossians. And in Romans 8, the Spirit is first named as the source of life, and identified with it, and with Christ too, and then looked at personally apart, bearing witness with our spirit. So he who searches the hearts knoweth what is the φρονημα, the moral mind in us of the Spirit; for He maketh intercession for us, and it is said to be according to God. So he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit. Fruits then, in life on the one hand, and in conscious joyous liberty as children with God in love on the other, mark the work and presence of the Spirit of God — one giving us the consciousness of His presence within, and of our relationship with God in Christ, the other the proof to others of the reality of that we profess to enjoy, to the consciousness of the union of the body — the knowledge that Jesus is in the Father, we in Him, and He in us. All depend on the presence of the Holy Ghost, which we thus consciously possess. The presence of the Holy Ghost is a revealed fact, and it was to abide for ever. The presence of the Holy Ghost must not be confounded with the manifestation of the Spirit. These manifestations, or their absence, depend on the wise and holy government of God in the Church. The presence of the Holy Ghost is certain by the Lord's word. Men may have grieved Him, so that He does not manifest His presence as He would — that depends on the government of God. He distributes as He will, but His presence depends on Christ's being in heaven, and is the witness of it, and of divine righteousness therein, and cannot cease as long as that is to be made good for faith; that is, as long as Christ sits at God's right hand. The Holy Ghost came the day of Pentecost, and that day the saints were baptized, and the Church formed into one. This remains till it goes. For individual believers, who have submitted to the righteousness of God in Christ, who have believed, this presence of the Holy Ghost becomes an unction, a seal, and an earnest. "He that stablishes us together with you in Christ, and also hath anointed us is God; who also hath sealed us, and put the earnest of His Spirit in your hearts." "In who, after ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy spirit of promise, which is the earnest of your inheritance till the redemption of the purchased possession." Hence, I judge, that the presence of the Spirit is an essential scriptural truth, a matter of faith; that His presence here is not to be confounded with the manifestations of His presence, which may vary with the perfect government of God; that for the individual this presence with him becomes and unction, a seal, and an earnest, being founded on and making certain to him, righteousness of God in Christ, and giving the consciousness of His presence, and of the love of God. The lively sense of this will vary with his walk, and further making abound in hope, and know that the inheritance of all things is his, giving him the consciousness of being in Christ, and Christ in him, and being a spirit of adoption in his heart towards His Father. This unction and seal and earnest is the undoubted portion of all those who have a part in Christ by faith, having submitted to the righteousness of God. As the Spirit works as to understanding by the word, the degree in which this is intelligently realized will depend on being divinely taught of God from His word. This will enable the believer to account for what he has.

Bible Treasury Volume 2, p. 368. November, 1859.

Q. "Oh that they were wise, that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end!" — Deuteronomy 32: 29.

Will the Editor kindly say whether he views the above as a desire for the adversaries of Israel to consider that people's latter end, or for them to ponder their own? THEOPHILUS.

A. It seems plain from ver. 28 and 30 that it is an appeal to Israel to consider their latter end.

Bible Treasury Volume 2, p. 381. December, 1859.

Q. Matthew 22. F.R. asks, what is "the wedding-garment," and who the "friend" is, who is consigned to outer darkness?

A. By the use of the garment is meant putting on Christ. Had the man put on Christ, he would have had everything: Christ of God is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption. (Compare Romans 13: 14; Galatians 3: 27; Ephesians 4: 24, etc.) If Judas, the son of perdition, could be styled "friend," (in the sense of "companion," and not of a link formed by real love,) this man might be called no less.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 3.

Bible Treasury Volume 3, p. 32. February 1860.

Q. Revelation 22: 16. Is it to the Church the Lord presents Himself as the morning star? If so, when? Is it on earth, after all the judgments?

A. The difficulty of F.C. will be entirely removed, I think, by the consideration that Revelation 22: 6-21 forms no part of the prophetic visions, but simply the concluding remarks of the book. The argument, that, because it is after the judgments, would prove too much, because it is after the account of the millennium and even of the new heavens and earth. Nobody would contend, I suppose, that the Church must remain on till then. To me it rather shows how independent the Church's hope is of the predicted judgments; for after these have been all stated, the Spirit recalls the saints to the coming of Christ as the joy of our hearts. That is, He thereby guards us, it seems to me, against the inference that the Lord cannot come before the events of prophecy happen.

Q. A mislaid note enquires whether "that blessed hope" is equivalent to, or distinct from, "the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ."

A. I apprehend that the form of the phrase in Greek (one article to the two connected substantives) does not at all of necessity identify them, but only joins them in a common class. Compare 2 Thessalonians 2: 1, where the same construction occurs. Yet none would maintain that "the coming or presence of our Lord Jesus Christ" is the same thing as "our gathering together unto him." They are meant, I think, to be regarded as associated together in the mind of the Holy Ghost, though in themselves distinct objects. It may help some to a better understanding of Titus 2: 13, if they bear in mind that the true sense is "the appearing of the glory" — in contrast with the grace which has already appeared. (Ver. 11.) "That blessed hope" seem to me still nearer, and more personal, to the heart. (Compare 1 Timothy 1: 1.)

Bible Treasury Volume 3, p. 48. March 1860.

Q. 2 Peter 1: 4. J.V. desires to know what is meant by being "partakers of the divine nature," and how and when this is effected. Does any other Scripture speak of it?

A. Our partaking of the divine nature is a real thing. "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit." All are born of God. Christ is become our life. He is that eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us. And hence it can be said, "Which thing is true in him and in you." But that life was the light of men. Christ was the image of the invisible God. This life was a true, moral, subsisting thing, which could be communicated. There is a divine power in it which contains and unfolds all things that pertain to life and godliness. It is faith which lays hold, by the power of the Spirit of God, on that which is life — that is, Christ. We are the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. Christ is the Word — the expression and revelation of all that is in God; and we, in knowing Him, are renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created us. The Word, as a testimony, is the seed of life when brought into the heart by the power of the Holy Ghost; because it is the revelation of Christ, by the word, by faith, in the power of the Holy Ghost, the operation being the operation of God. But it is by the revelation of Christ. Hence, we are said to be "begotten by the incorruptible seed of the word." (1 Peter 1, and James.) "Of his own will begat he us by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of first-fruits of his creatures." And so it is expressed here. Grace and peace are to be multiplied, "through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord." "According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us by glory and virtue, whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises, that by him we might be made partakers of the divine nature." It is not a law to flesh, calling them to walk rightly where man already was; but a call by glory and virtue to get on to this new place of peace in which Christ is, and that by the revelation of Him glorified, and the assurance of our portion in it. But thus, by divine power, it is livingly communicated to the soul. But this is the glory of the divine nature in a man, into which we are to be formed. But we are livingly formed by its revelation in the power of the Holy Ghost now. It is the real communication of the divine nature. Only Peter looks at it, even in its affections, desires, qualities, as under the impress of the revelation of Christ, rather than as the simple fact of life. But all Scripture tells the same truth. For every nature has its own character, knowledge by which it lives and is formed; its tastes, and spirit, and objects, which make it what it is, though its existence is the first and wonderful truth.

Q. T.E. asks if it is right to say of those who die in their sins, that they were redeemed by the blood of Jesus. The purchase of a slave, he remarks, is never called his redemption, unless he is bought for the express purpose of being set free.

A. T.E. is arguing from the application of our English word "redemption;" not from the meaning of the original, which simply means "bought," and is so translated in 2 Peter 2: 1, of the lost, and in 1 Corinthians 6: 20, 1 Corinthians 7: 23, of the saved. The same word occurs upwards of twenty times in the gospels, and is applied to the purchase of land and cattle, food and raiment, etc. In fact, only in the Revelation is it rendered "redeemed;" and even there, the same word bears the sense "buy" exactly the same number of times. It fill thus be seen that the argument fails. For if in Greek the same word is translated either way, it is clear that the term in itself does not involve the ultimate destiny of the purchased, or the purpose of the purchaser. But the passage already referred to in 2 Peter is decisive, that false teachers, enemies of the flock of God, are said to deny the Lord (δεσπότην) that bought or redeemed them. The difficulty is owing to a not sufficiently large view of God's ways and of Christ's work. The reader will do well to view John 17: 2, and Hebrews 9, 10. It is the difference, on the one hand, between Christ's authority over all flesh, and His giving eternal life to the elect; and on the other hand, of His tasting death for every one, and His bringing many sons to glory: in both, a twofold-relation to man generally, and to the saints.

Bible Treasury Volume 3, p. 64. April 1860.

Q. Many Bible-students hold, and perhaps rightly, that Gentiles are not under law: if so, what is the meaning of Romans 3: 19. "We know that whatsoever things the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law; that.....all the world may become guilty before God." Does not all the world here include Gentiles? Is not the precious argument in Romans 6 in regard to law and grace, applicable as well to Gentiles as Jews? In Romans 7, although the Spirit by Paul is speaking "to them that know the law," I apprehend such as had been Jews. Are we not to understand the lessons here given, so replete with joy and peace to the believer, — death to the law by the body of Christ, and union to Him in resurrection, "married to another," — as involving a principle equally bearing on Jew and Gentile? If so, how can it be shown that the Gentile in unbelief, and within the hearing of the word of God, is not under law? A SCOTCH READER.

A. Our reader has not perceived that the apostle had already dealt with the guilt of the Gentile in Romans 1, and of both Jew and Gentile in Romans 2. As he says in Romans 3: 9, "we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin." The Jew would have especial difficulty in submitting to a sentence so levelling. Therefore St. Paul proceeds to fortify the proof of Israel's utter ruin by quotations from the Psalms and prophets in verse 10-18, on which he reasons in verse 20. "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law." He clearly means that the Jew is therein addressed; and therefore the very law of which he was so proud was the unsparing witness of his moral condition. No Jew but would admit the wickedness of the Gentiles; the mass of Jews would deny that they themselves were hopelessly gone from God. Hence the force of these Jewish Scriptures; which, having that people in view denied a single righteous man among them. If there was not one good Jew (and nobody could overlook that the Gentiles were deplorably bad,) the conclusion was obvious: every mouth was stopped, and all the world guilty before God. This text, then, cannot be understood without limiting "them who are under the law" to the Jews. (Comp. Romans 2: 12; 1 Corinthians 9: 20, 21.) "Every mouth" and "all the world" do include Gentiles as well as Jews, because they embrace those without law, no less than those under law. The principle, again, of Romans 6, Romans 7 applies equally to all believers; but the actual, personal deliverance from law in the death and resurrection of Christ necessarily belongs to such as were once under law. Both Jew and Gentile had been alike lost, and, believing, were alike saved; but they were each brought out of a different position.

Bible Treasury Volume 3, p. 80. May 1860.

Q. Jeremiah 31: 22. An inquirer asks what is the real meaning. Is there any ground to apply it, with some Jews and many Christians, to the Incarnation? W.J.E.

A. I do not see either analogy in other occurrences of the phrase, or anything in the expression itself, or scope of the context, to give such a turn to the passage. The point is the marvellous change God will effect in the virgin daughters of Israel after all her backslidings and when reduced to the lowest ebb of weakness. "A woman shall compass a man" — a male or male of might. It is a most emphatic figure to set forth the strength which shall be made perfect in weakness as regards the Jews in the latter day. The ancient versions give little help, especially the Septuagint and Arabic, which are singularly far from any just sense. The Syriac and Vulgate agree with the Authorized Version, which is quite correct. It is a question of interpretation, not of the rendering.

Q. John 11: 16. Did Thomas mean die with Jesus or Lazarus? E.J.

A. I think the comparison of verse 8 with 16 makes it plain that Thomas expected nothing but death for the Lord from the enmity of the Jews; and proposed, as He was decided to go into Judea, that the disciples should share their Master's fate. No doubt there was love in such a resolve; but how blind is unbelief to look for the Saviour's death at the very moment when He was about to be marked out Son of God in power by raising a dead man from the grave! How blessed, on the other hand, to hear our Lord say, in the midst of the sufferance of evil, "Let us go to him!" It was in the power of One who is the Resurrection and the Life. "Let us also go, that we may die with him" is the best that affection can do, short of the faith of resurrection-power.

Bible Treasury Volume 3, p. 96. June 1860.

Q. Isaiah 42: 19. Who is meant by "my servant here?" E.

A. Israel, I believe. The beginning of the chapter refers, beyond a doubt, to our Lord — the latter part to the people. The misapplication of verse 19 to Christ arose out of two things — the assumption that "my servant" must have referred to the same in both passages, and the notion that µL…vum] means one who is morally perfect. As to the first, the context need leave no doubt that Israel are referred to, in contrast with the heathen idolaters, Israel called out to be the witness of the true God. To this position of favour and responsibility, as God's friend in the world, (though, alas! unfaithful in it, "deaf" and "blind") the word meshullem* applies, not to the absence of sin. The change from Messiah to Israel in Isaiah 42 is not nearly so abrupt as the substitution of Messiah for Israel is in Isaiah 52: 3, 4.

(* Mussulman is said to be derived from this word, or its equivalent in a kindred dialect.)

Bible Treasury Volume 3, p. 112. July 1860.

Q. Hebrews 11: 21. What ground is there for the Rhemish version and note?

A. The difference between the Hebrew copies and the sense given by the Septuagint is simply a question of the points (i.e., between jF,m' , a staff, and jF,mi , a bed, both derived from the root h:fg: which means to lead as well as to stretch.) There is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the "bed" in the Old Testament, nor of the "staff" in the New Testament. The staff was in his hand while he bowed himself down upon the bed's head. Aquila and Symmachus gives κλινης, while the LXX. have ῥάβδου. Indeed, so far there is a difference; the Rhemish is stronger than the authorized in excluding from Genesis 47: 31 anything but the absolute and supreme worship of God. "Israel adored God, turning to the bed's head," whereas the English Bible simply states that he bowed himself, doubtless in worship, upon the bed's head. This, then, is not the question, which is, whether the Septuagint, or rather Hebrews 11: 21, intimates that Jacob also paid relative honour to Joseph's sceptre, as a figure of Christ's royal dignity. Now, waiving for the moment the question to whom the rod belonged, it is admitted in the Rhemish note to Genesis 47: 31, that "Jacob, leaning on Joseph's rod, adored, turning towards the head of his bed." This shows that the Rhemish translators perfectly understood the real force of προσεκύνησεν ἐπι τὸ ἄκρον τῆς ῥάβδον αὐτοῦ. How came they to know that Jacob so leaned? The Hebrew does not say so, but the Greek. How came they, then, to misunderstand the same Greek words in Hebrews, quoted from this very passage? The only true answer is, that they sought the appearance of Scripture sanction for their idolatry. But God has caught them in their own craftiness; for the words cited prove that they know the real meaning of the Greek, justify the authorized version, and retort the charge of corruption on their own heads. The truth is, that the Greek will not bear "worshipped the top," but "upon the top," as every version known to me has it, save the Vulgate, or those made from it. As to the meaning, it is clearly leaning on it, as the Rhemish Annotator himself confirms in his note to Genesis 47: 31. The reader may compare 1 Kings 1: 47, where the Septuagint has προσεκύνησεν ὁ β. ἐπὶ τῆν κοίτην, the Vulgate, adorat in lectulo suo, and the Douay "adored in his bed." Now, the construction is precisely the same as in Hebrews 11: 21.

Another thing seems plain — that if by leaning on the top of the rod is meant that Jacob worshipped the rod, equally so by turning to the bed's head must be meant that he worshipped the bed. But, as in the latter case, (Genesis 47) the Douay version understands that Jacob adored God, turning to the bed's head; so in the former case, (Hebrews 11) they ought to understand that he adored God, [leaning] upon the top of the rod. But it would be intolerable, even to the Romanist, to suppose that Jacob adored the bed. Consistency, however, requires it. The grammatical construction is imperative. Either he adored both rod and bed; or he worshipped God, leaning upon the top of the staff and turning toward the bed's head.

It may be added, that there is not the least ground for making the rod of staff to be Joseph's. It was Jacob's. With his staff he had passed over Jordan once a poor outcast, as we are told by himself (Genesis 32: 10) when he returned with two companies and feared before Esau. Now, in Egypt, before Joseph and his sons, even though he were next unto Pharaoh, and, leaning upon the staff, which had been the companion of his own weary wanderings, the dying pilgrim worships the God whose faithfulness he had proved all the way through. What more striking than the faith which could bless the children of his now exalted son, seeing the true worth of Egyptian splendour in the light of the glory of the promised land; and what more affecting than the worship of his happy heart, as he leaned upon the witness of his many toils and sorrows!

Bible Treasury Volume 3, p. 128. August 1860.

Q. Luke 15. What is the  proper intention of this chapter and particularly of the prodigal son? Is it restoring grace, or salvation? Is the best robe only given then? A.

A. I have no doubt that the application of this chapter of the saint's failure and restoration is a mere fancy and that the truth intended is God's grace to the sinner. It is well to observe, that the notion, Calvinistic as it is, which makes so much of the circumstance that the sheep was a sheep of the flock before it strayed, etc. really would prove Arminianism, if it proved anything; because it is certain that — sheep, money, or son — all were LOST. If therefore these parables were meant to teach restoring grace, they would equally teach that the child who departs from the Father is "lost" and "dead," after having been in the place of a son and before he is brought back. But take the parables, not as provision and instruction for disciples, but as the expression and vindication of divine grace in Christ's receiving sinners, and all is plain. The general truth of departure from God, and privileges abandoned or abused, is set forth in the straying of the sheep, the loss of the money, and the wretched, far-off penury of the prodigal. The previous relationship of the prodigal is not the point the Lord is illustrating, any more than the question which curious minds often raise, about the ninety and nine just persons who needed no repentance. The real point was, whether the blessed Lord was right in receiving sinners; and what He demonstrates is that such is the very way and delight of God in grace. Hence, restoration of erring saints is quite beyond the mark, and as the prodigal sets forth such souls as the publicans and sinners, so the self-righteous elder son as clearly portrays men like the murmuring Scribes and Pharisees. Not that I would deny also a dispensational bearing of mercy towards the poor Gentiles, spite of Jewish pride and opposition. But the grand point is, I am persuaded, the joy of God in the salvation of the lost, be they who they may, closing with the relationship into which grace brings, rather than what sin spoils. Is the best robe, is divine righteousness, never the portion, till the saint has dishonoured Him and turned to Him once more? Such thoughts are not only unfounded, but in truth, if pressed, they tend to sap the foundations of grace. In a word, whatever applications may be made and more or less allowable, it is clear to me that the Lord is here showing, not how communion, once interrupted, is restored, but the full free grace of God towards the lost.

Bible Treasury Volume 3, p. 175. November 1860.

Q. 1 Corinthians 14: 21-31. Is verse 30 an injunction to the second prophet to wait till the first has held his peace, or to the one speaking to be silent, because of something revealed to him that sitteth by? W.N.T.

A. The first was the notion of Grotius; but to me it is clear that the latter is the true thought. The point appears to be the paramount importance of a revelation. (Compare ver. 6, 26.) Ordinary teaching must yield to it. It is not supposed that the first prophet was speaking by revelation.

Q. Revelation 7. What is the meaning of this tribulation? If it be not the Church, properly so called, which comes out of it, of what other saved Gentiles does the Spirit speak? Is it of those converted during the millennium? Whence come the rebel Gentiles at the close? (Revelation 20.) D.

A. The great tribulation of Matthew 24 (and Mark 13) clearly identifies itself with Jeremiah 30 and Daniel 12, and is limited to the case of Jacob. This has a larger sphere, and is not even confined to the Roman earth. There are Gentiles spared, spite of association with idolatrous Jews, whom the Lord will judge at His coming. (Isaiah 66.) That the saved here are not the Church is clear, from many considerations. They are contrasted, in their whole condition, with the crowned elders. "Before the throne" is not necessarily to be taken physically but morally. (Compare Revelation 14: 3.) The singing of the 144,000 there applies to those on earth. The English Version goes too far in making God dwell among them: the true meaning is, that He will be a tabernacle over them, as the cloud of old overshadowed Israel. The sun not smiting them would tend to show they are on the earth. Nor does the temple set them in heaven: at least, there is no temple in the New Jerusalem. They are saved by Him that sits on the throne and the Lamb; which connects them with the time of introductory government, though not of the millennium. They give no motive for their praise, as the elders did in Revelation 4 and 5 — a mark of the intelligence of the saints who are properly heavenly. Their blessings are relief from sufferings, or being led by the Shepherd's care to refreshment. In a word, their relationship with god as before the throne takes them out of association with it, according to the true character of the strictly heavenly saints. Even the angels are round about the throne: not so these. But they are certainly separated pre-millennially. They are in relationship with God, on the ground of the place He takes as introducing the First-begotten into the world. Hence they pass through the time of temptation which shall come upon all the world, instead of being kept from it, or called afterwards. I do not see that the object is to state heaven or earth, but to reveal the character of relationship. As the elect perfect number of Israel would be sealed, so there would be a countless multitude of Gentiles spared in the time the throne of God held its place above, after removing the glorified saints, and before the First-begotten is brought again into the world. But this is a totally different subject from the nations at the end of the thousand years. These latter multitudes come into existence during the millennium, and have not eternal life. They render a feigned obedience to the King of nations; but there is no godly fear. So that they only want the temptable seduction of Satan to be led captive at his will. There is therefore no real difficulty.

Bible Treasury Volume 3, p. 208. January 1861.

Q. What is our besetting sin in Hebrews 12: 1? Is not unbelief the sin which so easily besets us all as saints? If what is popularly known as "besetting sins" was intended, would it not have been expressed thus — and the sins which do so easily beset us? If we believed everything said in the word, would we not be strong and unconquerable? W.G.

A. I agree with the querist, that the popular application does not seem to be the thought intended. Neither is it to be restricted to the particular sin of unbelief. Cares, etc., may weigh down the Christian in his race; lusts of any kind may entangle his feet. All these are to be cast off, and only can be by looking away unto Jesus.

Q. What does James 5: 12 take in? Is not swearing or taking an oath, for any purpose or in any place, positively forbidden by this Scripture? And ought not a Christian, in a court of justice, as well as in his daily walk amongst men, to let his yea be yea and his nay nay, lest he fall into condemnation.

A. The passage in James 5, as in Matthew 5, refers solely, in my judgment, to the question of light, irreverant asseveration or imprecation, so common among men, and especially in that day among Jews. No form of judicial oath, it will be noticed, is referred to. It is a question, in Matthew expressly, of our communication, not of a declaration before a magistrate. The Lord was silent before the high priest, till adjured. The oath in such a case is the solemn intervention of God's authority in those who are His ministers in the world.

Bible Treasury Volume 3, p. 320. August 1861.

Q. Acts 7: 38. — Is the word "church" right here? ENQUIRER.

A. Certainly not, if the reader thereby gathers "the Church of God" as unfolded variously in the Epistles to the Corinthians, Ephesians and Colossians. The meaning is clearly the assembly of Israel in the wilderness. Hence "assembly" or "congregation" would be a better rendering, as avoiding ambiguity and leaving the reader to infer from the context what assembly is meant. The word itself is capable of other applications, as in Acts 19, where it is applied to the meeting of the Ephesians. It is technically used in Greek authors for the legislative assembly to which the citizens belonged.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 4.

Bible Treasury Volume 4, p. 32. February 1862.

Q. In a paper entitled, "Remarks on the Gospel of Matthew, (Matt. 5: 17-48)," July number of the Bible Treasury, the writer considers our Lord's command, "Swear not at all," as referring to judicial oaths, which latter he holds that the Christian is not absolved from, the same being administered by a magistrate, in whom, he considers, the Christian is bound to acknowledge God. Now, is the Christian equally bound to obey the civil magistrate, when summoned as a juryman to try a fellow creature in a criminal matter, and to unite with his fellow-jurors in returning such a verdict as (if found guilty) would be the means of depriving the criminal of his life? True, it is the judge, not the jury, who passes sentence on the criminal but the verdict of the latter determines the sentence of the former. W.B.

A. A Christian could hardly refuse to serve. It is not the same thing as to be a judge. A juryman is only called on, by authority, to state his belief of a fact; and this owns the authority, which of God has a right and is bound to enquire and bear the sword. It is of all moment that Christians should not trench on God's title to govern in the world, when pleading their Christian place. The magistrate's place is not theirs, but because they know God in theirs, they are bound to own God in the place of authority in the world. There is this double sphere. They are in one, and have intelligence and thus are called upon, to own God in the other. Refusal of oaths, as such, imposed by a magistrate is unlawful, I conceive, and unchristian, though individual conscience is to be respected. The same thing that would hinder my being a magistrate, (because it is another sphere of God's authority from that in which I am,) would make me own that authority in that place. I do not see that the magistrate goes beyond it in calling twelve men to declare their estimate, as to a fact, of the evidence which can be produced, and this is a jury. The use made of the verdict is entirely the province of the judge.

Bible Treasury Volume 4, p. 160. October 1862.

Q. 1 Corinthians 15: 52. Are we necessarily to connect "the last trump" with the seventh trumpet in Rev. 11, or with 1 Thess. 4? W.

A. The seven trumpets of the Apocalypse are, in my judgment, entirely outside the trump mentioned in the Epistles, or even that which occurs in Matthew 24 and the Jewish Prophets. The Apocalyptic trumpets are symbolic, and must be interpreted in keeping with the rest of the book and their own context, as indeed the other occurrences must be also. Thus St. Paul speaks solely of the risen and changed saints, and the trump must be limited by this subject. And our Lord connects, as does Isaiah, the trumpet with the ingathering of the elect of Israel. The seven trumpet-blasts of the Revelation occur in the interval after the former and before the latter, unless the seventh be thought to synchronize with the summons to scattered Israel.

I am still of the opinion that "the last trump" of 1 Corinthians 15 is an allusion to what was then a most familiar sound in the Roman world — the final signal given for the march, after all the previous intimations for breaking up the camp had been made and complied with. The archangel's shout, as being a word of command, confirms this, I think.

Bible Treasury Volume 4, p. 288. June 1863.

Q. You say that "the kingdom of heaven cannot be dated earlier than the ascension." I had come to the conclusion that it should be dates from John the Baptist (but without including him) from these passages: "The law and the prophets were till John, since which time the kingdom of God is preached." (Luke 16: 16.) "From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force." (Matthew 11: 2.) "If I cast out devils by the Spirit of God [which He did without doubt] the n the kingdom of heaven is come unto you." (Matthew 12: 28.) "After that John was put into prison, Jesus came into Galilee preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand." (Mark 1: 15.)

Are not Matthew 11: 12 and Matthew 12: 28 (quoted above) very emphatic on the point, if they are rightly translated? — while I cannot find any passages that seem to give the ascension as the time of the introduction of the kingdom. There is also Mark 9: 1: "Till they have seen the kingdom of God coming with power." Please explain.

2. Seeing that some of the same parables are spoken of with reference to the kingdom of heaven, and to the kingdom of God, why is the term "kingdom of heaven" used in Matthew, and "kingdom of God" everywhere else?

3. Is it more correct to say that unconverted professors are in the kingdom, or that they appear only as part of the kingdom? Is the "meal" only really the kingdom, the leaven being a foreign admixture? or is the whole when mixed the kingdom? Does God ever acknowledge an evil thing or an unconverted person as part of the kingdom of God? He says the kingdom of heaven is "likened to" — has the outward appearance of — so-and-so; but would He acknowledge the "fowls of the air" as a part of the kingdom, or did they merely take shelter in it? These questions are suggested by such texts as "except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." How, then, do unconverted persons get into the kingdom? While, again, we read of Christ purging out of His kingdom all things that offend, would this not include unconverted persons? Or does God sometimes speak of the kingdom from His point of view, as if Satan had never sown any tares (as in John 3) — and sometimes as it has become spoiled, by Satan?

4. Does drinking the wine new, etc., refer to the millennium? and why is it called (Matthew 26: 29) "my Father's kingdom," and in Luke (22: 18) "the kingdom of God?"

5. In Matthew 8: 12, does not "the children of the kingdom" refer to Jews, cast out? — and in Matthew 13: 38 the same phrase refer to believers? It seems to be the same in the Greek. M.

A. — 1. Neither Matthew 11: 12 nor Luke 16: 16 teaches more than the preaching or presenting the kingdom of heaven to faith, not that it was then actually in being or established. Hence, in the main development of its course in Matthew 13, the first parable, which refers to the Lord's own direct work, is not a likeness of that kingdom, though it was clearly work done with a view to it, as indeed John Baptist himself preached that it was at hand; and hence he is named in contradistinction to the law and the prophets. But the citation of Matthew 12: 28, by its very incorrectness, confirms this and its difference from the analogous phrase. For the text speaks of the kingdom of God, not of heaven. The former was there, and evidenced to be there, when Christ was there in the mighty power which expelled the demons; the kingdom of heaven could not be till Christ went on high. Hence, from the second or wheat-field parable of Matthew 13, which shows Christ's work done by His servants after His ascension, and the enemy's counter-work, all are likenesses of the kingdom of heaven. Mark 9: 1 is merely a picture or sample of the kingdom, as seen on the holy mount.

2. The true difference is, that while "kingdom of God" could be used wherever "kingdom of heaven" occurs, the converse could not be always. Hence, while Mark and Luke never use any other phrase than "the kingdom of God," Matthew sometimes uses the kingdom of God where the kingdom of heaven could not be employed. So in St. Paul's epistles we have repeatedly kingdom of "God" where "heaven" could not be substituted; especially some cases of a moral force, such as Romans 14: 17, 1 Corinthians 4: 20. To Matthew the phrase "kingdom of heaven" is peculiar, as being both drawn from Daniel 2 and Daniel 7, and, duly understood, the most decided corrective of the early thoughts of the Jews. It has a dispensational character, which "kingdom of God" does not necessarily carry.

3. John 3: 3 presents "the kingdom of God" only in its full reality — Matthew 13, Matthew 18: 23, etc., Matthew 20: 1, etc., Matthew 25: 1, etc., clearly show us profession in "the kingdom of heaven." The scandals and the doers of lawlessness have to be purged out of the kingdom where they have been.

4. The new wine drank in the "Father's kingdom" (Matthew 26: 29) sets forth the united joy of the Lord and of His own by and by, and in the highest part of the kingdom too, I apprehend. (Compare Matthew 13: 43.) "The kingdom of God" is the generic name for every part.

5. In Matthew 8 the new form of the kingdom of heaven, which would follow the rejection of the Messiah, was not yet disclosed, but what the Old Testament spoke of. Hence "the children of the kingdom" suits the Jews as such in Matthew 8, and the children of God or Christians in Matthew 13, where the further truth is developed.

Bible Treasury Volume 4, p. 304. July 1863.

Q. What is the meaning of Zechariah 14: 6, 7?

A. First, there will not be the mixture of light and darkness, as now, but a special character as fixed of the Lord for the great change of dispensation, "the day of the Lord." Next, there is not to be the ordinary succession of night and day; for when the time of evening arrives, light shall prevail instead of darkness.

Q. Matthew 16: 22, 23. — Did Christ really call Peter Satan? or did He speak to Peter, but answer Satan? Yours, etc.,________

A. It is plain, I think, that the Lord so called Peter; not saying, "Get thee hence," as He did to the enemy personally, (Matthew 4: 10,) but "Get thee behind me." This last in Luke 4: 8 is an interpolation equally opposed to external and internal evidence; for there the clause is necessarily omitted, and has been clearly the mere work of scribes, designedly or not. — It is most instructive to observe how the Lord treats the flesh in a saint assuming in kindness to claim superior grace over the Spirit. We may and ought to treat it as Satan's work, as the Lord did in Peter.

Bible Treasury Volume 4, p. 336 September 1863.

Q. Does man make a covenant in the Sacraments?

A. If he does, he is lost; for he will certainly fail, and there can be no consequence of failure (for it is sin) but condemnation; for man's entering into a covenant is not grace — the grace of God. I account Baptism and the Lord's Supper to be precious institutions of the Lord Jesus — one as admitting publicly in the kingdom on the principle of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ; the other, spiritual fellowship of His death in the unity of His body, as sitting by grace in heavenly places. But talking of making a covenant with God is total ignorance of the place we are in as Christians. What do such as so talk think of redemption? Where is a word found in Scripture about a covenant in connection with the Lord's Supper? The whole Christian position is therein lost, and we are put simply where a Jew under the law was — and worse; because he was placed there that we might learn that we could not possibly stand there.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 5.

Bible Treasury Volume 5, p. 63. April 1864

Q. Luke 18: 10-14.

(1.) What is the instruction conveyed by the parable of the Pharisee and the publican?

(2.) What is the force of "with himself" in verse 11?

(3.) What is meant by "afar off" in verse 13?

(4.) What is to be understood by "be merciful?" Is the English Version faulty here? Is propitiation or reconciliation expressed by the Greek?

(5.) What is meant by the word "justified?" Is "rather" introduced without warrant? Is the sense, justified perfectly, or comparatively? Are we taught here that the publican went to his house "justified" in the doctrinal sense of Romans 3, 4, 5, 8? T.

A. (1.) The parable teaches God's judgment of those who trust in their own righteousness and despise others, as the introductory verse expressly says. The entire context shows the setting aside of self for the kingdom of God; of self in any form you please. Self-righteousness is excluded in this parable; self-importance is rebuked in the incident of the little children blessed of Jesus; self, in the way of amiable nature, moral habits, high position, and large possessions, is treated as null and void in the rich ruler. The greatest advantages, humanly speaking, of flesh and world, are a hindrance, not a help, to the kingdom.

(2.) The phrase, "prayed thus with himself," (πρὸς ἑαυτόν,) means that he prayed to this effect, not aloud in the hearing of others, but silently. We can easily see from what follows, that there was neither heart nor conscience in the matter, unlike the broken, humbled, publican; but communion with others was hardly in question in either case. What God wanted and valued was the conscience in His presence, and this the publican evinced, not the Pharisee.

(3.) The standing of the publican "afar off," was a just and simple expression of his distance from God as a sinner; and the more appropriate, as though touched of the Spirit and penitent, the work was not yet done which brings nigh to God.

(4.) Hence, also, I believe that the English Bible quite rightly renders ἱλάσθητί μοι "be merciful to me." No doubt, it differs from the more general phrase. But there is nothing in the Greek, any more than in the English, which implies that the publican was here pleading propitiation, still less reconciliation. Undoubtedly, in God's mind, mercy could only be shown to a sinful man in virtue of the foreseen atonement of the Saviour; but the phrase itself, in the mouth and supposed condition of the publican, does not go beyond the heart's appeal for God's pardoning mercy to the sinner before Him, if ever there was one. (τῳ ἁμαρτωλῳ.) So in Psalm 25: 11, David cries, "For thy name's sake, O Lord, pardon (ἱλάσῃ in the LXX.) my iniquity, for it is great." A doctrinal reference is not the point in either, though we know, of course, that there was only one way whereby the cry could be answered. The mere word no more necessarily teaches "propitiation," than the Englishman does who talks of "propitious weather." Compare the use of the kindred word ἵλεως in Matthew 16: 22.

(5.) There is no ground to infer that "justification," as taught in Romans and elsewhere, is meant in the expression, not only for reasons involved in what has been remarked already, but yet more, because our Lord does not say that he "went down to his house justified." We must beware of taking from Scripture no less than of adding to it. Now the sense here is not absolute but comparative justification, just as in that expression of Judah in the Septuagint Version of Genesis 38: 26, δεδικαίωται Θάμαρ ἢ ἐγώ. "Thamar is justified rather than I," (i.e., more righteous.) "Rather," or "more," is decidedly implied by the commonly received reading, ἢ ἐκεῖνος. For my own part, however, I cannot but prefer παρ ἐκεῖνον, the reading of the Vatican, Sinai, and Paris (no. 62) Uncials, supported by some good cursives and other authorities. This probably gave rise to ἢ γὰρ ἐκεῖνος, by a blunder of the scribes, which found its way into the great majority of copies. Beza's MS. (D) is almost a paraphrase as to this, μαλλον παρ αιακεινον τον φαρισαιον. But every variation proves that the sense intended is that the publican was justified in comparison with the Pharisee, and therefore that the doctrinal allusion is out of the question.

Q. Is there anything in such Scriptures as Revelation 7: 9, Revelation 11: 15-18 and 20: 4, which justify the inference that the Church will not be caught up before the tribulation of the last days? What appears to be the strong, plain, and sure conclusion forced on us by a due consideration of the full corps of the royal and priestly elders seen in heaven from chapter 4 and thenceforward? Are not these twenty-four elders the complete symbol of the heads of the heavenly priesthood glorified above before the tribulation begins? How could this be applied before the rapture, which accordingly is nowhere hinted at afterwards? The rapture must have taken place before Revelation 4, for the result of it is then beheld in the full company of the enthroned elders, who represent the saints transfigured and translated to the heavens. Matthew 3: 12; John 17: 20, 21; and 2 Thessalonians 1: 6, 7 have been similarly pressed: What think you? ***

A. Undoubtedly, in my judgment these scriptures harmonize with, if they do not even suppose and confirm, the previous removal of the saints to meet the Lord in the air. For

1. Revelation 7: 9 distinguishes in the sharpest way between the innumerable crowd of Gentiles and the elders, and restricts these blessed Gentiles to the epoch of the great tribulation. Nor is it by any means certain, to say the least, that they compose a heavenly company; indeed to me the evidence seems to point rather to earthly blessedness in the day of glory. What might be cited to show that they are heavenly is that they are seen in heaven in the prophet's vision. But this of itself no more proves that in the accomplishment of the vision the Gentile multitude are to be glorified in heaven, than the presentation of the woman in the beginning of Revelation 12 proves that her actual place will be there when the prophecy is fulfilled.

2. As little does the seventh trumpet in Revelation 11 decide the question of rapture before or after the tribulation. In fact, there is not the slightest allusion to the act of grace in the passage, and therefor no warrant for confounding "the last trump" in 1 Corinthians 15 with it. The trumpets in Revelation are a symbolic series peculiar to the book, consisting of judgments and the last three of "woes" even, the last of all bringing in the closing scene of divine judgment, and of course, therefore, the reward of the righteous. In 1 Corinthians 15, on the other hand, the reference is solely to the saints risen or changed, and the origin is a military allusion drawn from the final signal when the legion sets out on its march from the old encampment. It would be a mistake to confound with either of these the blowing of the great trumpet (Isaiah 27) which gathers in the elect of Israel to the land of their inheritance. Each must be interpreted by its own context.

3. Revelation 20: 4 is, to me, strikingly in favour of the view that the rapture of the saints symbolized by the elders is before the tribulation. For we have, first, thrones filled with saints to whom judgment is given; and these are no other than the elders, or those already glorified. Then are seen two distinct classes in the disembodied state, "the souls of those beheaded," etc., who are then, and not before, caused to live in time for the first resurrection and the reign with Christ. "The first resurrection" is a phrase in no way importing that all who share in it are raised at the same moment; but that all who do so are raised a thousand years and more before the rest of the dead, so as to enjoy the millennial reign along with their Saviour. These disembodied ones who had suffered unto death under the Beast, are not raised evidently till the Beast and Satan are disposed of; but who believes that the Church and the Old Testament saints are not changed and caught up before? Revelation 17: 14, Revelation 19: 14, are too plain.

4. As to Matthew 3 it does not refer to the question of the time of the rapture to heaven, any more than John 17. "The floor" seems clearly to denote a Jewish scene; and the sifting of corn is quite as certainly said of Israel as of the heavenly saints. But apart from this, there is nothing here for deciding the question of sphere, time or way. Again, the view of John 17: 20, 21, which supposes, not that it was accomplished at Pentecost, or just after, but that it awaits the persecutions of the last Antichrist to drive the frightened sheep all together, and that this is evidence that the Church cannot be translated before those days of trial, appears to me to demand no comment; 2 Thessalonians 1: 6, 7 is a fair question, and so is the answer. For the point revealed is the manner in which the Lord will deal in public retribution. Now, there will be nothing of the sort till the Lord appears in judgment. The previous rapture of the heavenly saints (even if we suppose it now to be ever so sure) is not of any such nature, but a pure and crowning act of grace, altogether outside the world. But "the day of the Lord," in which, on one side, the changed saints come and appear with Himself in glory, and, on the other side, their persecutors are smitten with His vengeance; "that day," and none before, is stamped with the character of solemn, righteous award to the glorified saints and to their enemies. Then only will the Lord recompense tribulation to the troubling world, and rest to the troubled Church. The question of the rapture is quite apart from the point discussed in these verse.

Bible Treasury, Volume 5, p. 78. May 1864.

Q. 1. How do you distinguish the office of High Priest and Advocate, especially as reference is made to sin? "If any man sin we have an advocate with the Father."

2. In what sense can we be said to act in our priestly character towards each other? We cannot say we are priests to each other; but may we not be for each other before God?

3. In the type of the heifer, the clean person was to sprinkle the unclean: is this, spiritually, a priestly act?

4. Practically, we are not always in priestly condition of soul. May not, then, a spiritual believer draw near to God on behalf of one who practically cannot, without allowing the thought of any one coming between the soul and God? F.

A. The main difference between Hebrews and John 2: 1, is that Hebrews refers to our drawing near to God, and includes the whole analogy of the priestly service, even including the sacrifice. Christ stands between us and God to this effect, and for the whole means of obtaining mercy and grace to help. The Advocate is with the Father and supposes a believer and a son, and is for the maintenance in practice of this relationship, i.e., our life in it, and in point of fact refers only to the case of one who has sinned being in that relationship, one who has the privilege of fellowship. It refers to fellowship with the Father, not approach to God. I do not say the advocacy is confined to this case of sins. It is stated as a general fact, but it is only applied to this case.

2. We are and ought to be priests for each other before God, intercede for each other, wash one another's feet, bear the failures of our brethren on our heart in intercession.

3. The sprinkling is not in itself, however, properly a priestly act: if my conscience is pure before God, I may apply the word according to the holy power of Christ's sacrifice to the heart and conscience of another.

4. The last question is answered already. We could not be priests at all, if we would not do this. But no one can doubt, if he loves another, he can intercede for him — in Christ's name and in virtue of His sacrifice, but still plead and intercede for him.

Q. 1. Do not the Epistles of John clearly prove that a Christian does not live without sinning, and that when he sins he ought to confess his sin to God?

2. How does our being forgiven if we confess our sins (1 John 1: 9) agree with 1 John 2: 12, which says, I write unto you because your sins are forgiven you, and many other similar passages?

3. Does the forgiveness of our sins imply that we then have the fruit of forgiveness in restored communion? or more than this? or something different from this?

4. Does the passage, He that is clean needeth not save to wash his feet, throw any light on the forgiveness of those already saved?

5. Is the prayer of our Lords — that Peter's faith fail not — an instance of His intercession?

6. Is there any relation between our confession of sins, and the Lords intercession for us?

7. What is the nature of Christ's intercession? Is it asking God to forgive us, (and, if so, how does this harmonize with our being now forgiven,) or asking for restored communion, or what? Is John 17 an instance of intercession?

8. To what and when does John 16: 25-27 refer? At that day ye shall ask in my name and I say not unto you that I will pray the Father for you, for the Father himself loveth you.

9. In Christ's being able to save us from our sin, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for us, is it, save us from our sins eternally, or save us from all the dangers of the was — to the end? And what has intercession to do with it?

10. Is there any connection between Christ being our Intercessor and Satan being our accuser, seeing (from Job) that Satan has access to the presence of God?

11. What is the meaning of Christ being our Advocate? (1 John 2: 1.) Is it in the sense of pleader, or more as a friend at court? (It has been translated Patron.) It is connected with if any man sin. M.

A. I do not think 1 John supposes that a Christian does not live without sinning. It shows that a holy provision is made for him, in case he does. It declares he cannot say he has no sin, but sinning is put in the past. James, however, declares de facto we all offend in many things.

2. 1 John 1: 9, speaks neither of the time of our conversion, nor of our failures after it. Like Johns usual statements, it is abstract confession, which, and which alone, is true integrity of heart, and actual forgiveness goes together. We are personally forgiven all trespasses, and stand abidingly in the power of that forgiveness, so that nothing is imputed to us personally (that is so as put to our persons out of grace.) There is the present grace wherein we stand. But as regards the government of God it is another matter. Then I read, If he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him. Hence we are to pray for those who have sinned not unto death, to confess our faults to one another. Hence in its place the Church, and Paul in his, could forgive sins, as we read in Corinthians. There was a binding in heaven of what was bound on earth, and a loosing in heaven of what was loosed on earth. So, when at Paul's first answer all men forsook him, he prayed that this might not be laid to their charge.

3. The Lords warnings to His disciples that, if they did not forgive, they would not be forgiven, equally apply. It is not a question of justification with the believer, but of present relationship in divine favour, which some seem to forget altogether. It is not merely that we have the fruit of forgiveness in restored communion, though that be true, but the positive present aspect of God, as a governor in relationship with him, He is displeased with certain things, may cause me to die through His displeasure, if I do not judge myself — has done so, as we learn in Scripture, both historically and doctrinally.

4. The passage in John 13 (as does the red heifer) shows distinctly the way of cleansing when a man has defiled himself in his walk. He is cleansed by the washing of regeneration once for all, but needs to wash his feet and must have them washed. And this it is which carries up, farther than mere discipline, the forgiveness of the Church. We are to wash one another's feet, but we need this washing in its place to have a part with Christ. God takes care we shall be clean, but by washing the feet with water, that we may have truth in the inward parts with Him, and have no defilement of walk on us.

5. I do not know what the question as to Christ's prayer means. It was intercession. The character of intercession may be different now that He is on high, and refer to a different standing in which we are, but praying for him was intercession.

6. The Lords intercession for us produces, as its result, the fruits of grace, of which confession is the fruit in every honest heart.

7. Christ's intercession is to make good our present state in conformity with the place justifying forgiveness has placed us in. It is founded on righteous and propitiation. These being perfect, our faults (instead of bringing imputation, or being allowed to harden the heart and produce falseness in the conscience,) call out His advocacy and the soul is restored. Forgiveness in the absolute sense is righteousness, as regards clearance from all imputation of sins of the old man, but in Christ, we being in heavenly places according to Gods righteousness, everything inconsistent with our relationship to God as brought there is a just cause of Gods actual displeasure. God is not mocked; but Christ intercedes for us, and, by that which rests on righteousness and propitiation, the fault becomes the occasion of instruction and a deepened work and state in us. Now, for every true saint, this present condition of our souls with God is the capital thing, founded on the fact that he is reconciled to God, and accepted perfectly in His presence in righteousness. It is being thus in His presence which is the ground of all present relationship with God. Gods character is not changed because we are brought perfectly near Him, but that character acts on our conscience, and forms it. We walk in the light as He is in the light; and if we do not walk according to the light, we find it out, because we are in the light; and to this effect Christ's advocacy comes in. We know Gods displeasure against sin. I do not talk of imputation. I say it is displeasure against sin; and if we have sinned, apprehend that in the light. It is not merely loss of communion, but knowledge of Gods displeasure with the thing. If we do not walk with God. we have not the testimony that we please God, but displease Him. The righteous Lord loveth righteousness. Christ's intercession does not lead to forgiveness, (as to imputation, it is founded on the removal of that,) but regards Gods nature and character and our present actual relationship with that. By reason of righteousness and propitiation sin calls out (not satisfaction in us with non-imputation, that is hardness and sin, but) the advocacy of Christ. Sin is taken notice of, estimated as an evil in Gods sight, in my soul, but in grace, not in Gods favour, however, as simple non-imputation, but in Christ's advocacy active about it, so that my feet are washed. Filth is there: neither I nor God are content  - not I, when His word searches my heart. He is displeased when He sees it, and as to my present relationship He does see it. Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Ghost, — to God, — and God knew it, and was displeased with it; those who profaned the Lords supper the same. The discipline exercised because of the displeasure. Judging ourselves, we should escape this. Godly sorrow works repentance. Are we to repent and not to be forgiven? Nor rejoice in having it? For this, we must confess. It is absolutely stated, If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us. If my feet are defiled, they are not cleansed till they are washed. Christs intercession is the proper means of this. If any one sin, we have an advocate.

8. The meaning of John 16: 25-27 is this. Up to that, they had never gone directly to the Father, nor in Christ's name. But as Martha said, What thou wilt ask of God, He will do it. Now He puts them in direct relationship with the Father, not as if He was to go instead of them, and He only could, as Martha said. In His name they were to go themselves direct to the Father. That was then in gracious desires or wants they were to look for something. It has nothing to do with when they had sinned and got away from God in their hearts. Christ's interceding for them is unasked. We do not ask Christ to intercede. He is an advocate through His own grace when we have sinned, not when we ask. I return to the Father in confession, because He has asked when I went astray; as Peter wept because He had prayed for Him, not that He prayed for Him because He wept, or looked up at Him. What Christ says is, they should not be asking him about anything, but go directly to the Father: that is the contrast; not with intercession, when we have sinned or need grace and do not know it.

9. It is not said, as supposed, Christ is able to save us from our sin, because He ever liveth. But He carries through all the snares, difficulties, dangers of the way, and Satan's power; restoring our souls if we have failed; grace to help in time of need, as well as restoration, because He ever lives to make intercession for us — is on high immutably to carry on our cause. For we go through the conflict of good and evil, and have to overcome, though nothing is imputed, and we are sure to be kept to the end; but we need to be kept. He will deliver us from every evil work and preserve us to His heavenly kingdom, but we must be delivered.

10. The book of Job gives us a full account of the case in its operation in man, without reference to any dispensation whatsoever.

He was a Godly man, none like him — God saw defect in him. Satan appears on Gods speaking of him as his accuser. God withdraws not His eyes from the righteous. He deals not first here with outward sin, but inward working of ignorance of self, and then its breaking out through Gods ways into actual sin; so that it got out, when brought into Gods presence, as a detected thing into Jobs conscience. The effect of the revelation of Gods presence is, first, submission, and then confession. I abhor myself, I have spoken foolishly, and repent in dust and ashes. And God restores him to full blessing. Elihu interprets these ways. These words are interpreted — one among a thousand to show unto man His uprightness. Job was not upright in the full, true sense of it; there was not truth in his inward parts, though till he cursed his day there was no outward sin, till he abhorred himself and said so, i.e., made confession. Then his flesh became purer than a child's again. What we have to add is this: Christ's advocacy, founded on known righteousness and accomplished propitiation, carries on the administration of this for us in heaven, where we have to be in spirit with God. Such a high priest became us. Next, below, the Church in its ministrations and acts ought to be an interpreter, and deal with the conscience, and administratively wash the feet here below. An individual may be by grace, the Church, (2 Corinthians,) elders, (James,) individuals, (1 John). At any rate, in faithful grace, the Holy Ghost by the word so deals with it. The result is always confession, certainly to God, it may be to man. There is no uprightness without this. If I have sin, know it, and come to God to commune with Him, as if I had none, I am in that a hypocrite — hiding iniquity in my heart. We see here when the accuser comes in. He is the accuser of the brethren.

11. The advocate is one who manages our affairs and carries on our cause. It has been said patron, in a Roman sense; because he supplied the need of his clients  - was bound to plead their cause and case for them.

Q. In what respect does the form of baptism, in Matthew 28: 19, differ from the fact given in Acts 2: 38?

A. Our Lord, in the Gospel of Matthew, gives the formula according to which a disciple is to be baptized unto His death; and this in contrast with the Jewish confession of one God, even Jehovah. In Acts 2 it is said by Peter to be upon the name of Jesus Christ. So in Acts 8: 16, the Samaritan professors are said to have been baptized unto the name of the Lord Jesus, as Cornelius and his household were in his name. These are ways of describing baptism suitably to the Acts of the Apostles, where the Lordship of Jesus is one of the main objects. But there is no ground to doubt that Christian baptism was always formally unto the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. To omit or change that which the Lord enjoined so solemnly in resurrection, is a bolder act than becomes a Christian. This, certainly, ought never to be left out, however right it may be to testify to His Lordship also.

Bible Treasury, Volume 5, p. 112. July 1864

Q. What is the meaning of Titus 3: 10, A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted and sinneth, being condemned of himself. Does this refer to the holder of wicked doctrine as to Christ or foundation truth? Or does it mean a person who goes out and tries to make a sect or party for his own opinions. Some seem to shrink form the last, as if it were over-severe and would condemn men otherwise estimable. B.A.

A. There is no doubt whatever that the apostle means, not a holder of blasphemous doctrines, (which is the point in Johns epistles,) but one who endeavours to make a party. If any Christians, pretending to spiritual intelligence, count this a light sin, they are themselves to be pitied, warned, and prayed for. What is self-will but sin against God? and what self-will in one professing to love Christ is worse than despising the Church of God, by essaying to from a church of his own on views of his own? All saints are ignorant, more or less; and the Church of God contemplates them all, save in case of excision for wickedness in doctrine or practice, which all are responsible to judge. To go out and set up a party for particular views, even if true in themselves, apart from the assembly of God on earth, is rebellion against God, and that in what is nearest to God save His own Son. To make light of the sin, or to sympathize with it, is to trifle with God and His Church, and expose oneself to the same, however confident one may be in strength or wisdom to keep out of it. It is meanwhile sparing oneself and ones friends at the expense of Gods Word, which it is evil unbelief to count over-severe. Some think a far worse class, even blasphemers of Christ, otherwise estimable. Let such beware.

Bible Treasury, Volume 5, p. 128. August 1864

Q. A correspondent questions both the translation and the meaning of the firm foundation of God, as given in the new version published by G. Morrish. He would render it substantially as the Authorized, yet still the foundation of God stands firm, and argues that it can be nothing else than the resurrection of Christ, because of the contextual reference in verses 8 and seq.

A, But, in the first place, the proposed rendering, like that of the English Bible which it repeats in its faultiness, offends against ordinary grammar. The position of the article proves that στερεός, "firm," cannot be a predicate, but is an epithet forming an integral part of the definition. The only possible meaning, therefore, is, the firm foundation of God stands. Secondly, the notion that the fundamental doctrine of the resurrection is meant, was that of Cocceius, as well as of some since his day. Theodoret held a similar but wider view, considering the foundation to be the basis of the truth, of which the hope of resurrection is the seal. But I see no reason for giving it a special application, believing, with the translator referred to, that the figure is used abstractly.

Bible Treasury, Volume 5, p. 144. September 1864.

Q. Is this statement in accordance with Gods Word? We must not conclude that more has been done by the second person of the Trinity than by the first or third. Can anyone say it was more for Jesus to say, I will suffer for them, than for God to give Him to the world, or than for the Holy Ghost who condescends to dwell on earth so full of sin? S.A.

A. I do not believe that it is in accordance with the letter or the spirit of Scripture not to give the chief place to the Son as to work done, and, above all, suffering for God and man. It is to make light, unintentionally, of the great fact of the Incarnation, and the still greater one of Atonement. Scripture never speaks thus, whatever place it may claim for the Fathers love and counsels, and the Spirits active operation in man and the Church of God. The relation of all three is admirably set forth in Hebrews 10, as elsewhere also.

Bible Treasury, Volume 5, p. 192. December 1864.

Q. Is it right for the unconverted to pray? and can we take Cornelius as an instance of an unconverted man praying and his prayer being answered? A CONSTANT READER.

A. Man is bound to pray, as he is to serve God, and do His will; but while unconverted, he does neither, save in form. Behold, he prayeth was the Lords cogent advice to Ananias that Saul's heart was turned to Himself.

But it is a mistake to suppose that Cornelius was a mere self-righteous formalist, before Peter went to his house in Caesarea. He feared God, and his prayer and his alms came up for a memorial before Him. He was no more unconverted than the disciples were before Pentecost, or the Old Testament saints. Cornelius, like the rest, had eternal life, else there could be godliness and acceptable prayer without spiritual life. Yet he needed to hear words from the apostle, whereby he and all his house should be saved. (Acts 11: 14.) Salvation is more than being quickened; it is the conscious possession of that deliverance through the work of Christ which the gospel now announces. Cornelius may have been safe before; he was saved after he received the message of grace and the gift of the Spirit.

Q. 1 Corinthians 11: 23-28. Is it justifiable to use the word emblems of the bread and the wine, or to withdraw from fellowship because it is so used? J.M.

A. I see nothing in the expression to stumble a soul. No more, probably, was meant than the symbolic character of these material elements, which the Lord was pleased to constitute the representatives of His body broken and His blood shed for us. On the other hand, it appears to me weakness, not to say self-will, to make the use of such a word by another in the assembly a motive for abstaining from the Lords supper. The intention may have been upright; but the act of retiring on such a ground as this reveals a morbid spirit of criticism and a decided preference of ones own thoughts and feelings to the precious words of Christ, Do this in remembrance of me. Whoever has yielded to it, ought to judge himself, with humiliation before the Lord and his brethren, and so let him eat.

Q. What think you of the following note of T. Scott on Acts 8: 4? The difference between statedly and authoritatively as a herald, and by office and authority, preaching to regularly convened congregations, and simply declaring what a man knows of Christ and salvation, amongst relations, juniors, ignorant neighbours, or ignorant persons of any sort, without assuming any authority, seems of great importance. No doubt in this way a mans sphere will often gradually enlarge, till he appears something like an authoritative preacher; but would it not then be proper that pastor and rulers should send some Barnabas to confirm what has been done, and to confer the authority? And would it not be right in this case for the person himself to seek from the pastors and teachers of the Church their sanction to his labours, now become more public than he at first either expected or intended? T.

A. The notion is quite unfounded, and directly at issue with the very Scriptures before the commentators eye. Neither Barnabas nor any other man ever conferred authority to preach as a herald, or even in the most unpretending form. It is true that the word descriptive of the preaching in Acts 8: 4 is εὐαγγελίζω. But this word is frequently applied to the preaching of the Lord and the apostles, as well as of others. (Comp. Luke 4: 18, 43; Luke 7: 22; Luke 8: 1; Luke 9: 6; Luke 16: 16; Luke 20: 1; Acts 5: 42; Acts 8: 12, 25, 35, 40; Acts 13: 32; Acts 14: 7, 15, 21; Acts 15: 35; Acts 16: 10; Acts 17: 18; Romans 1: 15; Romans 15; 20; 1 Corinthians 1; 17, etc.; Galatians 1: 8, etc., etc.) The other word, κηπύσσω, which means to proclaim as a herald, has not the smallest connection with office and authority, or regularly convened congregations, more than εὐαγγελίζω. It also is used of the Lord and the apostles, (Matthew 4: 17, 23; Matthew 10: 7, 27; Matthew 11: 1; Matthew 24: 14, etc., etc.) but it is predicated, just as freely, of others too. So it is applied in Mark 5: 20 to the delivered demoniac, and in Philippians 1: 15 to the brethren at Rome, some of whom were preaching Christ of envy and strife, and some also of goodwill. Of both, however, it is declared that they τὸν χριστὸν κηρύσσουσιν. That is, the word employed about these unappointed brethren is the expression of authoritative proclamation as a herald. In short, the commentator in this note was supplementing and unwittingly corrupting Scripture, instead of fairly expounding it. When Barnabas and Paul visited and confirmed the assemblies, they ordained, not persons to proclaim the gospels statedly to regular congregations, but elders or presbyters in each assembly. But an elder was a local official whose function was to rule; it was needful that he should be apt to teach, but he might never preach the gospel in his life; and if he did, it was not in virtue of any conferred authority (which was with a view to government), but of the gift of evangelist, if he possessed it. Thus, Philip who was one of the seven was also an evangelist. In virtue of the one he discharged his diaconal duties at Jerusalem, in virtue of the other he evangelized or heralded, (for both words are used of his preaching,) in Samaria and elsewhere.

Bible Treasury, Volume 5, p. 240. March 1865.

Q. Can we take the king in Daniel 11: 36, as the king of the north, and understand verse 40 as meaning that the king of the south shall push at him: (i.e., the king of the north:) and the king of the north shall come against him, (i.e., the king of the south,) so as to identify the rest of the chapter that follows with the same personage? J.B.

A. To me it is evident that the king is distinguished from both these monarchs, and that the characteristics and the locality, as well as his abrupt introduction into the scene, as some well-known personage at the time of the end in the holy land, exercising royal rights over the apostate mass of the Jews there, point to one conclusion — that he is the man of sin of 2 Thessalonians 2 and the antichrist of the Epistles of John, the beast of the earth (or land) and false prophet of the Apocalypse. This being so, verse 40 is quite simple, and shows us the king assailed both by the ruler of the south and by him of the north. With this, to agrees verse 41, where the king of the north enters into Palestine. Again, in verse 45 he plants the tents of his pavilion in that land. The king, on the contrary, lived and reigned there. If the king can be naturally understood of one who reigns in the holy land only, the question is decided, and the kings of the north and south mean those of Syria and Egypt respectively. It would be violent indeed to identify the king of the north with antichrist or the king, of whom he is the deadly enemy.

Q. In Ephesians 1: 23 the Church is said to be the body of Christ. Is it correct therefore to say the Church is in ruins? or is there a difference between the Church and the body? H.C.P.

A. While the Church is the body of Christ, it is also the house of God, and may have in this point of view vessels to dishonour within it, and be in the gravest disorder. If one spoke of the ruin of the body, (or even rending the body,) the language would be exceptionable. But the ruin of the Church is but a brief expression of a state predicted, and even begun, Gods account of which is spread over a large part of the New Testament, especially the later Epistles and the Revelation.

Bible Treasury, Volume 5, p. 320. August 1865.

Q. Was not the truth of Christ and His members — one body — the mystery hid in past ages and revealed to Paul?

2. Was the truth of the Bride a mystery? Was it hid in the Old Testament? Is not Rebekah a type of the Bride? Was not Eliezar forbidden to take a Gentile bride for Isaac?

3. Where is the Church — the body — ever spoken of as the Bride? W.S.

A. The mystery hid from ages and generations consists of two parts (1), the supremacy of Christ over the entire universe of God, of all things, whether in heaven or on earth; and (2) of the Church, His body, composed of Jews and Gentiles baptized by the Holy Ghost, united to Him as Head over all. It was revealed to the holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit, but in fact revealed by Paul to us.

2, 3. It is evident from Ephesians 5, Revelation 19, that the figure of "the Bride, the Lamb's wife," equally applies to the Church. Eve, in Genesis 2, and Rebekah, in Genesis 24, etc., revealed nothing of the mystery. They told their own profitable tale of old, but nobody ever did or could draw from them alone the union of the Church with Christ in heaven. When the truth of the Church, Christ's body and Bride, came to view, then these scriptures yielded a further deeper meaning in God's wisdom, though even then the union of Jew and Gentile in one new man, the body of Christ, the head of all things in heaven and earth went far beyond any or all these types. But the reference is distinct in Ephesians 5 to Adam and Eve on this point. "It is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church." The point forbidden in Genesis 24 is not a Gentile bride, but a daughter of the Canaanites (i.e., the type of a wicked spirit in the heavenlies.) In Ephesians 5 the point is the wife or bride as much as the body.

That there will be an earthly bride, according to the Psalms, Prophets, and Canticles, does not clash with the truth that there is a heavenly bride, married to the Lamb before the appearing of Christ and distinct from the blessed guests who are to be at the supper (the Old Testament saints, I suppose). Revelation 22: 17 is conclusive to my mind that "the bride" of the Apocalypse is none other than the church, now waiting for Christ with the Holy Spirit dwelling in her and prompting the precious word, "Come." Far different will be the revelation and attitude of the Jewish remnant, before the Lord appears for their deliverance.

Bible Treasury, Volume 5, p. 351. October 1865.

Q. Isaiah 28, Isaiah 29. — If these chapters are mainly prophetic of the last days, how is it that the first attack of the Assyrian falls on Ephraim? Will the ten tribes be in the Holy Land when "the king of the north" comes against "the king?" Can his second attack and fall be identified with the invasion and ruin of Gog in Ezekiel 38, Ezekiel 39? Will the millennial reign begin before that invasion, or will there be a transition, after the judgment of the beast, and the false prophet, before the Lord reigns with His saints over the earth? ΜΑΘΗΕΤΗΣ.

A. The question is a very natural one, and the first part of it is more obscure, for me at least, than many parts of prophecy. I give my answer under correction — I mean the precise, relative time of the return of the ten tribes. My present impression is that Isaiah 28 does not refer to the ten tribes as such, but to the Jewish people localised in Ephraim. They are treated as the twelve tribes, and by a word expressing a whole even in the New Testament. Anna was of the tribe of Asher. In Chronicles several of the tribes have their part in the return from the captivity. Further, it is recognized in Ezekiel and as distinct from the ten tribes proper. (Ezekiel 38: 16.) We have the stick of Judah and for the children of Israel his companions; and another for Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and the whole house of Israel his companions. They are then united and are all recognized as children of Israel, which is the subject of Ezekiel, not properly Judah. The final union takes place after the deliverance by judgment, when they then come under one head. The ten tribes are purged from transgressors before coming into the land. (Ezekiel 20: 33-38.) The Jews are purged from transgressors in the land. (Zechariah 13: 8, 9, and many passages.) Hosea 1, Hosea 2 confirms the thought that the final union under one head is at the close of all this process of purging, as it naturally must be if Christ is to take them. (Compare Hosea 2: 19-24) If this be so, the ten tribes as distinguished from the stick of Judah will not be in the land when the king of the north comes up: their rebels never enter the land. I believe that the last coming up of the Assyrian is Gog. The term is geographic, whoever is king of the north. In Daniel I do not believe it is yet directly Gog, though perhaps dependent on him; for he is mighty, but not by his own power. (Compare Ezekiel 38: 17.) Of course, the millennial reign will not commence before that invasion, but the then destruction of the beast by Christ from heaven will cause the Assyrian, or Gog, to find Him, the Lord, in Jerusalem, so as to be destroyed by divine power, but by that of His earthly government in Jerusalem. Christ will have established His power there; but He will yet have to destroy Gog and purge intruders out of the country belonging to Israel.

Q. 2 Peter 1: 19-21. Can the prophetic word here be said in any just sense to include the revelation of the mystery? or is it not rather in contrast? Why the change from "we" to "ye" in verse 19? What is the meaning of "the day dawn" and "the day-star arise in your hearts"? ΜΑΘΗΤΗΣ.

A. The change from "we" to "ye" is very simple. "We," Peter and all, possess the word of prophecy; the "ye" applies to those he was exhorting. The mystery is not in the passage at all; but the "word of prophecy" is here in contrast, not directly with the mystery (though that connects itself with this), but with the day-star and the day dawning. Prophecy is a light in a dark place, this world; and refers to the events happening in this world and the judgment. And it is very well, as regards this world, to take heed to it. When the day is come, it will be Christ revealed, judgment on the world (compare Malachi 4) and resulting blessing. But there is a better hope for those who watch, and in contrast with judgment: the dawn and the star not seen by those who only appear when the sun is risen, but for saints who look for Christ before He appears, not warned merely and detached from earth, but associated in heart with Christ in heaven.

Q. 1. Is the similitude of Christ's service in heaven after the order of Melchisedec or after the order of Aaron?

2. If Christ's priesthood is solely of the Melchisedec order, how can it be Aaronic in its character?

3. The Aaronic service, presented in the Hebrews, is it solely a contrast, or is it also a similitude of the Lord Jesus Christ? O.P.

A. 1. We are expressly taught in Scripture that Christ is "called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec." (Hebrews 5, 6.) Nay more, we read in Hebrews 7: 11 of another priest that should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron. But, observe, it is here a question of order, not of exercise. There was one undying Priest, not a succession. Hence,

2. When the exercise of priesthood is in question, the pattern of Aaron is employed, not of Melchisedec. That is, there is a sanctuary, and intercession within the veil, founded on the shedding of blood, not the bringing out bread and wine to the conqueror over the previously triumphant kings of the earth. The Melchisedec priesthood will be exercised in the millennium.

3. There is contrast as well as resemblance traced in Hebrews 5-10; for the Aaronic priest, like the rest of the Levitical institute, was the shadow and not the image itself of the things set forth.

Q. 1. How is John 2: 20 to be reconciled with Daniel 9?

2. If Christ had been received instead of being cut off, when would the seventieth week have come in?

3. Will Elijah be the preparer of the way, as was John?

A. 1. There is nothing that I see to reconcile between John 2 and Daniel 9, for the seven weeks (= forty-nine years) refer to the building of the street and the wall, not of the temple — still less of that building begun by Herod the Great.

2. The cutting-off is not tied to the sixty-ninth week, but is predicted as that which should be (it is not said how long) after the sixty-nine weeks. This leaves a margin which some have filled up with a seventieth week. But the fact is, that if Christ had been received, there could have been no such period as the seventieth week.

3. John Baptist's coming was only Elias to faith, or "if ye will receive it." His coming in power will be actually before the great and terrible day of the Lord, as the other was in spirit before the day of grace.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 6.

Bible Treasury, Volume 6, p. 48. May 1866.

Q. What is the duty of a surviving Christian parent, guardian, or child, if the law of the country decide that the child is to be brought up after a religious sort opposed to the faith of both parent and child?

A. In my judgment, no Christian, whether child or parent, can relinquish that which they are assured in the word of God. A court may rule otherwise, and may punish the infraction of its decrees; but the Christian is bound, at all cost, to cleave to the Lord's will. It is likely that, under such circumstances, the court would deprive a refractory parent or guardian of the charge of the child, giving it over to the co-guardian (if any) who would conform, or appointing a compliant guardian. In such a case, the parent and child must be prepared, if God so permit, to endure the deep distress of severance. But if the child have a conscience clear and firm before God, what has the court gained toward the end in view? The christian child, though separated from its parent, insists on being faithful to the Lord and the truth, and utterly refuses the religious services which it believes to be unscriptural: is the child to be forced against its conscience? Is it to be reduced to the desired submission by brute force? If so compelled to go, is it to be locked or chained down during the religious rites which it eschews as sinful? It seems evident, that, without appealing to courts of law, which in these things will surely be on the side of the world, the path of faith is clear and simple; and that a child guided in the way of Christ will be proved to have a power superior to all the resources of the mightiest empire on earth. They may inflict pain or loss; they may insult and condemn or imprison, as they have hanged or burnt in times gone by; but "this is the victory that overcometh the world, even faith."

Bible Treasury, Volume 6, p. 79. March 1866.

Q. Hebrews 2: 11-18. —

(1.) What is the force of "all of one?"

(2.) The connection of the three passages of the Old Testament that follow?

(3.) What is the difference between being "partakers of flesh and blood," and taking "part of the same?"

(4.) What is the exact meaning and aim of "likewise" here?

(5.) What is the place given to death in the next words?

(6.) How does verse 16 connect itself with what precedes and follows?

(7.) "To make reconciliation for the sins of the people" sounds strange as compared with the reconciliation of the believers and the universe elsewhere revealed: is it correct?

(8.) Temptation — what?

A. (1.) "All of one" is purposely abstract (ἐξ ἑνὸς πάντες). The phrase is fairly rendered in the Authorized Version. The reference to God the Father is set aside by what follows; for if the point were a common Fatherhood in the higher sense, where would be the propriety of adding, "on which account he is not ashamed to call them brethren" It would then be a necessity of relationship. On the other hand, there is the most careful guard throughout against such an undue enlargement of the sphere as would associate Christ with all the human race in its actual state. It is a question of real humanity in both the Sanctifier and the sanctified, not of the state which He took it or they had it. They were "all one-wise," but not all in a condition absolutely identical. I would add that it is incorrect to say that the present (οἱ ἁγιαζόμενοι) means necessarily a process going on, the perfect God's purpose respecting them. The present participle is often used with the article for a person or persons in any given way designated, apart from the question of time. But when the perfect is employed, as ἡγιασμένοι in Hebrews 10: 10, it is expressly not future purpose or potentiality, but present application and character founded on a past fact — in this case the actual result of the finished work of Christ to the believer. Dean Alford is in every respect mistaken here.

(2.) The first citiation (from Psalm 22: 22) shows that the relationship of brethren is properly declared in resurrection, as we see plainly in John 20: 17. The next citations(from Isaiah 8: 17, 18) connect the godly in Israel with Christ, the great prophet, on His path of reliance on God, apart from all the unbelieving confederacies of men — not as His brethren, for they were not yet so marked out, nor as His children exactly, but as the children whom God gave Him. It is the righteous remnant associated with the Messiah morally separate from the mass. This is kept up in "the children" of the following verse (14).

(3.) To bring about this relationship to Himself incarnation was requisite with a view to redemption. Since then the children partake, or are partakers of (κεκοινώνηκεν) blood and flesh, He Himself also similarly participated in (μετέσχεν) the same. The former verb supposes a common share in what belonged to the children, as indeed to all men. For there is no difference in the human nature of godly and of ungodly. The latter verb means to take or get a share in anything (in this case, humanity).

(4.) "Likewise," "in like manner," "similarly" (as I have rendered it), is the true force of παραπλησίως. It is not correct to say that the rendering in our common Bible is not sufficiently strong. Bengel gives similitier and remarks, not that it is equivalent to but "idem fere atque mox κατα πάντα per omnia v. 17, c. iv. 15." The Docetae may have perverted the word to their own wicked folly; but no scholar who examines the matter can deny that p. does not go as far as ὁμοίως or ἴσως; but as Alford justly remarks, it expresses "a general similitude, a likeness in the main: and so not to be pressed here, to extend to entire identity, nor on the other hand, to imply, of purpose, partial diversity; but to be taken in its wide and open sense — that He Himself also partook, in the main, in like manner with us, of our nature." The Docetae did not believe that Christ really μετέσχεν τών αὐτων, which words do predicate sameness in essence. It is ignorance to found this on παραπλησίως, which simply asserts similarity of manner: while on the other hand, even this could not have been truthfully said, had not the Word been made flesh οὐ δοκητῶς ἀλλ᾽ ἀληθινώς, οὐ φανταστικῶς ἀλλ᾽ ὄντως. (Compare Philippians 2: 27.)

(5.) Christ took human nature most really, though not in a state identical with ours (as is more fully explained — strange that it should be needed by the believer! — in Hebrews 4: 15); but He took it to die, that through death He might destroy (annul, render void) him that has the power of death, that is, the devil, and might deliver, etc. To avail for God's glory or even for us, it was into death that grace led the Saviour. There only could Satan's might be brought to nought; thus only could redemption be wrought, a ruined creation be reconciled to God, guilty souls be atoned for effectually and for ever. All this and more was done by the death of Christ, though its power be displayed in resurrection alone. All else fails to vindicate God, annul Satan, or deliver man.

(6.) The English version of verse 16 is false in itself and destroys the connection. For of course (δήτου) it is not angels He takes up (i.e. helps), but He takes up Abraham's seed. It is not a question here of assuming a nature, but of the reason why He did so; and this is His undertaking the cause of the seed of Abraham — not of Adam, as such. The ancient expositors (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Ambrose, etc.) and "great divines" (as Luther, Calvin, Beza, etc.) misled the authorized translators and the error in sense led to further error in form; for they could not adhere thus to the present tense of ἐπιλαμβάνεται and hence were forced into the monstrous blunder of rendering it, "He took," etc. Next, the thread of sense is cut, and a mere and feeble reiteration of the truth of verse 14 is imported into verse 16 — a needless denial that angelic nature was assumed. Whereas, the affirmation of His special interest in Abraham's seed links on with the previous statement of His incarnation and His death for redemption purposes, and most fitly leads into the inference that follows.

(7.) To make expiation or propitiation is the true rendering of ἱλάσκεσθαι. The sinner needs to be reconciled, his sins to be expiated. See the opposite error in the Authorized Version of Romans 5: 11, where the margin gives the true sense — reconciliation.

(8.) Temptation generally in Scripture (always of course in the case of Christ) means trial — trial from without. James 1: 13, 14 speaks of that which is within, which He who knew no sin never experienced.

"THE BREAKING OF BREAD."

Q. As a recent dissenting work on "Baptism, etc. by Typicus" (Jackson, Walford and Hodder), ventures to impugn the application of the terms "breaking of bread" in Scripture to the Lord's Supper, will you notice his arguments or assertions briefly? ENQUIRER.

A. The writer begins with these word: "Of late we have frequently heard these words used as a designation of the Lord's Supper." Certain Christians are understood to use it thus uniformly, and the error, he fears, is in danger of obtaining currency elsewhere. He boldly proceeds to show that it "nowhere occurs in Scripture to represent our Lord's institution!"

First, where can this man's acquaintance with facts be? Is he not aware that he himself is broaching a novelty of no ordinary magnitude? Does he not know the importance attached to the truth of this application of the scripture phrase by the body of Reformers in opposing transubstantiation? They too appealed, from the earliest antiquity, to the entire roll of the christian writers who touch upon the Lord's Supper, in order to gather a seeming justification for administering the eucharist in one kind and withholding the cup from the laity. "Typicus," therefore, starts with the confident rejection of that which no heat, nor conflicting claims in the mighty struggle of the sixteenth century could blot out from the common rejection of all, whether Papists or Protestants. I do not say his objection has never been mooted before; for what notion has not been? But it is certainly strange to find a person so entirely uninformed as to a plain matter of fact (owned all but universally and from the remotest times) as to insinuate that it is a sort of sound heard but of late frequently. I admit, however, that the decisive question remains — what saith the Scripture? If I have referred to facts, it is merely to show that the Christians he alludes to had really no debate with others in calling the Lord's Supper "the breaking of bread," because it has never been seriously disputed in Christendom. I shall now prove that Scripture exposes his error, as much as notorious facts have been ignored by him.

He cites Lamentations 4: 4, Acts 27: 35, Luke 24: 30, 35. But the utmost he can draw thence, is — that which no sober Christian ever doubted — that the act of breaking bread is not limited to the Lord's Supper. It is a question of context, as with the use of almost every phrase in the Bible or anywhere else. Διάκονος is frequently employed for a domestic who is not a bondsman, frequently for general service from Christ Himself downwards. Does it therefore never mean an official deacon? This is a case exactly parallel: what is its value?

"Typicus" proceeds to notice the texts which do apply: Acts 2: 42, 46; Acts 20: 7, etc., but with utter misconception of their force. Reasoning or expounding it cannot be called, but the merest assumption. He says that Acts 2: 42 refers to "ordinary meals;" but why? Does the doctrine of the apostles do the communion before, and the prayer immediately after, refer to external matters? The only fair question is, whether the phrase did not embrace along with the Lord's Supper, the Agape, or love-feast, which in primitive times — at least before 1 Corinthians — accompanied that Supper. But the spiritual concomitants in the verse, both before and after, prove that an ordinary meal is not meant.

Again, in verse 46, two religious facts are stated in evident connection, their continuing with one accord in the temple, and their breaking bread at home, distinct from their partaking of food (which last does refer to ordinary meals) with gladness and singleness of heart: in all they were found praising God, and having favour with all the people. The twofold τε binds together their resort to the temple and their breaking bread at home (for of course this christian act could not be celebrated there); but a fresh construction parts off both from the taking of their common food, though I doubt not that for them even this had the halo of God's gracious presence around it.

It is therefore plain and certain that, in giving its central place to the breaking of bread, the Christians whom "Typicus" blames are subject to God's word; and that there is departure from that word where His children merely go to sing or pray or hear a sermon, save at rare intervals, which is the line of things to which he invites his brethren. But "Typicus" is also inexcusable in forgetting that there is a deeper cause of separation from all the sects of Christendom — the universal exclusion of the Holy Ghost from acting freely by whom He will in the christian assembly (according to 1 Corinthians 12, 1 Corinthians 14.)

As for Acts 20: 7, neither italics or capitals will relieve "Typicus" from the charge of unbelief, nor add a particle of strength to the weak assertion that "there is not the slightest evidence to prove" that it was the Lord's Supper. The language is decisive that it was then the practice of Christians to come together on the first of the week, and this to break bread (Compare also 1 Corinthians 16: 2.) The critical reading (ἡμῶν), which rests on much the best authorities, seem to me stronger than the vulgar one (μαθητῶν), which probably grew out of a desire to make easier sense with αὐτοῖς. Nothing is simpler: all came together to break bread, but with prominence given to Paul and his companions in "we," the family word. Again, the direction of the apostle's discourse was naturally to those at Troas, which drew him out at great length, "we" coming in again in the next verse. Dean Alford, I know, thinks that the Agape followed, but he does not doubt for a moment that the breaking of bread means, or at least includes, the Lord's Supper. To me it seems the gravest objection to the inclusion of the Agape (which was a real meal, though not a mere ordinary one), that the apostle had himself, previously to this date, severed authoritatively the two things, because of the disorder which had entered at Corinth from their connection. Is it not harsh to suppose that he broke the Spirit's rule as to this given in his own inspired epistle? The Agape, no doubt, continued long, but thenceforward separate from the Lord's Supper. In verse 7 of this chapter it is intimated that "to break bread" was what drew together on the resurrection day; from verse 11, it would appear that Paul broke after his discourse as well as the matter of Eutychus, broke (not bread, but) "the (τόν) bread." There is no ground to talk of a second time. How this indicates that the sanctioned practice for all on the first day of the week was "a meal — NOTHING MORE," I cannot divine, save as knowing that man's will may account for anything.

As even "Typicus" admits the application of 1 Corinthians 10, 1 Corinthians 11 to the Lord's Supper, I have no controversy with him here. This only need be remarked, that in the first of these scriptures, the expression — Lord's Supper — does not occur, but only in the last. With this fact before his eyes it is absurd, then, to argue so confidently that Acts 20: 7 cannot mean that Supper because the explicit designation does not occur there. I should have thought the inverse conclusion more reasonable, that 1 Corinthians 16 being confessedly the Lord's Supper without being thus styled, Acts 20: 7 may be so too, and similarly Acts 2: 42, 46.

What can we think of the heart or intelligence of one who, in the face of these passages fails "to find any trace in the Scriptures of the celebration of the Lord's Supper by the apostles more frequently than once a year?" This almost incredible inference is due to the author's head being muddled with the type of the Passover and with types in general, of which he manifestedly does not understand the alphabet. The paschal supper falling yearly is a reason to his mind for a yearly Lord's Supper which supplanted it unless the Christians were otherwise instructed, which he thinks they were not! He suggests, however, that "a more frequent observance is doubtless conducive to the interests of the Church." No wonder that one who begins with slighting Scripture, should think, next, that man — himself — is able to improve on it, and furnish something more for the interests of the Church. The readers of the BIBLE TREASURY will not desire to hear more of such men unless God peradventure be pleased to give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth. But it seemed well to dispose briefly of these assertions; for, if confidently made, they are apt to impose on the ignorant when the mass of christian professors know the Scriptures or the power of God so feebly as in our day. Speculation blinds the Dissenters, as much as tradition closes the eyes of the Tractarians or their allies.

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?"

"As often as ye eat this bread and drink this wine, ye do show the Lord's death till he come."

Bible Treasury, Volume 6, p. 96. June 1866.

Q. (1.) Revelation 3: 10. — The promise here seems made to a particular class described as those who have kept the word of Christ's patience, and who appear to be contrasted with those who "dwell upon the earth," which, I presume, expresses a moral condition. If this be so, on what ground can the whole Church take this promise to themselves? Some of them, it is sadly to be feared, have practically forgotten that they are "strangers and pilgrims," and are too much at home in the world to have been much exercised in keeping the word of Christ's patience. And yet one cannot but hope some of these have truly bowed to the name of Jesus, and it may be, did at first "run well." The promises to the few who had an ear in Laodicea are yet of a different character from those made to some of the other churches. The white stone and the hidden manna, for instance, express an intimacy of communion with the Lord which one does not get in Laodicea, so that it is a difficulty to me how the whole company of believers at this moment may take all these precious promises to themselves, irrespective of moral condition. It is not forgotten that all the promises of God are Yea and Amen in Christ Jesus. Still the speciality of these addresses to the churches must be intended to teach something. Those who are "saved, yet so as by fire" (though immeasurable grace to be saved at all) do not seem to be in the same position as those to whom "abundant entrance into the everlasting kingdom of the Lord" is vouchsafed. Further, is it quite clear that the "keeping from the hour of temptation" means removal from this present scene? In John 17, when the Lord prays that His disciples should be "kept from" the evil of the world, it is plain He does not mean that they should be taken out of it.

Q. (2.) Hebrews 10: 17. — "And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." How is this to be understood in connection with 2 Corinthians 5: 10? Will the sins of a believer's unconverted days be again brought before him at the judgment seat of Christ? Yours respectfully, INQUIRER.

A. (1.) A human attempt at precision sometimes leads us astray.

The blessing meets the particular want of the Church and characterizes the ways of God towards it as the encouragement needed for its faith; but this does not mean that that Church exclusively has the blessing. Thus in Laodicea he that overcomes will sit on Christ's throne — the lowest degree of promise, I apprehend; but this does not mean that only they will; for all will. Escaping the hour of temptation is not true only of Philadelphia; all who have died in the Lord before it comes will have escaped it. But this characterizes the blessing of Philadelphia, because they come so near towards it that a promise to escape it is of the greatest value to them, — a cheering and welcome message and truth in their weakness and consciousness of the power of evil and little strength. Others than those of Ephesus will eat of the fruit of the tree of life, others than those of Smyrna will not be hurt of the second death; but those were the suited encouragements to lead to overcome in the states and difficulties there described. We must seek elsewhere a positive revelation on the subject, and not draw conclusions, nor, I would add, the least weaken the warning; for the warning applies to the state in which Philadelphia is. A like conclusion has been drawn from "all those that love his appearing," and "to them that look for him will he appear;" but all the wise virgins were awakened to look for Him, and even others too. We must distrust conclusions from Scripture, however man's mind enters into them. Those in Laodicea who open to the Lord reign with Him; and He enters in and sups with them and they with Him — have their part with Him in fellowship and joy under His reign. I do not say there may not be speciality in results which take the shape of reward; but the promises apply to the state of the church in which they are found, and woe to him who neglects them so applied, not to the exclusion thereby of others. Thus in Thyatira the whole millennial blessing of Christ Himself and the reign are promised, because it is the close of the ecclesiastical system, and the whole succeeding blessing is substituted for it: Christ, the heavenly Christ Himself, and the kingdom of power and judgment, for those who had been oppressed by the idolatrous rule of Jezebel. The quotation from John 17 proves exactly the contrary of that for which it is cited. That to which ἐκ applies, they are to be kept wholly out of: they are not to be taken ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου, but they are to be wholly and absolutely ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ; so here wholly and absolutely not 'through' and 'in,' but ἐκ τῆς ὥρασ.

(2.) It is not as if God forgot the things, but He does not remember them — hold them in His mind — against them in any way. If I say I forget as well as forgive, it only speaks of the completeness, not, if the thing is called up, that my memory has ceased to know it as a fact. If I give an account of myself to God, I must do it completely or I should lose something of the goodness of Him who has called and saved me. Paul lost nothing in saying, "Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue," etc.

Bible Treasury, Volume 6, p. 144. September 1866.

Q. Ephesians 2: 1; Romans 6: 2, 10, 11; Galatians 2: 19.

Is there sufficient ground for the assertion that, in these passages, the dative case is mistranslated, that being often and (as every Greek scholar knows), for the instrument or means whereby a thing is done or comes to pass? Should it not be (Ephesians 2: 1) "by trespasses and sins" (or in consequence of "having no life" in us)? There seems some incongruity in speaking of walking in the sins wherein they were dead. Moreover it is worthy of note, that the same apostle speaking of spiritual corruption (Colossians 3: 5, 7) says, "in the which ye also walked sometime when ye lived in them;" and it is difficult to suppose, that he used life in sin, and death in sin, to express precisely the same thing. Turning to Romans 6: 2, should it not be, "dead by sin?" If sin is such a dreadful thing as to have exposed us to all the punishment of death — from which Christ's death alone frees us — how can we think of continuing in it any longer? In Romans 5: 12, we have "death by sin;" and in verse 17, "By one man's offence." Why then in Romans 6: 2 is "to" to be employed in rendering the same dative case? The apostle has shown what we have incurred by sin, and then immediately he is made to say, "How shall we who are dead to sin?" which has no force in connection with his previous reasoning. In regard to Romans 6: 10, 11, how can Christ be said to be dead unto sin? but if it should be "dead by sin" — by reason of man's sin, the sense is plain, "in that he liveth, he liveth by God," "by the power of Good." (2 Corinthians 13: 4.)

The received version of Galatians 2: 19 is "to the law;" but it is argued, it should be by the law; the law denounces death.

The value of these queries may not at first be very obvious; but these passages have an importance in a controversy not needful to mention here; and we cannot be too anxious to endeavour to ascertain the correct text of the word of God.

1 Corinthians 15: 1-4. Wherein does the apostle's assertion, "that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures," or rather part of it (for he goes on to insist on the deep importance of Christ's resurrection) differ substantially from 1 Peter 2: 24? though all must admit that the latter passage is specifically addressed to believers — to those who have returned "to the Shepherd of their souls."

Taking 1 Corinthians 15 in all simplicity, it appears to me to warrant my telling any man, that "Christ died for his sins and not merely that he is the Lamb of God "that taketh away sin." "Our" cannot possibly mean in this connection the sins of Paul and other believers; for what possible "gospel" or good news, could that be to unconverted sinners? And such the Corinthians were when Paul first preached it unto them. T.D.

A. As regards Romans 6, the wished-for translation is the result of a misconception of the whole passage. It makes it a motive drawn from a previous evil result and no more; whereas it is perfectly certain that the passage contemplates our dying in becoming Christians, not by our sins. Those who have been baptized unto Christ have been baptized unto His death. We have been made one plant with Him in the likeness of His death; and this is in order that we might walk in newness of life. Hence it is perfectly certain that the doctrine of the chapter is dying out of our old man, and living in newness of life — not our dying by our sins so as to be afraid of living in it now. And such is the whole tenor of the chapter; "our old man has been crucified with him;" and the use too of the dative at the close. How the writer can take νόμῳ in Galatians 2: 19, as "by the law," is hard to conceive; because it is preceded by διὰ νόμου, meaning "by the law," which makes it simply impossible.

2 Corinthians 13: 4, is ἐκ δυνάμεως. I suppose he only quotes this for the sense. Living in sin, and being dead in it, is not the same thing. One is the continuity of the old man in sin, the other is his state in respect of God; but both are true. Alienated from the life of God. A reference to Colossians shows, in the analogous passage, νεκροῦς . . . ἐν τοῖς παραπτώμασι καὶ τῃ ἀκροβυστία. Now ἐν can be used as an instrument or power too. But I think no intelligent Christian could doubt what it means here; and I do not see how it is possible with ἀκροβυστία to take it in any other sense than 'in.' Besides, νεκροῦς would not be the word. It signifies properly 'a corpse.' It is not dying as a punishment for them, but a state in which they were. Then God creates again. They are viewed not as they were. It is not ἀπεθάνετε, but being νεκροῦς He has quickened. The first work in the corpse is quickening with Christ, God's act. In Romans and Colossians, being alive in sin, ye have died (ἀπεθάνετε) in Christ. In Ephesians, being νεκροί, we have been quickened with Him. It is a new creation. It does not seem to me there can be the smallest doubt of what is the right translation.

As to 1 Corinthians 15, again, I know of no objection, if used in a general way of saying, Christ died for any man's sins. In the passage, however, Paul is addressing believers as such, but still speaks vaguely, so that "he that hath ears to hear" may apply it. "He is a propitiation for the whole world." But this is never said of bearing sins. That is carefully avoided in Scripture. It will not be found other than dying for our sins. But "bearing" in all parts of Scripture is thus specifically confined. So we read, 'We bessech in Christ's stead, Be reconciled......for he hath made him to be sin for us.' Scripture is accurate here — a propitiation set out before all, and sure remission of all, if we come; but bearing sins never extended to those who are lost, or His doing it might be in vain for believers. "Our" to saints or sinners is the scriptural way of putting it.

Bible Treasury Volume 6, p. 159. October, 1866.

Q. Will the saints be caught up before the Lord comes in glory and the tribes of the earth mourn because of Him?

(1.) Matthew 24. Here there is no hint of the Church's escaping the great tribulation, except by sudden flight; nor of any other παρουσια except that which we are to expect after that tribulation. (See ver. 23, 27, 29.) Nor of any gathering His elect unto Him except in verse 31, after the great tribulation. In verses 32, 33 we are directed to "know that it is near, even at the doors, when we shall see all these things," i.e., those which are described in verse 7-29.

(2.) 1 Thessalonians 4. The living will not be changed before the dead in Christ are raised (ver. 15); then (1 Corinthians 15: 51) we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump (literally, for the trumpet shall sound)  all, not some only, of those who believe. And the trumpet mentioned in Matthew 24: 31, when all the elect are to be gathered together, cannot be subsequent, or the other would not be the last trump.

(3.) The caution of 2 Thessalonians 2: 1-12 seems to imply that the Church must witness the full revelation and ενεργεια of the wicked one, and then expect the immediate coming of our Lord.

It is true, we are to be continually looking for the coming of our Lord; but is this inconsistent with the expectation of a previous tribulation? Q.Q.

A. The Old Testament saints and the Church, which is being now formed by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, will be caught up to meet the Lord before His coming as Son of man in power and great glory, when all the tribes of the earth (or the land) lament. This necessarily follows from the doctrine laid down in Colossians 3: 4 compared with 1 Corinthians 15: 23, 1 Thessalonians 4: 2, 2 Thessalonians 2, and other scriptures, and from the prophetic intimation of Revelation 4, Revelation 5 compared with Revelation 17: 14, Revelation 19: 14. For if Christ and the glorified saints appear together at the self-same time in glory, it is evident that the saints must have been caught up, changed into His likeness, before that common manifestation of Him and them. Besides, the Revelation indicates their presence above, after their translation there, and before their appearing along with him, under the symbol of the crowned and enthroned elders, who are seen in heaven when the seven churches disappear (Revelation 2, Revelation 3), and before the pre-millennial judgment of Revelation 19, and the millennium of Revelation 20. This interval is occupied here below by God's preparation of Jews and Gentiles (separate from the glorified) who will be to His praise on earth, as the Old Testament saints and the Church will be in heaven when the administration of the fulness of times is put under Christ, the head of all things heavenly and earthly.

(1.) This helps to render Matthew 24: 15-41 perfectly plain. Certainly there is no hint of the Church's escaping the tribulation by sudden flight here; for those spoken of are a remnant of converted Jews who will be found in Jerusalem, in connection with the temple and the sabbath in the latter day. What possible ground is there to predicate this of the Church of God, which is neither Jew nor Gentile, and which, save at its first origin, is found everywhere under heaven? What reason to take it away from the last days of this age, when God will again be savingly at work among the Jews in their land, protecting a remnant from the last fiery tribulation which the Antichrist will occasion, and fitting them as a people for the Lord, when He comes for their deliverance in the clouds of heaven, and the mass being apostate will be filled with terror and mourning and shame at His sudden glory which flashes on the world? That the elect of verse 31 cannot possibly mean the Church is evident, if it were only from the passage itself; for the sight of the Son of man appals all the tribes before He sends His angels to gather these elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Now if you apply this to the same scene and persons as Colossians 3: 4, you set one scripture against another — the unerring proof of error. Distinguish between the saints already caught up, to be glorified with Him on high, and these elect gathered from all places of their dispersion here below, to be blessed under His reign here below, and the balance of truth is preserved. No doubt the gathering of the elect here, then, is after the great tribulation, but it is also after His appearing. It is therefore not the Church which appears with Him when He appears in glory, and which is promised (in Revelation 3: 10) exemption not only from he place and circumstances of the great coming temptation, but also from its hour. The signs are, as usual, for the Jewish saints, who were wont to ask such things as evidence of the approaching accomplishment of their hopes.

(2.) 1 Thessalonians 4. No one contends that the living will be changed before the dead in Christ are raised. It is clear that, the latter being raised, and we who are then alive being changed as they, all together will be caught up to the Lord. The "last trump" of 1 Corinthians 15 is an allusion to the final signal of the break up of a Roman camp for its march. It has nothing whatever to do with the loud sound of trumpet in Matthew 24 (with which compare Isaiah 27: 13), any more than with the seven trumpets of Revelation 8-11

Undoubtedly when the Lord at His coming or presence (παρουσία) gathers the changed saints to Himself in the air, it is all, not some only, of those who up to that time have believed (compare πᾶσιν τοῖς πιστεύσασιν in 2 Thessalonians 1: 10.) But how does this present a difficulty to such as see form Scripture that others subsequently are to be converted, kept through the tribulation and blessed in the millennial kingdom of the Lord? It is the querist's system which is at fault, not leaving sufficient room for all the elements, and of course therefore both leading to confusion in the various parts, and presenting a defective result. 1 Corinthians 15 presents (and so I may add 1 Thessalonians 4) our last trump, because the question is of the risen saints; Matthew 24: 31, presents, if you will, the last trump of the Jewish saints then scattered over the earth. How does this identify the two, even if the trumpet in Matthew 24 had been styled the last trump, or "his elect," were called "all the elect," neither of which is the fact? Is it a contradiction if the historian speaks of the last trump sounding for the tenth legion in Gaul, and of the trumpet gathering the twelfth legion in Syria?

(3.) 2 Thessalonians 2: 1-12 cautions us against the error of those who confounded the coming of the Lord to gather His saints on high with His day upon the lawless one. The misleaders of the Thessalonian believers sought to alarm them by the false cry that the day of the Lord was already present (ὡς ὅτι ἐνέστηκεν ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου). This the apostle dispels first, by a motive of consolation for the heart, as well as, secondly, by an express prophecy. First, he beseeches them, by the coming of the Lord and their gathering together to Him, not to be shaken or troubled by this pretence (for which they feigned a revelation and even a letter of the apostle). The first act of the Lord, bound up with His very presence, is the translation of His own beloved ones to Himself. But, secondly, that day (mark, he does not say the Lord's παρουσία, but His day) should not come till the full development of the evil which His day is to judge. The mystery of lawlessness is now restrained: when he who hinders its outburst is withdrawn, then shall be revealed the lawless one whom the Lord Jesus will destroy by the breath of His mouth and annul by the appearance of His coming. Observe the striking difference between the terms in verses 1, 8. When it is a question of gathering the saints, the phrase is simply His coming or presence; when it is a question of His day or dealing in judgment with the lawless one, it is the shining forth of His coming — not παρουσία only, but ἐπιφάνεια τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ. The real caution of the chapter would have preserved the querist from an error kindred in principle, though not in form, to that which wrought among the Thessalonians.

We are then to be continually expecting the Lord, apart from either external signs or the final great tribulation, which Scripture connects with others, not with us, after we have been translated to heaven.

Bible Treasury Volume 6, p. 175. November, 1866.

Q. The Apocalyptic Beasts. In answer to "Scripture Query" of last month, it is stated that "the Man of Sin" of 2 Thessalonians 2, the Antichrist of the Epistles of John, "the Beast of the Earth and False Prophet" of the Apocalypse, and "the King" of Daniel 2, are identical personages.

In Kelly's Notes on Daniel, page 197, we find "the King" or AntiChrist spoken of as a Jew (and it would appear that the Antichrist must of necessity be a Jew to be received of the Messiah — Daniel 11: 37 suggests this), and pages 205, 206 of the same work bring out "the King" or Antichrist, and "the Beast," the imperial power of the Romans Empire, as distinct personages.

Is there not a contradiction between these two statements? If the Antichrist, "the King" of Daniel 11 be a Jew and he be identical with "the Beast" of Revelation, can it any longer be said to be Gentile supremacy? Is it not necessarily Jewish?

A. The inquirer confounds the Beast from the sea with the Beast from the earth or land in Revelation 13. There is no contradiction nor even difficulty when this is seen. For the Antichrist may be the second Beast from the earth and a Jew (as he will pretend to be the Messiah and Jehovah of Israel), while the first Beast from the sea is the great Gentile chief, at least in the West.

Q. Revelation 4, Revelation 6, Revelation12. The Achill Herald finds insuperable difficulties in reconciling these chapters of the Apocalypse with the supposed removal of the saints from the earth before they apply. The rainbow, the editor thinks, denotes emphatically grace, not judgment; and how could there be martyr-members, after the Church is translated? and how, again, could the woman (the Church?) be seen travailing and then fleeing into the wilderness, if actually glorified before this? ENQUIRER.

A. There is no difficulty whatever, when we bow to Scripture which shows that the Church of God means, not the aggregate of all the redeemed, but those believing Jews and Gentiles, who, on and since Pentecost, have been baptized by the Holy Ghost into one body. This corporate union did not exist in Old Testament times and will not be the state of things on earth during the millennium. What is to hinder the Lord translating the Old Testament believers as well as those who compose that one body to heaven, and then calling other souls to know Himself on earth, some of whom suffer for the truth's sake, as in Revelation 6, and others answer to the persecuted woman in the wilderness and her seed, as in Revelation 12? It is not ingenuity which is wanted to reconcile apparent discrepancies, but simple faith to receive the plain statements of the written word. Nobody denies there will be saints on earth, after we are translated to heaven, some of whom are to be slain and raised to join those already risen (as we see in Revelation 20: 4), as others will be preserved to be the first nucleus of the righteous on earth during the millennial reign. The rainbow round the throne is the pledge of the creature's blessing on earth, and is needed just because of the lightnings and thunderings and voices which precede out of the throne, the counterpoise to those judgments which subsequently come under the seals, trumpets, and vials. But the grace and mercy, which we now find in coming boldly to the throne, are to put or keep us in communion with Christ above. The rainbow is not the symbol of this, but of God's faithfulness to men on earth, whatever the changes and judgments which pass over it. Again, the woman here sets forth the Jews, of whom as to the flesh Christ was born. Her vicissitudes begin after the Church goes to heaven.

It is untrue that this view shuts out the Revelation from the commendation the Spirit gives to the Old Testament. God's dealings with others are of the deepest interest and blessing to my soul, if I believe them. It is a false principle that Zion, Jerusalem, Jacob, Israel, must mean the Church, in order for us to reap the blessing of those scriptures that speak of the Jews. All Scripture is for the Christian, whether it be about him or others, because it reveals God, and His ways, His grace and His judgments to the soul. As the gospels are the transition out of Jewish expectations into Christianity properly so called, the Revelation is the link of transition out of the christian state of things to the renewed dealings of God with His ancient people and the Gentiles when the new age dawns. Hence in the Apocalypse we do not hear of "churches" after the prefatory chapters 1, 2, 3, save in the message at the end of the book. The central and properly prophetic part shows us the Church glorified above, and Jews and Gentiles below once more the object of God's ways in mercy or judgment.

But really these brethren are so ignorant of the first principles of the prophetic word that it is useless to expect intelligence from them. When they can apply Psalm 2, Deuteronomy 28, or Zechariah 11, to show Great Britain's election to the covenant place vacated by Israel, one can hardly think any "offspring of Jewish craft" more mischievous than such a piece of "genuine Protestant" dullness. No doubt, Jesus is the Christ and Son of God, whom Jews and Gentiles, Herod and Pontius Pilate, joined against and crucified; but has God yet set His king on His holy hill of Zion? Has Christ yet received of Jehovah as an actual thing the heathen for His inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for His possession? In John 17, anticipating His place now, not on Zion, but on God's right hand, He says, "I pray (or ask) not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me." This is Christianity, in contrast with the Jewish hope which remains to be accomplished by and by. In the Psalm accordingly He does ask for the world, and Jehovah gives it, whereon he breaks the nations with a rod of iron and dashes them in pieces like a potter's vessel. This, we presume, is not the gospel of grace, but the solemn warning of judgment which the Lord will execute on the living at His coming. To the poor the gospel is preached; but here it is an admonition to the kings and judges of the earth to submit to the Son lest His anger burn in their destruction. What entirely confirms this interpretation as the true one against those who would foist our country into the place of Israel and thus give it a present bearing nationally, is Revelation 2: 26, 27, which proves that it is only when Christ comes that He will give the faithful, then glorified, power over the nations in association with Himself. If Protestantism were not so blind, these men would see that the perversion of the Psalms is only of importance to Popery and the Jesuits, who do seek by craft to gain power over the nations now. The believer, not of the world as Christ is not, waits to share this and all other glory when Christ appears; but this, let us grant it, is neither Popery nor Protestantism, but the christian hope.

Bible Treasury Volume 6, p. 192. December, 1866.

Q. Will you define "kingdom of heaven" in itself, and in contradistinction from the kingdom of God? J.D.

A. "Kingdom of heaven," occurring only in Matthew, means the rule of the heavens, consequent on the rejection of the Messiah, who is thereon ascended to heaven and thus introduces that rule, first, in mystery to faith (as now since the ascension); secondly, in manifestation (as by and by when He comes in power and glory). It differs from the larger expression in this, that, while "kingdom of God might anywhere with truth be used substantially for "kingdom of heaven" (and so uniformly answers to it in the corresponding passages of Mark and Luke), in some places "kingdom of heaven" could not replace kingdom of God." Hence even the latter phrase occurs in Matthew, where of course the former would not have duly expressed the idea of the Holy Ghost; and the same remark applies to Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 4, and other passages in the Epistles where "kingdom of heaven" would have been quite improper. "The kingdom of God" could be said to be there when Christ demonstrated the power of God on earth; "The kingdom of heaven" could not be till he went to heaven. Hence "the kingdom of heaven" is never in the Gospels said to be nearer than at hand; whereas to a certain extent "the kingdom of God" might be and is said to have then come and to have been among them. The power of God displayed in miracles such as Christ wrought proved His kingdom there (and so power not in word but in deed, the moral power of the Spirit in the Epistles); but the kingdom of heaven is a dispensational state of things, either true and known to faith, or actually manifested as it will be to every eye.

Bible Treasury Volume 6, p. 207. January, 1867.

Q. 2 Peter 1: 19. — What is the bearing of this difficult scripture? The distinction drawn in the recent "Lectures on Christ's Second Coming" (Broom), between the dimness of the λύχνος and the brightness of the φωσφόρος is undeniable; also the one being clearly objective or external to us, the other internal or subjective — "in your hearts." But I cannot see how ἕως οὗ can mean aught else than something future to the writer (at least readers) and the absence of which the προφητικὸς λόγος was to supply. And as the anointing of the Spirit (1 John 2: 20-27) could hardly be regarded as future to either, I doubt of the interpretation. D.D.

A. The following remarks may furnish help for determining the true scope. First, the apostle is writing to the same Christians who had received the first epistle, that is, Jews of the dispersion in Asia Minor. These of course were familiar with Old Testament prophecy, which the apostle shows was confirmed by the transfiguration, as it also gave a living tableau of the kingdom to the chosen witnesses. Next, he intimates that while the prophetic word was rightly heeded, it was comparatively no more than a λύχνος, excellent in a dark place, but of course eclipsed in the superior brightness of day-light when it dawned, and the morning star, Christ Himself — not as the Saviour only but the hope — arose in the heart. I think this is left purposely vague; and for the sufficient and wise reason that some of these saints, though truly converted, were so deficient in the discrimination and enjoyment of what is thus distinctively Christian, as compared with what of course always abode true of the Jewish testimony, that he could not assume this to be the fact with them, at least, not with them all. In my opinion the same lack exists now in real saints of God, and mainly form the same cause, the Fathers so-called being the mainspring, as far as the Gentile is concerned, in confounding Jewish things with Christian, and thus obliterating the distinctive lineaments of each to the great detriment of both.

Thus the παιδία of the family (the babes among the τεκνία) have unquestionably the unction from the Holy One and know all things; but through exclusive heed to the προφ. λογ., and thus inattention to the proper New Testament teachings as to the coming of the Lord, there might not yet have been the dawn of that better light, ἡμέρα, or the arising of Him who brings it in His own person, in their hearts. That is, though the principle was true, and the capacity or power there in virtue of the indwelling Holy Ghost, there might not yet be that developed practical hold of it which the apostle so greatly desired for them, while carefuly owning the value of what they did attend to. This at least is my conviction of the passage. The great thing to seize is the contrast of a good light with a better, and even this last to be enjoyed here (not when the προφ. λογ., is accomplished). It is not the day, nor the day-star as a literal matter of fact, but that character of thing in the heart (and hence necessarily and properly without the Greek article) not the Lord's future appearing, but the apprehension of better light about the future now, — christian fulness of light as to this supervening on their previous Jewish measure.

Q. 1 Peter 3: 18-20. What is the true force of 1 Peter 3: 18-20, which some apply to Christ's descent after death and personal preaching to the souls in hades? J.T.

A. The first expression important to seize is that Christ is said to have been quickened in the Spirit in which He also went and preached. That is, the words, strictly, do not attribute a bodily going to preach, but that He went and preached in the Spirit. Now this was true, if it was the Spirit of Christ testifying in and by Noah the preacher of righteousness, as he is called in 2 Peter 2. It is also confirmed by what is said in this First Epistle of the Spirit of Christ working in the Old Testament prophets; and very distinctly by the well-known passage in Genesis 6: 3. Next, it is not said that he went to their prison and preached there to the spirits; but that in the Spirit he went and preached to the imprisoned spirits (or to the spirits which are in prison). Not a word intimates that the preaching was in prison or that they were in prison when preached to. Again, the absence of the article before ἀπειθήσασιν denotes that it is not a mere descriptive circumstance assumed to be known; but the cause is predicated why the spirits were imprisoned, namely, their having been disobedient when the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, when, as I believe, the testimony of God was rendered to them but rebelliously refused. Therefore not only the flood took them away from the earth, but their spirits in prison are reserved for judgment. Few were saved then. The godly must not wonder if they are few now; nor would temporal judgments cover the doom of those who reject the gospel, for they too, like the antediluvians, will not escape the dealing of God who will judge the wicked and unbelieving. The men of the world, and even the Jews most of all, turned a deaf ear to the voice of Christ's Spirit preaching by Peter and the rest. They only looked for a visible Messiah, present and reigning over the earth and especially over Israel in the land. Hence the testimony of a rejected crucified Messiah, exalted in heaven (with a people indiscriminately called out from Jews and Gentiles, and exposed to oppression, shame, suffering, and death here below), was odious to them. Nothing could be more appropriate than the allusion to Noah's teaching of old and the safety of a few in the ark (who heeded the word, spite of appearances), while the mass who were incredulous remain in prison for the eternal judgment of God. There is the utmost force in adducing that remarkable witness of the value of faith in a divine testimony, and of the solemnity of rejecting it; whereas the supposed reference to a personal preaching to these particular souls in hades is not only without the smallest countenance from elsewhere, to say the least, but seems strangely lame and incongruous for the case in hand. Proclaiming to Old Testament saints there I can understand (though I see not the smallest warrant for the notion); but here it is expressly not the obedient and saints, but a limited class once disobedient to God's word, when His Spirit strove with them in Noah's day before the flood. Bad as the notion of purgatory and its temporary suffering may be, the idea of preaching to disobedient souls in hades in order to let them out, appears to me no better, and directly defeats the serious warning of judgment for unbelief which Peter had in view. For it allows of a hope for some unbelieving ones after death. Bishop Horsley and Dean Alford are quite wrong as to this.

Bible Treasury Volume 6, p. 239. March, 1867.

Q. If the Church is with the Lord, caught up to Him at His coming, how can any Christian love or look for His subsequent appearing? 1 Timothy 6: 14; 2 Timothy 4: 8; Titus 2: 13. So 1 Thessalonians 2: 19; 2 Thessalonians 5: 23 seem to teach, not a secret previous coming for Christians, but the same as 1 John 2: 28; Revelation 1: 7; Mark 8: 38. So that revelation, appearing and coming seem to me synonymous and synchronical. A resurrection from out of the dead and a change of the living saints visibly going up to meet the Lord seems to me a more sober idea, if I may so speak, and to do less violence to ordinary scripture statement, than a secret rapture, which seems to be both unnecessary and based on a very few and not very distinct scriptures. They are all (as I think) the same event, though many acts are folded up therein.

A. The presence (παρουσία) of Christ is His coming, or rather state of being present, in contrast with His absence, and is in itself equally compatible with being visible or not at His pleasure (as we see after His resurrection). The solution of the question depends on other scriptures and cannot be decided by the bare word coming or presence. One of these scriptures is the comparison of 2 Thessalonians 2: 1 with verse 8. On the face of it, verse 1 binds together his coming or παρουσία with the gathering together of the saints to Himself. This is the motive for comfort against the terror of the day of the Lord, which the false teachers were seeking to bring on the souls of the Thessalonians. The false rumour that His day was actually arrived, or present (ἐνέστηκεν), was effectually dispelled by the sweet hope of being thus re-united to Himself, with the added information that that day of awful associations for the world should not be there before the full development and open display of that lawlessness, which was already at work in secret ways. For the day of the Lord is ever the predicted period of judgment on man's evil, which it is to put down and clear away, in order that the good of God's kingdom may be no longer hidden or hindered but shine out to His everlasting praise. Hence it is said that the lawless one (for so it will end) shall be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus shall consume with the breath of His mouth and shall destroy, or annul, by the appearing of His coming or presence. Thus visibility is expressly connected, not with the Lord's presence to assemble His saints to Himself, but with His judicial action on the Antichrist.

Plainly, the coming or presence of the Lord is the great general truth. It embraces indeed His appearing as one of its acts or characters, but it includes much more. Hence, when precision is sought (as here to counteract a false impression, which the enemy sought to endorse with the apostle's name), we have the παρουσία distinguished from the epiphany, or shining forth of that παρουσία. Now it is evident that, if the coming of Christ necessarily implies visibility to all the world, there is no force in the distinction; if, on the contrary, He might come to gather His saints without appearing to any beyond themselves, and then subsequently cause His coming or presence to be manifest in the destruction of the lawless one, nothing can be more appropriate or exact than the phraseology here employed.

There is no difficulty, accordingly, in apprehending how Timothy or others could be exhorted in view of Christ's appearing, spite of the gathering of the saints on high previously. The act of translating the saints above is no open vindication before the world either of Christ or of themselves; the appearing, revelation, or day of the Lord is this precisely. Not till then will be seen the consequences of faithfulness or the lack of it in His service; not till then will the madness of the world's hostility against Jehovah and His anointed be proved. Hence, when it is a question of exhorting to earnest, devoted, holy labour and endurance, scripture habitually speaks not of the coming simply but of the appearing of Christ. Then will be the reward of toil and suffering; then must the haughty world be humbled, apostate Judaism and Christendom be judged, and righteousness be established over the earth, the glorified saints reigning with Christ over it, and the Jews restored to their promised supremacy and blessedness here below. This makes evident the reason why the hearts of the saints, in present sorrow and shame, feeling their own weakness and the temporary triumph of the enemy in the world, are always urged to look on to the appearing of Christ. Their own removal by His coming does not, could not, satisfy the desires of those who are bent on the making good of His glory universally, and the final total overthrow of Satan, and the blessing of all creation.

This, then, in my judgment, entirely and simply meets the scriptural statements which speak both of the Lord's coming and of His appearing, etc. Timothy is enjoined to keep the commandment, laid on him by the apostle, spotless, irreproachable, until the appearing of our Lord, which in its own time the blessed and only Potentate shall show. (1 Timothy 6.) It is a question of responsibility in service; and this attaches, not to the rapture of the saints at all, but to the manifestation of Christ. When the Lord appeared the first time, God's grace was made manifest, and life and incorruption were brought to light by our Saviour. When He appears again, glory will be revealed; fidelity during His absence will no longer be a matter of denial, detraction, or debate, and evil will hide its head. A faithful royalist could not be satisfied till not merely the arrival of the exiled king, but his coronation and the public exercise of his prerogative. Still more evidently does this principle apply to 2 Timothy 4: 8: "Henceforth the crown of righteousness is laid up for me, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me in that day; and not only to me, but also to all that love (τοῖς ἠγαπηκόσιν, characterized by their love for) His appearing." That this demonstrates the justice of what has already been remarked, I need scarcely say. The coming of Christ to receive us to Himself and be with Him in the Father's house would not at all suit the requirements of the passage; because that is the pure fruit of His own grace, removing us into the scene of His Father's love and glory, but in no way vindicating His servants, by a just requital of all faithful testimony, in the day when even a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous; verily He is a God that judgeth in the earth. Rapture to heaven previously would not meet with this exigency, though, of course, perfectly consistent with it. We must believe all that is revealed, not a part only; and a main point of real progress is that we learn to distinguish things which differ.

Titus 2: 13 quite falls in with the two texts we have examined, the only question being whether "that blessed hope" does not look rather to the point of personal joy when we are caught up to be with the Saviour, and "the appearing of the glory" to the latter and public display. If so, this scripture would connect the two things, as one combined object in the mind of the Spirit, leaving it to be decided by other testimonies whether the two things happen at the same time or with some interval.

In 1 Thessalonians 2: 19 and 1 Thessalonians 5: 23, it is simply a question of Christ's presence or coming, entirely independent of manifestation. The first scripture is the expression of the apostle's affection for the objects of his devoted labours. Circumstances might and do separate them now for a little in person, not in heart; but they should be together before our Lord Jesus Christ at His coming, "our glory and joy." This would not cease but, on the contrary, appear when Christ is manifested, but the fact is before the apostle; and this is true at the coming of Christ and even before His manifestation of which nothing is said here. So in chapter 5: 23, he prays that their whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Of course, if verified then, this would be also true at His appearing; but the other sufficed and indeed was more comprehensive. On the contrary, where it was a question of the world being judged (as in the beginning of the same chapter), "the day of the Lord," and not simply His coming or presence, is spoken of; for that necessarily supposes judicial action and display. So even in 1 Thessalonians 3, where we have the coming of our Lord with all His saints, not them caught up to Him, as in 1 Thessalonians 4, in order to God's bringing those who sleep with Him.

But John 2: 28, Revelation 1: 7, and Mark 8: 38 are wholly distinct from the simple presence of the Lord and His saints. In the first of these texts, manifestation is express. It is a question of the workman not being ashamed before Him at His coming, through the souls they laboured for abiding in Him now. The coming of the Lord alone would not decide this, and therefore manifestation is added. Again, Revelation 1: 7 has nothing to do with the translation of the saints to heaven but is the solemn threat of impendng judgment for the world, especially for Israel (i.e., those who pierced Him). "Every eye shall see him," defines the character and time most fully. So Mark 8: 38 describes the Lord coming with His holy angels in His quality of Son of man which notoriously attaches to Him as executor of judgment. (See John 5.)

I cannot doubt, therefore, that coming or presence is never in itself synonymous with appearing, revelation or manifestation. This does not decide the question of their agreeing or differing in point of time. But it tends so far to maintain the definiteness of scripture language, which is indispensable to all real intelligence and progress in the truth.

That the removal of the saints from earth to meet the Lord does not synchronize with their appearing in glory along with Him, is, to my mind, certain from a variety of scriptures. First, Colossians 3 declares that when Christ, our life, appears, "then shall ye also appear with him in glory." The context would convince any fair mind that rigorous precision is here intended. The basis is the identification of the Christian with Christ. Is He dead and risen? So are they. Is He now hid with God? So are they now with Him. But this will not be always. He is about to be manifested in glory: when He is, then shall they too be manifested in the same glory with Him. This is decisive against the hypothesis of Christ first appearing, then translating the risen and changed saints, and bringing then and thus His day on the world. For in this case, Scripture must be broken, as Christ would have appeared in glory without His saints and before them. Their rapture (to use a word which used to be more familiar with divines than it seems to be of late) cannot then be when He is manifested; for they are all, Christ and the saints, manifested together.

Besides, the same result follows from the scriptures which speak of His coming with the saints. They must have been, then, caught up before in order to come with Him.

Further, the great book which puts together in an orderly way so many elements scattered over the scriptures of the Old and New Testament, the final prophecy of the New Testament, has it no light for us on this vexed question? Much every way, but this chiefly — that thence we learn how the saints are seen glorified in heaven under the symbol of twenty-four elders, not to speak of the four living creatures from Revelation 4; that they are seen there kept out of the hour of temptation which comes on all the world to try them that dwell on the earth; that during spoken of as being on earth, without a hint of the Church or churches after Revelation 3 (save in the exhortation at the end when the prophetic part is concluded); and that when the Lord does come to judge, the saints are with Him, and come out of heaven, not from earth, for the closing scene, when, executing vengeance on them that know not God and them that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus, He comes to be glorified in His saints, and to be admired in all them that have believed in that day. Then, and not before, will be the public retributive dealing of the Lord, when His saints shall be vindicated and their enemies shall be troubled worse than any tribulation they inflicted on the faithful. The Lord's coming simply to receive the saints to be with Himself is no doubt the joy of grace; but it is not all, and does not supersede the importance of the scene of manifestation (which is itself a part of His coming or παρουσία), when all questions of responsibility in good or ill will be solved and made apparent.

The best sobriety of the saint is to believe the scriptures — not some, but all; sacrificing the truth neither of our manifestation and reward when Christ comes in judgment, nor of our previous removal to heaven to be with Christ, away from the scenes of horror, when God will give the Jew and man in general to taste the result even in this world of rejecting the true Christ and receiving the false one; but when He will make ready once more, by an Elijah testimony, a people prepared for the Lord on earth, that when He does appear in glory, He may have not only a risen glorified Bride with Him, suited to the heavenly places and the Father's house, but also an earthly people, the nucleus for the blessing of all nations and the earth during that reign of blessedness which will follow the execution of judgment on all His enemies. It is the same παρουσία, but ἡ π. as such, and ἐπιφανεία τῆς π. are quite distinct in character and time.

The παρουσία of the Lord, then, is not a mere act of coming, but the state of being present in contrast with His absence. The epiphany or shining forth of His παρουσία most naturally intimates that this presence in itself is not necessarily visible.

Bible Treasury Volume 6, p. 288. June, 1867.

Q. 1. Do not the best readings give an entirely different meaning to Revelation 5: 9, 10, from that represented by the Authorized Version? and how then can it be proved that the Church is in heaven when the judgments are poured upon the earth? By 'judgments' is to be understood not that ON the Antichrist, but the judgments during his rule.

2. Does not 2 Thessalonians 1: 7 appear to teach that the saints do not enter into the rest until the Lord is revealed from heaven taking vengeance on them that know not God, and 1 John 2: 18, that they will be here with the Antichrist?

3. It is urged from Matthew 16: 18 that the Church was future. If so, is it not equally true from Matthew 1: 21 that no one who died previous to the cross was or could be saved? A SEEKER AFTER TRUTH.

A. The only question as to readings of importance in verse 9 is the insertion or omission or ἑμᾶς. The Siniatic and Vaitican (2066, not 1209), with the great majority of miniscules insert; the Parisian Rescript is defective; the Alexandrian and a miniscule in the Propag. at Rome (44) omit. To this last, though the evidence be small, recent editors (Alford, Lachmann, Tischendorf, etc.) incline. It seems to me confirmed by the true text of verse 10, which exhibits, without question, the third and not the first person ("they", not "we"). The proof that the Church is then in heaven is quite independent of these verses, and mainly depends on the fact revealed in Rev. 4, — the presence of the enthroned and crowned elders around the throne of God. Who are meant by this symbol but the glorified saints? Spirits as such are nowhere said to be glorified, but the saints in their changed bodies. These are so represented from Revelation 4 onwards. If ἑμᾶς be, as I suppose, rightly omitted (the insertion being due to an early corrector, who could not account for the absence of an object after the verb, from ignorance of such an ellipse, which is not uncommon with John), there is no necessity for taking the ζῶα as the redeemed; for the song would then simply celebrate the Lamb's worthiness and His efficacious death in purchasing a people to God, priests and kings to reign over the earth, without here defining who they are.

2. 2 Thessalonians 1 speaks solely of publicly awarded rest and tribulation when Jesus is revealed. Nobody thinks either can be till Jesus appears. A previous translation is no more a difficulty for the saints caught up to heaven than a previous tribulation for Jews and Gentiles on earth. Nor does 1 John 2: 18 hint that those addressed would be on earth when Antichrist comes, but affirms many antichrists now as an evidence of that coming man of sin, and no more.

3. Matthew 1: 21 confirms, instead of weakening, the plainly future bearing of Matthew 16: 18. For just as the one text shows us that no one, before Jesus came and died, could be said to be saved from his sins, so was no Church of Christ begun to be built before. Previously to that believers rested on a revelation or a promise; afterwards, on the work accomplished. Then, not before, is could be said, "By grace are ye saved through faith." Redemption becomes the basis not only of His own present salvation in Christ, but also of gathering in one (i.e., in the Church) God's children who were before this scattered. For this, too, the presence of the Spirit sent down from heaven was requisite to baptize into one body.

Q. 1. What is the dispensational difference between the two disciples of John (John 1: 37), Philip (John 1: 43), Nathanael (John 1: 45), and Nicodemus? (John 3: 1)

2. What is the full dispensational teaching of John 2?

A. 1. The two disciples of John, hearing their master's heart-utterance of delight in the Lamb of God, follow Jesus, come and see at His invitation where He abode and abide with him that day. It was indeed well-nigh spent, for as the evangelist could not forget — a moment ever to be treasured in his heart — it was about the tenth hour. One of these two, Andrew, first finds his own brother Simon and brings him to Jesus, who at once confers the new name of Cephas. The day following Jesus Himself bids Philip follow Him; and Philip finds Nathanael of whom the Lord says, as He was coming, Behold an Israelite indeed in whom is no guile! If I mistake not, we have thus a remnant emerging from John's testimony to see and abide with Jesus, going forward through John, yet beyond John, to dwell with Jesus where He dwelt, unknown to the world because it knew Him not. Such is the Christian's place, abiding with Jesus and following Him. But again we have the remnant once more, owned as God's Israel, seen under the fig-tree, though still strongly prejudiced against a Messiah in humiliation, but finally convinced by the proof of His omniscience, as well as His grace, and acknowledging the Nazarene to be the Son of God and King of Israel. Greater things should be seen, as the Lord told him; from that time even heaven open and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of man — the head not of the Jews only but over all according to God's counsels, even now the object and centre of all angelic service.

In the case of Nicodemus (John 3), I see no dispensational difference, but rather the universal and indispensable necessity of the new birth for every man in every dispensation who shall see and enter the kingdom of God. This is introduced, as has been often remarked, by the refusal of Jesus in the closing scene of John 2 to trust man even when ready to believe in Him because of the miracles He had wrought. It was human faith, the fruit not of the Holy Ghost, but of man's mind, and good for nothing in God's eye. "Ye must be born anew" to have part in the kingdom — all alike, the Jew even as the Gentile.

2. John 2 shows us, mystically, the future earthly kingdom, when the true marriage-feast is celebrated, and forms for purifying yield to the wine of joy which the Lord will create and give freely; and when execution of judgment shall fall on the proud perverters of all things holy.

Bible Treasury Volume 6, p. 304. July, 1867.

Q. Matthew 16: 19; Matthew 18: 18 — What is the true form of the future with the perfect part. in these texts? Does it teach, what has been drawn from it and apparently by more than one Christian recently, not a ratification in heaven consequent on the binding on earth, but that what was bound on earth had been previously bound in heaven? W.

A. I am of opinion that there is no ground grammatically, any more than in the scope of our Lord's doctrine, to suppose that the participle δεδεμένον expresses time past relatively to that which is signified by the future ἔσται. The idea is that of a certain condition viewed abstractly from consideration of actual time. "Whatever thou mayest bind on the earth shall be a thing bound in the heavens," etc. It is well known that, according to the grammarians, the futurum III or exactum in many verbs (as δέω, κόπτω, παύω, πιπράσκω) supplies the place of the simple future passive, as may be seen in Jelf's Gr. Gr. second ed. Vol. II. p. 71. The difference, I would add, is that the complex form before us views the result as permanent (δεδεμένον) but, beyond doubt, of a future act (ἔσται). Had the meaning contended for been meant, care would have been taken to express it distinctly, as ἤδη δεδεμένον ἔσται ἐν τ. οὐ., or ἔσται τὸ δεδεμένον or in some other way quite different from the actual construction, which appears to me to admit of no other translation than that which is given in the Authorized Version.

Bible Treasury Volume 6, p. 336. September, 1867.

Q. 2 Thessalonians 1: 10. What is the difference of saints and believers? and why is the Lord to be glorified in the one and admired in the other? I have asked a good many, and all see the difficulty: if you could throw a little light on it, I should be very thankful. E.C.

A. The careful reader will note that two classes of enemies are brought before us in verse 8: those that know not God, Gentiles; and those who, if they could not in the same way be said to be ignorant of God, do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, Jews. They were both such as should pay the penalty of everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His might, when He shall have come to be glorified in His saints and to be admired in all that have believed. It is not the moment of the translation of the saints to heaven, but of the appearing or day of the Lord, when He shall come, not to receive them to Himself, but "to be glorified in his saints." This, however, being comparatively vague — for He might be glorified simply in their glorification, and this wholly outside the ken of the earth — we have greater precision in the next clause, "and to be wondered at in all that have believed." Here display to others is more prominent. It is no question of those who shall be brought to know His glory on earth after He is thus come, but of all those that have believed previously; and as "the saints" in whom He is said to be glorified would fully apply to those of the Old Testament, so I think "all that have believed" more properly belongs to the present time, when faith has its largest exercise and fullest development. Those of old were separated to God, and though they had faith practically, yet the especial character in reference to God and Christ was hope or trust. Now that redemption is accomplished, it is in the strictest sense faith. And this seems to be confirmed by the appended parenthetic application to the Thessalonians: "for our testimony to you was believed." "In that day" belongs, of course, to their manifestation with Christ in glory.

Bible Treasury Volume 6, p. 367. November 1867.

Q. Romans 8: 9, 10. What is the special teaching of this part of the epistle? Could Old Testament saints be said to be not in the flesh but in the Spirit? If not, why not? What is the meaning of "the Spirit of Christ?" and why the different forms of describing the Spirit here? What is the force of "he is none of his?" Why is it οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτοῦ rather than αὐτῳ? Does it mean merely a sheep of Christ, or one born of God, or what more? Again, why is it body (σῶμα) here and not the flesh (σὰρξ)? and what is the distinct connection of "because of sin," and "because of righteousness?" X.Y.

A. As regards the first query, the intelligence of the passage supposes a clear apprehension of the christian's individual position before God, and is the expression of that position in, if I may so speak, its dissected characters. It does not speak simply of full and perfect forgiveness of sins through the blood of Christ and of a righteousness of God manifested therein (that is found in the end of Romans 3), but unfolds the elements of the position of the believer before God as reckoning himself dead to sin, baptized to Christ's death and alive to God through Jesus Christ our Lord, as having discovered not that we had sinned, and come short of the glory of God (that again is found in chapter 3), but that in him, that is in his flesh, dwelleth no good thing. He has learned not what he has done merely, but what he is. Hence the simple fulness of grace is more largely stated in Romans 5, which closes that first part at verse 11 — God's love to the sinner, so that we joy in Him, knowing His love. It is God towards the sinner and so known. Romans 8 is the believer before God, his privileges fuller, but grace and divine love in itself not so absolutely stated. One is God Himself to the sinner, the other the believer's standing with God. In Romans 3 Christ has died for our sins when we were sinners; now is added, we have been baptized to His death and are to reckon ourselves dead, the bearing of which, moreover, on the law and our experience under it is reasoned out by the Spirit in Romans 7.

Having prefaced this, which will make the answers more intelligible, or at least lay the ground for them if apprehended, I reply, Old Testament saints could not be described as not in the flesh, but in the Spirit. The Spirit is the seal of our new position in Christ, promised in the prophets and by the Lord, and received by Him for us after His ascension (Acts 2: 33), and given as the Spirit of adoption, and uniting us to Him ascended. The distinction of flesh and Spirit is founded on the descent of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, and the possession of the Spirit promised by Christ, and the present fruit of His redemption work. In His time on earth, John could say, The Holy Ghost was not yet because Jesus was not yet glorified. And lust was working in the Old Testament saints, but now the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and freedom by the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death is known only to those who have the Spirit given consequent on an accomplished redemption. It is clear they could not be in the Spirit if the Spirit was not given, and scripture is as clear on this as words can make it. The gift of the Spirit was such and so dependent on Christ's going away, that it was expedient for them He should do so. I have said above "if apprehended," because it cannot be but by experience. Forgiveness I can understand in a certain way, if I have it not, for men are forgiven their faults by parents, etc., and the burden of debt being removed is also intelligible. But being dead and reckoning myself dead when I feel myself alive is not so easy even to understand, till divine grace, teaching me to submit to God's righteousness, has set me free in the consciousness of a new position in which alive in Christ I treat the flesh as dead. It is called "the Spirit of Christ," because it is that which forms us in living likeness to Him. It is Christ in us in the power of life. This was perfectly displayed in His life in itself. In us it is realized in the measure in which we walk in the Spirit as we live in the Spirit.

Some further remarks will clear this point. The enquirer may remark that it is called "the Spirit of God," "the Spirit of Christ," and "the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus." I need not say that it is the same Spirit. But in the first, it is in contrast with the flesh (see Galatians 5: 17). In the second it is that form of life in which its own qualities are displayed as in Christ Himself. In the third, it is the pledge of final deliverance and glorifying of the body itself into the likeness of Christ glorified, here spoken of however not farther than the quickening of the body by reason of it; but it goes on to the quickening of the mortal body itself.

As regards οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτοῦ, all here is spoken of the Christian as such, subjectively perfect as to his christian state. He who has not Christ's Spirit is not His. It is not a question of what he may be afterwards, or whether he is a sheep, or, so to speak, αὐτῳ; but even if God be working in him to lead him to Christ, he is not yet His in fact until he has His Spirit. Redemption and assurance of faith have been so set aside in evangelical teaching (though not at the Reformation — assurance was insisted on then as alone justifying faith) that many persons who have the Spirit of Christ, which is that of liberty and adoption, are afraid to be free and to say they are children, and yet they have the Spirit of adoption. Such are surely His; but none can be said to be His (αὐτοῦ) till they have His Spirit. All men are Christ's in a certain sense; all the sheep are His own in another; but none can be said to be his when they have not His Spirit.

The σὰρξ is never dead; σὰρξ would not do at all here; when the σῶμα is alive, active in will, it is σὰρξ , and there is sin. Hence if Christ be in you (not simply, if I am born of God, which a man is in Romans 7); but if Christ be in me I reckon myself dead; I am, in the true christian estimate, dead. (Compare Colossians 3.) The body is dead because its only produce, if alive, is sin. It is for the Christian a mere lifeless instrument of the new man, of the Spirit that dwells in me. It is to be remarked here, that in this part of the chapter the Spirit is looked at as the source of life, though as dwelling in us. It is the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus afterwards. It is looked at personally as acting in us; hence, it is said, the Spirit is life. I own and recognize only the Spirit that dwells in me as the source and spring of life in me, because righteousness is what I seek, and its fruit in contrast with flesh, a contrast fully made previously. Πνεῦμα is surely the Spirit of God, but dwelling in us, and the source of and characterizing life. The Old Testament saints could not be said to be of Christ thus, as is apparent from what has been said. The saint really under law, in the Romans 7 state, could not either be said to be αὐτοῦ. But we must remember that many are practically under law by false teachers keeping them there, who are not really, but in secret look to God as their Father.

Q. 2 Corinthians 4: 10. What is meant by νέκρωσιν (translated in the English Bible "dying") here? Is it "deadness" or the state of death, or "killing," or what else? W.

A. Νέκρωσισ is stated to have a passive or rather neutral sense as well as active, it is not simply deadness. It is not the state of death, but, where not killing, the act of dying. So putting to death even is used in English: only agency is supposed there. I may say 'his putting to death' was inexcusable, i.e., his being put to death. In Romans 4 it is not simply death, as if Sarah were dead, but the losing of the power of life which had taken place. He did not think of Sarah's womb losing its vital powers. In 2 Corinthians 4: 10 it is not losing, as in Romans 4, but he realized in the body the applying death to it, as death was Christ's portion. It is not, as to Christ, the Jews' act of crucifying and slaying, which is in mind. Hence killing does not suit, but the fact of the setting aside of life. No English word exactly answers. Dying is looked at as the fruit of something at work; but it is not the working of the instrument which is looked at, but the effect on the person. He held his body down as dead because, as regards Christ in this world, he knew Him as one who had died to it, for whom putting to death was His portion and the source of all blessing. It is the cross applied to the flesh's life. Νέκροσις is making a corpse of, depriving of life; this ended with his body because it had been so with Christ. So Peter says, Christ having suffered in the flesh, we are to arm ourselves with the same mind.

Q. Ephesians 4: 13. Why is "the knowledge of the Son of God" added to "the unity of the faith," and what is meant by each? and by "the perfect man?" and "the measure of the stature of Christ?" and why not ἄνδρα rather than ἄνθρωπον (as in Colossians 1)? P.

A. The Epistle to the Ephesians contemplates the Church all through in its perfectness and privileges, and does not touch the question of its decay as entrusted to man's responsibility, which is in 1 Corinthians. God has provided for the accomplishment of the object here spoken of in spite of failure, but it is here looked at without reference to it. The adding of the knowledge of the Son of God was necessary, because it is up to His stature thus known that we are to grow. The arriving at common unity of faith is the general basis, solidity as freed from the vacillations of wind of doctrine; but besides that, we are to grow up to Him who is the Head in all things (as in Colossians 1: 28), that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus. The perfect man simply means the state — a full-grown man; but the measure of the stature of a full-grown man in Christ, is Christ Himself, all the fulness that is in Him wrought into the soul, so that it should be formed by it, and like to and filled with Christ in all its thoughts; its subjective state measured and formed by the objective fulness of Christ, so that there should be no discrepancy and no separation from Him; the saint grown up to Him in everything. How wondrous such a thought is, I need not say; but this is what is before us. A perfect man as to the expression is simply a full grown man. So Hebrews 5: 14 and Hebrews 6: 1. Ἄνθρωπος is the race including man and woman, and would not be appropriate here. Speaking merely of men, I say πάντα ἄνθρωπον, as Colossians 1. Ἀνὴρ is the word of dignity in the race, and so he is looking at it there. You would not think of a woman in saying one was growing up to full manhood.

Q. 2 Peter 1: 19. How does the "day-star" (φωσφόρος) differ from the morning-star (ὁ ἀστὴρ ὁ πρωι>νὸς) in Revelation 2: 28? It is well known that in Revelation 22: 16 the reading ὀρθρινὸς is spurious, and it should be πρωι>νὸς as in chapter 2.

A. There is only a shade of meaning different in ὁ ἀστὴρ ὁ πρωι>νὸς and φωσφόρος, one referring to the early appearance, the other to its introducing dawn or light. Peter is speaking off prophecy as a light, a candle shining in a dark place — God's light in the darkness of this world; with that he contrasts Christ's heavenly coming the hope of the saints as bringing in the light of a new day.  Ὁ ἀστὴρ ὁ πρωι>νὸς is merely what it is — its appellative, Christ Himself, still not in the kingdom (that precedes in Revelation 2: 28, and is found rather in "the Root and Offspring of David" in Revelation 22.)

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 7.

Bible Treasury Volume 7, p. 16. January 1868.

Q. 1. Acts 2, Acts 8, Acts 10, Acts 19; Romans 8, etc. — It being allowed that Acts 2 is the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost to form and indwell the Church, but only taking effect on Jewish believers, would Acts 10: 44 be explained of a similar descent upon the Gentiles in such a way as to supplement Acts 2? or should we avoid the word "descent" and call it a manifestation of power to them as from one already present on earth, but not having before formally operated on the Gentiles? I conclude that Acts 8: 14-17 and Acts 19: 1-7 are somewhat different, as in both these instances there was the intervention of the hands of the apostles.

Granting that we have at present no manifestation of the Holy Ghost to expect, such as was exhibited in any of the passages adduced above, ought, nevertheless, a believer to be conscious of the time when the Holy Ghost indwelt him, distinct from and after his regeneration? or is it a matter for his faith, deduced from such passages as Romans 8? W.H.G.W.

Q. 2. I confess I feel a difficulty in seeing anything more than faith as a condition before receiving the Holy Ghost. Is not Acts 10 the normal mode of that gift to us of the Gentiles? May not the language of Ephesians 1: 13 be owing to the peculiarity of the circumstances of the disciples in Acts 19?

A. It is evident, I think, that the great truth of the presence of the Spirit baptizing the believers was made good at Pentecost, of which Acts 10 records the extension or application to the Gentiles, as in fact none but Jews received Him at the beginning. Acts 8 and Acts 19 appear to me supplementary and special, the one verifying the place of the apostles of the circumcision, as the other maintained Paul, and hence in both these subordinate instances there was imposition of hands. It was the outpouring on fresh souls of the Holy Ghost already sent down from heaven; and whatever difference is to be observed in the manner is due to the variety of the circumstances. But in every instance this gift of the Spirit is distinct from faith and consequent on it. It always supposes the soul born again, whether the interval be as short as the limits of the same discourse, or have days, weeks, months, or years between. That is, impartation of life. For a soul may have this new nature and no peace, no simple submission as yet to the righteousness of God. There may be a struggle under law, a trying to die to sin, fresh efforts under law to improve self. This often goes on in souls really quickened, as we read in Romans 7, and may have seen frequently if we did not taste of this experience. The Holy Ghost is given when one rests by faith on the work of Christ. He regenerates the unbeliever, but He seals none till they believe the gospel. There must be life for sealing, and more too — a soul resting on the ground of accomplished redemption. Now souls are often quickened but tried and miserable as yet for sometime afterward. So the Jews at Pentecost had repented and were even baptized before they received the Spirit; so the Samaritans believed and were baptized first, not to speak of the disciples of John at Ephesus. Nay, Cornelius himself had been for some time a godly and prayerful man, as his household may have been too. But that many were really first awakened under Peter's preaching, i.e. at Pentecost, I do not contest: only in all cases there is, I judge, necessarily an interval, let it be ever so brief, between life (or quickening) and the gift of the Spirit which seals the living believer. The possession of peace to them that believe goes along with this reception of the Spirit, as outward power also marked it of old for a sign to unbelievers.

Q. What are the distinctive characteristics of a meeting of the assembly as such? Should a scripture-reading be regarded in this light? If held statedly in a private house, would 1 Corinthians 14: 34, 35 or 1 Timothy 2: 11, render a question from a female invalid? Where does 1 Corinthians 11: 5, 13 apply? EDIN.

A. When Christians come together ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ (i.e., as an assembly), there is an entire openness for such action as the Spirit may direct in prayer and singing, blessing and thanksgiving, reading, speaking (subject of course to the regulations of the Lord in 1 Corinthians 14). This is not at all the character of a scripture-reading, whether stated or occasional, at a public meeting-room or in a private house. One point of value in it is to afford an opportunity for questions and explanations which would be out of place in the assembly. The nature of a meeting depends not on the fact of who are present, but on its aim and character. Thus, a lecture or a preaching of the gospel, like a reading-meeting, might have all the saints of a place present; but its own character is quite unaffected by such a circumstance. Nevertheless, a social character is, I think, desirable for a scripture-reading, so as to make it expedient, as well as lawful, for a woman to ask a question, if she wished. There are cases as when many men are present, where nature itself would teach her to prefer silence. 1 Timothy forbids not this, but teaching and the exercise of authority. Prophesying (according to 1 Corinthians 11 compared with 1 Corinthians 14) was lawful for women, not in the assemblies but at home; where, as I suppose, Philip's four daughters exercised their gift unobtrusively and with decorum. So too Priscilla, with her husband, helped Apollos in private.

Q. Is "the body of Christ" a heavenly designation? S.

A. It is "heavenly" as descriptive of union with our glorified head, but not in the sense of applying to the members of Christ when viewed as actually in heaven. It is a heavenly relationship, but is always, I think, used in Scripture of Christians still on earth. The reason, I suppose is, that the body is where the Holy Ghost is who baptizes those who compose it into one. Departed Christians, therefore, though of course members of that body, are not contemplated, because their spirits are gone to be with Christ in heaven whence the Holy Spirit came down to form the assembly on earth.

Bible Treasury Volume 7, p. 47. March 1868.

Q. What is the bearing of Matthew 11: 12, and Luke 16: 16?

A. It is important to pay attention to the place where these passages are found in the gospels. In Matthew, chapter 11 marks the transition from the presentation of Christ to the nation, the Gentiles being excluded. What is found in Matthew 10 speaks of this presentation until the return of the Son of man, and the new order of things which took place in consequence of the rejection of Christ. Verse 20-30 of Matthew 11 present this change in the most striking manner. The Saviour upbraids the cities where He had laboured for their deplorable unbelief, and submits to the will of God in this dispensation. This submission opens for His heart the enigma of that grace which appears in all its simplicity, and in all its power.

It is a question of knowing the Father, and the Son alone can reveal Him; but He invites "all that labour and are heavy laden" to come to Him, and He will give them rest. His person, and not Israel, is the centre of grace and of the work of grace. He alone reveals the Father. The judgment of Israel is developed in Matthew 12, and the mysteries of the kingdom are brought out in Matthew 13. On the occasion of this transition we see the testimony of John and that of Christ equally rejected.

This transition is, if possible, still more clearly marked in Luke at the end of chapter 13. The rupture between Jehovah and Jerusalem is complete; the house which belonged to the children of Jerusalem, once the "house of God," is abandoned, and they will not see the Lord until Psalm 118 is accomplished in their repentance. Then in Luke 14, the change in the ways of God is clearly shown, and the sphere of the activity of His grace is no longer the now-rejected Israel, but the whole world, after having gathered in the poor of the flock of His people. (Ver. 16-24.) Then the ways of God in sovereign grace towards men — towards sinners — are brought out in that treasury of grace and love, which is found in Luke 15; and in Luke 16, the Lord shows the use that man ought to make of that which He possessed according to nature, being now that which had been particularly proved in Israel — a steward who was dismissed. He should make use of it in grace, in view of the future. His mission was the pivot of the change. In this point of view the mission of Christ on the earth — His ministry — was but the complement of that of John the Baptist. Compare Matthew 4: 17, Matthew 3: 2. Only the latter sung the doleful dirge of judgment, and the former the joyful song of hope and of grace, just as our chapter explains it to us.

In the passages which occupy us, Matthew speaks as thinking of Israel; Luke, as thinking of all men.

Two great systems of God with respect to the earth are found included in His counsels, and revealed in the word. One depended on the faithfulness of man to the responsibility which weighed upon him, the other on the active power of God. These are the dispensations of the law and of the kingdom. But there was a moment of transition, when the kingdom was preached, and preached in the midst of Israel by John the Baptist and by Christ, without its having been established in power. The people were put to a moral test as to their use of the right of entering in. For the rest, the Prophets and the Psalms had indeed announced beforehand the character of those who were to have a part in the blessings of the kingdom. See Psalm 15, Psalm 24, Psalm 37, and many others; Isaiah 48: 22; Isaiah 51, Isaiah 57: 21, Isaiah 66: 2, and a multitude of other passages. The sermon on the mount has put a seal to this testimony by giving it actuality. Now the preaching of the kingdom had for its effect to separate the remnant (namely, those who had ears to hear) from the evil and hypocrisy which reigned in the midst of the people, to prepare them for the entrance of the kingdom, if it had been established in power; and in fact, Christ being rejected, that they might become the nucleus of the assembly which, according to the counsels of God, was about to be revealed. Then the kingdom took the character of sowing and other similar forms, and not that of the kingdom of a king in power, and so it continued to be preached as about to come, although the salvation and the glory of the Church were to occupy, from the coming down of the Holy Spirit, the principal place in the doctrine of which the Spirit is the source.

It was therefore at the moment when the relationships of Israel with God by means of the Messiah had become impossible, and when the relationships founded on the law, and maintained by the testimony of the prophets, were drawing to an end, through the publication of the kingdom ready to be established and in a certain sense, present in the person of the King — it was at that moment that the Lord pronounced these words, which we are seeking to render clear to our readers by answering the question which has been here put.

Now, the first thing that these words state is, that "the law and the prophets were until John." Israel was placed by God on that footing until John's ministry. They had but to observe the law, and to rejoice in the hope given by the prophets, and all was well. This was no longer the case after John. The kingdom was not established; if it had been, the power of God would have settled everything. Order and peace would have reigned; the remnant would have been blessed in the kingdom where the King reigned in righteousness. But it was not so; it was preached, and preached by prophets — and by those who were more than prophets — but by the prophets who were reviled and rejected, and for whom the wilderness and death were an abode or a reward. The hypocritical nation, a generation of vipers, would have nothing of it. It was the violent ones, those who were not stopped by obstacles and opposition, but who opened to themselves a way through all, these alone it was who were securing a place for themselves. There is only this difference between Matthew and Luke, that Matthew speaks exclusively of the character of those who seize on the kingdom, and the position of the latter, and does not therefore go beyond the application of these thoughts to the Jewish people. Luke had formally spoken of the highways and hedges, and had by his expressions opened the door to the Gentiles without formally pointing to them as the "whomsoever," so often quoted by Paul. "Every one," he says, forces his way into it." Since it was a matter of preaching and of faith, the Gentile who would listen to the preaching and have that faith would enter in, like any other.

Nevertheless, He only opens the door by a principle, according to the doctrine of that gospel from Luke 4. It decidedly opens heaven, and completely overturns the Jewish system, which made earthly blessings to be a proof of God's favour.

Q. 1 Thessalonians 4: 14, 16. What is the force of the expressions, and what the distinction, of "sleep in Jesus," and "dead in Christ;" especially with reference to the connection of "Jesus" with "sleep," and of "Christ" with "dead?" W.

A. It is to be borne in mind that Jesus is the personal name of our Lord. It is never used as the expression of a condition, like Christ. The appearance of this in verse 14 is not justified by an appeal to the language of the Holy Ghost. The real force is "those put to sleep" (or "those that have slept") "by Jesus." Such is His dealing in their case. The death of His own is sleeping by His hand, not as the wages of sin, or Stan's power. It is by that very person who Himself died and rose. Whereas "dead in Christ" is a condition. The saints are dead, not merely like natural men, but dead in Christ. "In Jesus" could not, I think, be thus used. Ephesians 4: 21 is no exception; for it means "in the person of Jesus," and not a condition. Hence it is unscriptural to say "yours in Jesus" or "chosen in Jesus;" it should be "in Christ," in Christ Jesus," "in the Lord," etc.

Bible Treasury Volume 7, p. 64. April 1868.

Q. Matthew 7: 22, 23; Luke 13: 25-28. Do these texts warrant the inference that the parable of the virgins (Matthew 25) refers to the Jewish remnant, rather than to Christendom? J.D.B.

A. It is a mistake in interpreting scripture to conceive that similarity in one point or more establishes identity, many of which however striking would be of no weight against a single irreconcilable difference. The context (and not verbal analogies even if far stronger than in these instances) is alone decisive. It is worth remarking, just to sew how precarious this ground is, that a well-known living commentator and critic contrasts Matthew 7: 23 with Matthew 25: 12. The truth is, that in the day of the Lord all will be judged who have not been saved, and on similar though not identical grounds; for the Lord will deal with Jew, Gentile, or Christian profession on their own footing, but in His light. The passage in Luke is proved by the context to be the judgment of the Jews who refused the urgent proffers of Jesus. The passage in Matthew 7 need not be so restrained, though no doubt applying there and then. But the parable of the virgins, both contextually and in its own statements, applies not to the Jews (who have already been fully treated of in the preceding two chapters, nationally and as a remnant), but to professing Christians consisting of disciples real and unreal. The Jewish remnant will be rather the earthly bride than virgins going out to meet the Bridegroom; neither will they from the first possess the gift of the Spirit (the "oil in their vessels") like the wise virgins; nor will they go to sleep during their awful hour of trial.

Q. How may Matthew 13 be reconciled with 2 Thessalonians 2, upon the following points? In the prophetic teaching of the Lord Jesus, when on earth, in Matthew 13, there is no present hope, but a prolonged exhortation, at the end of the age, when the wheat is gathered into the garner; whereas, in the teaching of the Holy Ghost from the ascended Lord, the Church is besought "by the coming of the Lord and our gathering together unto him," as a present hope. Were the Thessalonians "wheat" — or rather are Christians, as such, in Matthew 13 as well as in the epistles? If so, how can the same persons have a present hope, and a protracted one? R.

A. I am not aware of anything that justifies the contrast thus drawn between the parable of the wheat and the tare-field, and the instruction in 2 Thessalonians 2 and elsewhere. The angelic intervention under the authority of the Lord is to gather together first the tares and bind them in bundles with a view to their yet future destruction, before the wheat is gathered into His barn. But why should this be styled a prolonged expectation? Why should it interfere with the constant hope of the coming of the Lord to receive us to Himself? This parable, like all others, is constructed, as it appears to me, expressly to keep up the habitual looking for the closing scene. One could not collect from it anything to forbid that first generation of disciples expecting to be called away to their heavenly mansions. Of course, the same thing applies to all that followed. Thus I see no reason to doubt that the wheat includes the Thessalonian believers with all other Christians. "In the time of harvest" is not a single point of time with previous events protracting the hope, but the general season of gathering in the saints, executing judgment on the tares already disposed by the angels with a view to it, and then the appearing of the saints in glory, which closes this age and introduces the new one.

Bible Treasury Volume 7, p. 160. October 1868.

Q. Revelation 19: 8 — What is the meaning of the inspired explanation of the symbolical "fine linen?" B.

A. Observe, first, that it is said to be the righteousness "of saints," not of God, but of His people. Secondly, it is not exactly their righteousness, but their "righteousnesses." (δικαιώματα). This it is impossible in any just sense to understand of the righteous standing which is made ours in Christ. God's righteousness in him is the same for all saints. But each saint here will have his or her own righteousness. Hence it is no question of taking up the saints to heaven, which will be the crowning act of grace, nor of our presentation in the Father's house in a way suitable to His grace. We must therefore distinguish between the white raiment of Revelation 4 and the fine linen of Revelation 19. The one was the clothing of pure grace, the fruit of divine righteousness in Christ. But in Revelation 19 it was given to the bride to be arrayed in "fine linen" which is expressly said to be the saints' righteousness. It is in view of our appearing with Christ before the world, and consequently when all the righteous results of the ways of the saints shall be manifested.

Bible Treasury Volume 7, p. 256. April 1869.

Q. 1. What do the "stars" of the seven churches represent? (Revelation 1: 20)

2. Who are they who rest from their labours and their works do follow them? (Revelation 14: 13). W. de R.B.

A. 1. The "stars" of Revelation 1, 2, 3, are symbols of those who rule in the assemblies subordinately to Christ. They are called "angels," because they represent, in the way of moral responsibility, the sphere in which they are called to act for Christ, and are thus identified, each, with the state of the assembly in which he may be thus set.

2. Revelation 14: 13 announces the blessedness henceforth of those that die in the Lord. There is no more dying thus. The end of such suffering as well as of the testimony that exposed to it is come. Hence we have the Lord's coming in judgment immediately consequent. The special reference is to the Apocalyptic martyrs for His name.

Q. I have seen it stated that "the whole of Acts 8: 37, 'If thou believest with all,' etc. is universally pronounced by Biblists as an interpolation. It exists in only one Greek MS, having no place in the other MSS. It is marked in our Greek Text as spurious, is omitted from some, and ought never to have had a place in our English Bible." G.T.A.

A. The verse exists in Laud's Unical MS, now in the Bodleian, in Beda's Greek (unless it be the same copy), in about twenty cursives, as well as some versions. Nor has it wanted defenders, as Wolf abroad and Whitby at home. At the same time it was certainly not read by much the weightier as well as by the most numerous authorities, and is justly rejected by the best critics, and should disappear from all Bibles. It seems to have been read by several early fathers as Irenæus and Cyprian if it was not inserted to support the later copies of the Vulgate. Internal evidence is, at least, as decisively against it as external.

Bible Treasury Volume 7, p. 271. May 1869.

Q. Does the term καθεξῆς in Luke 1 imply historic sequence as is the groundwork of several harmonies of the Gospels? T.

A. The term is used only but frequently by Luke. It signifies properly, in a regular series, one after another, and hence sometimes simply following, or next, in order. Liddell and Scott say that the more usual word is ἐφεξῆς; and on this word they remark that it is less usually employed of time than of regular order of arrangement. On the whole, I see no sign whatever that Luke uses it for chronological order; nor has the word in itself this meaning, save as chronological order is one sort of order. The passages in Luke, beside the one in question are Luke 8: 1 ; Acts 3: 24; Acts 11: 4; Acts 18: 23. He too alone uses ἐξῆς, Luke 7: 11; Luke 9: 37; Acts 21: 1; Acts 25: 17; Acts 18: 18.

Q. 1. What authorities have ἔξοδον and δόξαν in Luke 9: 31 respectively ? Which is to be preferred ?

2. Which is more exact, in Hebrews 1: 8, "Therefore God, [even] thy God," etc.; or, "Therefore, O God, thy God," etc.? And why?  C.

A. 1. Only a few cursive manuscripts give δόξαν, evidently through δίξῃ just before and δόξαν shortly after. Lachmann and Tischendorf do not so much as notice it as a various reading; but Griesbach and Scholz enumerate the juniors that so read, though of course following ἔξοδον, with all the best and most ancient authorities. Matthaei conjectures that this other may have crept in from Chrysostom.

2. As far as grammar is concerned, I think there need be no question that both the Hebrew and the Greek are capable of either construction. Compare Psalm 1. 7; Psalm 67: 7 for the nominative; and Psalm 63: 4 for the vocative, as noticed by another. In verse 8, ὁ Θεὶς is unquestionably used in a vocative sense; but this is no way necessary here. The context must decide; and to my mind the anointing would not be congruous with the vocative force in verse 9, so that I incline to the Authorized Version.

Q 1. Do the events occurring under the seals, trumpets, and vials, from Revelation 6 to 19, occupy the whole of Daniel's seventieth week (Dan. 9: 27), or the latter half only?

2. Are the two periods of 42 months and 1260 days in Revelation 11: 2, 3 to be considered as extending over the whole of the above week, or only half of it? If the latter view be taken, how can the three and-a-half days of verse 9, beyond the 1260 days be accounted for?

3. Is it correct to say that the trumpets extend over the first half of the week, the vials over the second half, and the seals over the whole week?

4. Are these events to be considered as wholly prophetical; or do they admit of historical application as well? J. T.

A. J. T. is referred to the BIBLE TREASURY (first edition), vol. I., pp. 276, 277, and Vol. II., p. 63 for answers to queries 1 and 2. As to his third question, I think it certain that the seals precede the trumpets, which go down to the introduction of the kingdom in a general way, as the vials go over the latter part of the ground specifically. But the seals do not comprehend the whole week, nor do they go down to the end. I am not disposed to doubt the intention of a general historical application, besides the fulfilment in the great future crisis.

Bible Treasury Volume 7, p. 287. June 1869.

Q. Rom. 8: 10. Can this mean that the body indeed is dead (i.e., by the sentence on the first Adam), but the spirit is life because of righteousness (i.e., righteousness would also be the cause)? The force would be, that though the body be or remain dead thus, the spirit, etc. The expression, "if Christ be in you" would require as much, because in this sense He does not cause the body to be dead. And the following verse would mean that this very dead body will be raised. QUERIST.

A. "Mortal" hardly chimes in with this. The other sense makes "the body is dead" depend directly on what precedes. If Christ be in you, the body is dead (i.e. reckoned dead according to Rom. 6) because of sin being its character if alive in flesh, and the spirit life because righteousness is the will of God and in us the fruit of the Spirit. I hardly think the first view can he maintained, however generally true in itself.

HOMAGE AND WORSHIP.

In the Bible Treasury for December there is an article on Προσκυνέω.  Would the writer be so good as to say what he means by doing homage or doing obeisance to Jesus Christ, and what he means by worshipping the Father?

A CONSTANT READER.

A. A well-known version of the New Testament, which has had the respectful commendation of the best Biblical scholars in the Anglican body as well as outside it, was attacked by one not only incompetent but disposed to impute the worst motives for that which was beyond his own measure. The writer of the reply had not the least notion of its source, though he has since heard the name with regret. The aim was to show that the translator insinuated the inferiority of the Son to the Father by restricting "worship" to the latter and translating the same word by "homage" where the Son was concerned. It was shown that this was doubly false; and that the version assailed does speak of "worship" where the Son is spoken of, and gives "homage" where the obeisance is unquestionably rendered to God the Father or to God as such It is admitted by all persons of real intelligence that the word "worship" has become narrowed in modern English, and that when the language was in an earlier stage it, embraced all acts of obeisance, such as prostration, which were paid to kings or other superiors, as well is what was paid to a divine Being (or one regarded as divine). So it was in Greek; so it stands in the Authorized Version, because at that time the English word "worship" had a generic force as well as that special reference. But this is not so in present usage; and therefore a modern translator must exercise his judgment. Whether Mr. D. has in every instance succeeded in determining the different senses is more than I would say; but his principle is sound and certain. It is ignorance to suppose that, when Jews came to Jesus to heal their diseases, they meant by their homage to convey their conviction that He was God. That He was God and therefore worthy of honour as the Father is what every Christian rejoices to know, and to pay it; but the true meaning of πρ. in these cases throughout the gospels is another matter. In John 4 "worship" is clearly required. On the other hand, "doing homage" may be and is rightly used where God or the Father is in question.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 8.

Bible Treasury Volume 8, p. 224. February 1871.

Q. Revelation 14: 19; Revelation 17: 4; Revelation 19: 1; Revelation 21: 12. Is not the grammar set aside in following the ancient copies? How are these anomalous constructions to be explained? W.L.

A. The anacolutha I cannot but accept on the authority of the best MSS. as the genuine phrases of the writer, which are no doubt in every instance intentional, though we may not in every instance see why. Later scribes changed these and many other such irregularities of form into expressions conformed to common syntax. Nobody would have introduced them unless they had been the readings of the text originally. The tendency of corrections is to smooth down what seems harsh. It is clear, that even apart from inspiration, John did not so write for want of knowing the more usual rules; for he employs them himself regularly, unless where he introduces these singular phrases for special reasons. The same principle is true of Luke 2: 13; Luke 19: 37; Acts 5: 16; Acts 21: 36; Philippians 2: 1 (in critical texts, ἒιτις οπλάχνα). But it is far more frequently applied and carried out more boldly in the Revelation than in any other part of the New Testament. Hebrew forms predominate.

As to the change from τὴν λ. to τὸν μ. which I accept as the true reading, it must be borne in mind that in the LXX. the substantive occurs sometimes in the masculine. Here the use of the two genders together is no doubt peculiar, and seems owing to the intervening phrases, τοῦ θομοῦ, τοῦ Θεοῦ, after which the Spirit gives more energy by availing Himself of the masculine form.

Again γέμον βδελυγμάτων καὶ τά is a mixture of the ordinary genitival construction with the accusative, as the corresponding Hebrew word does. Emphasis is secured thereby.

Revelation 19: 1 ὄχλου . . . λεγόντων is the constructio ad sensum, common enough even in classic Greek and Latin, a singular collective with a plural following. See Revelation 7: 9; John 12: 12. In Revelation 21: 12 ἔχουσα for ἔχουσαν is not the only instance of variatio structurae in verses 10-12. See Revelation 3: 12; Revelation 4: 1; Revelation 6: 9; Revelation 8: 9; Revelation 9: 14; Revelation 11: 1, 4, 15; Revelation 14: 7, 12; Revelation 16: 3; Revelation 17: 14; Revelation 18: 12; Revelation 19: 12. In many of these cases various readings appear from the effort to remove the strange shape of the phrase to common concords. In such cases the well-known canon applies.

Bible Treasury Volume 8, p. 256. April 1871.

Q. Psalm 109: 4. What is the force of the last clause? H.J.

A. "And I [am, or am to] prayer." So the holy sufferer describes it. Instead of his love they were his adversaries, and he gave himself up to prayer in consequence. How astonishingly true of the Lord! though no attentive mind can apply the psalm exclusively to Him, nor even every word to Him in ever so general a way. There is no reference to Christ's priestly or intercessional character; still less does it depict Him as the fountain and source of all prayer, however truly He may be so. To draw from this expression the inference that from all eternity His Father heard Him is forcing scripture. The real thought intended is the giving up oneself to prayer in presence of those who are adversaries without cause.

Bible Treasury Volume 8, p. 368. November 1871.

Q. 1 John 5: 6-10 — What is the witness in verse 10? Is it the Holy Ghost? If so, where is the truth of the indwelling of the Spirit introduced in that chapter? Is it in verse 6? And why is the Spirit first in verse 8 and last in verse 6? Also is the witness of men in verse 9 simply human testimony? or is it of men moved by the Holy Ghost? M.

A. Witness is an equivocal word in English, as it may mean either the person testifying, or the testimony borne. The Greek leaves no doubt that in verse 10 it is not the Holy Spirit, but the testimony itself. In verse 6 the Spirit is introduced as testifying, and there of course for the first time in the chapter, where He is viewed rather as present rendering testimony than as indwelling. This leads to a personification of the water and the blood so as to form a threefold class of witnesses, the Spirit who alone is strictly a person leading the way. (7) "For there are three that bear witness, (8) the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are to the one thing" (or, agree in one). On the other hand, verse 6 refers to the solemn fact, recorded only in the Gospel of John, where the water and the blood flowed from the pierced side of Jesus crucified: to which the Holy Spirit draws special attention as we see there. John 19: 34, 35. In fact the Spirit followed; in testimony He naturally comes first. The witness of man in verse 9 means a testimony simply human; and the reasoning, as in our Lord's discourses often (Luke 13: 15, 16; Luke 14: 4, 5; Luke 15) is what is technically called a minori ad majus. As a rule, man's testimony is valid: how much more worthy of credit is God's!

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 9.

Bible Treasury Volume 9, p. 16. January 1872.

Q. Acts 2: 38; Acts 22: 16. Is "remission of sins" or "wash away thy sin" in these texts a question of faith finding non-imputation before God, or of administrative forgiveness on earth? INQUIRER.

A. We must distinguish between the work in virtue of which sin is not at all imputed to those that believe (even as to those about whom there was no question of baptism as Abraham), and the actual administration of the blessing upon earth, both fully revealed and actually applied, the work on which it was grounded being accomplished. This revelation of remission is clearly pointed out. It is promised in the new covenant, and recognized by the New Testament in the institution of the Lord's supper. "This is my blood of the new covenant shed for many for the remission of sins." John the baptist was to bring the knowledge of salvation to God's people by remission of their sins (Luke 1). The disciples were to remit sins, and they would be remitted (John 20); and the commission in Luke, the one on which (not that on Matthew 28) all preaching in the Acts of the Apostles is founded, whether Peter's or Paul's, is that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in Christ's name. In past times, righteousness not being revealed, there had been forebearance (Romans 3); now that Christ has been offered, righteousness in the remission, or pretermission, of the sins that had taken place before (i.e. in Old Testament times) was proved. But this of course is not all. For God not only announced to souls individually (for, however many heard, it was individually) but set up a system on earth in which the new blessings were found, based on two instituted signs, baptism and the Lord's supper, one initiatory once for all, the other the continual memorial of the Lord's death till He come and the expression of the unity of the body. Of this last it is not our business to speak now. But baptism was the entrance into that system* within the precincts of which all christian blessings were found as externally administered on the earth. The first of these was remission of sins, on the reception of which came also the blessing by the Holy Ghost; and even if this was extraordinarily given as to Cornelius and his house, still they were admitted in an orderly way to the common blessings of Christians here below. But the first grand blessing needed was remission of sins: through this was knowledge of salvation and actual reception of it where it was received. Repentance and remission of sins were to be preached in Christ's name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem. Peter does this when the Jews on the day of Pentecost were pricked in their hearts, and says that these are the things looked for: If you repent and enter into this divinely administered door of blessing, you will receive the promised gift of the Holy Spirit. He does not say, Be baptized and you will receive remission of sins, but be baptized with the baptism to remission of sins, become Christians where this blessing is found. They were baptized εἰς to, or for it: so to Moses, to Christ, to His death. It was the truth and fact to which they were brought: owning this, they would then receive the Holy Ghost. It was the profession they came into. If true faith and repentance were there, they got the present actual administered remission; if not there, they did not get it as we seen in Simon Magus. It may be a hardening, but it is no blessing to him who is a hypocrite.

(*This system formed no part of Paul's mission and service; though he left it as he found it.)

Thus remission of sins is not the fact of non-imputation by the death of Christ (which last Old Testament believers had) but an actual status into which a person enters. I may have forgiven a person perfectly in my mind; but he has not forgiveness till it is pronounced upon him. Here there is no outward sign; where there is, it may be abused to self-deception, as we see in 1 Corinthians 10. The simile is used to show the difference between non-imputation on God's part and administered or declared forgiveness. See the case of Nathan with David. (2 Samuel 12: 13.) Observe also the connection of forgiveness with discipline where non-imputation is not at all the question.

Hence, when Paul was converted, Ananias said to him, "Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins." He entered then into an actually administered forgiveness. "Wash away thy sins" is of course a figure. It is not putting away the filth of the flesh that does it. But I come thereby into that which is proclaimed as the first blessing of the Christianity into which I enter becoming a professed Christian. If faith is there, my conscience is perfect according to the christian system, and the other blessings follow; if there is profession without real faith, I am in the case of Simon magus or of 1 Corinthians 10; but I have been baptized to that. In Acts 2 and Acts 22 the call is addressed to persons publicly under the power of the revelation and word of Christ; and they are then told what to do in order to obtain the blessings of Christianity actually here on earth, the path to perfect ones above. This must not be forgotten, for then they did enter, and for the first time, into the blessings attached to Christianity on earth.

Therefore Peter can say, in his first epistle (1 Peter 3: 21), "Which figure also now saveth us," taking care (as the proposition is general) to show that it was not simply the outward sign that did it. Hence when he addressed those pricked in heart by his word, he (on the inquiry what to do) put the whole matter according to the commission in the end of Luke. They inquired for a good conscience; for this is the true force of the expression in 1 Peter 3: not "the answer" as in the Authorized Version, but the inquiry (ἐπεώτημα) for a good conscience. In Acts 2 they inquired for and got it. They were baptized to this truth and administered fact — remission of sins, and received then the gift of the Holy Ghost.

On the other hand, of a person (being not a professed Christian, a Jew for example or a heathen) was convinced that Jesus was the Christ, or Son of God, and would not be baptized, one would not say that his sins were washed away or that he was saved. See Mark 16: 16. But quickening seems never spoken of in connection with baptism. The question raised is not life but washing away or remission of sins. It is not a question of non-imputation, again, but the administration of forgiveness here on earth, as the privilege conferred freely on the conscience in Christianity, in which forgiveness is administered as a present actual thing. The baptized enter into this; though, being an outward or sacramental institution, it may be merely a form.

Bible Treasury Volume 9, p. 80. May 1872.

Q. Matthew 27: 9. Why does Matthew here quote the prophecy as Jeremiah, when it is really Zechariah? A CHRISTIAN FRIEND.

A. The difficulty is due to the Jewish manner of citation, felt by many friends of inspiration and often pressed by adversaries. But it is remarkable that R. Isaac Chizzuk Emuna, in his determined assault on Matthew's credit, finds no objection to the use of Jeremiah's name instead of Zechariah's in this place. Yet it is almost incredible that he could have overlooked so obvious a peculiarity if he had regarded it as a fault, as he does object to Matthew's application of this prophecy to the Messiah, but not to his method of citing which to us westerns is apt to look strange. Hence the just inference appears to be that this learned Jew knew that such a form of citation was even more characteristically Jewish (and therefore more appropriate in Matthew) than the more simple and precise mention of the particular prophet in question.

The true point then is the principle on which the inspired writer thus cited. The imputation that he did not know the very palpable fact that the passage used was in Zechariah is even on human grounds absurd; for the evangelist abounds in the most profound and accurate use of the Old Testament throughout, and hence cannot fairly lie open to the charge of such a blunder as would be unworthy of an intelligent Sunday scholar.

Now it appears from a great Rabinnical authority (T. Bava Bathra, fol. 14, 2) that Jeremiah stood as a beginning and title to the later prophets, Joshua to the earlier, as contra-distinguished from the law and the Chetubim. Hence a citation from the later prophets (or what we should call the prophets) might well be made under the name of Jeremiah, no matter which was quoted in particular; especially as it appears from Sepher Hagilgulim (according to Surenhusius) that it was a common saying among the Jews that the spirit of Jeremiah was in Zechariah. It is a familiar fact attested by our Lord in the New Testament that the Old Testament was divided into the law, the psalms, and the prophets, which latter we have seen subdivided in the manner already described.

So the best copies of Mark 1: 2 read (not in the prophets, but) "in the prophet Isaiah," though two passages are cited, the latter of which only is Isaiah's, the former from Malachi. This may show how differently from us the Jews quoted. But ignorance or error is out of the question: they really attach to translators and copyists who tried to amend the true reading in some Greek copies and ancient versions of both these scriptures. It is the best wisdom and the simplest faith to accept scripture in its most accurate form in spite of difficulties, which the Spirit of God will enable us to solve if for His glory. But were the difficulties more and greater, could we not trust Him?

Bible Treasury Volume 9, p. 223. February 1872.

Q. Have a few brothers, who stay at the weekly meeting for consultation, usually after the prayer meeting, power to act for the "assembly," say in the matter of putting away, without distinctly calling a meeting of the "assembly?" And if a brother feels he cannot concur in a judgment thus arrived at, is he wrong in saying so at the Lord's table, in the event of such judgment being read there? J.K.

A. I am aware that, when assemblies are small, and more rarely in larger ones, there is apt to be a want of due care in apprising the saints of a meeting for considering a case of discipline which seems to call for putting away. This ought not to be.

But if a "few brothers" remain at the close of a meeting of the assembly (either on the Lord's day, or during the week), and if they be of one mind, the case might be so far clear (especially as many could be there if they pleased) as to warrant their bringing it at once before the assembly at the breaking of bread. Only, if they knew of an honest difference of judgment (for one does not take account of party men, relatives, etc.) among brethren, they ought to seek the Lord about it together; for discussion at such a time is most undesirable, as haste is always. They ought therefore in such case to call a meeting, or at least announce a general meeting (not at a reading or other meeting in a private house) that the saints are requested to stay for consideration of a case of discipline.

If there has been irregularity in this respect, a brother might rightly say so, taking care of the facts first, and of his own spirit in the way it is named to the saints, so as to avoid the hateful appearance of factious opposition, or of other uncomely conduct. But undoubtedly a formal judgment ought to be arrived at by the assembly, not by a few for it; and therefore it is still open even at the last moment to call for arrest of action if the case be not quite clear. The few may come to a sound judgment and be used of God to awaken all to the gravity of the case and the will of the Lord about it; but due means should be used that the assembly should hear before judgment is pronounced, so as to satisfy all, and give occasion for correcting those mistakes which are very possible in such a world as this. In a perfectly plain case to hear the facts is enough; and judgment might follow at once. Technical delay of judgment under such circumstances is unworthy of the church, though it may suit the world and the lawyers.

Q. 2. Is it requisite that the assembly as such should agree to the proposal of names for communion? or is it enough that they be proposed by two or three having the confidence of the rest? A.B.

A. There is no small danger for some of attaching too much importance to the mere proposal for communion. This really involves no more than the judgment of the individuals who propose: if they propose rashly it is enough that the assembly refuse to receive those they propose — a wholesome but painful lesson for all concerned. The great point of importance is, not the proposal by a few individuals (which really and properly has nothing to do with the assembly; for in principle any brother is at liberty to propose whom he thinks fit), but the action of the assembly, who are all responsible, when a name is proposed, to satisfy themselves directly or through such visitors as they confide in, that the Lord has received those they accept after proposal. It is egregious to suppose that the assembly should propose as well as receive people; and to lay overmuch stress on the individuals who propose (however desirable that they be godly, and respected by all for spiritual competency) shows latent ministerialism. Exclusion and restoration answer, not to proposal, but to reception, and are all, save proposal, the act of the assembly, which in each case is bound to carry out what it believes to be the Lord's will in his word.

The grand thing is the assembly's acceptance or rejection of those proposed. To make too much of the proposers is to make too little of the assembly. If individuals propose carelessly, they should feel it as there fault. If the assembly receive carelessly, it is the assembly's fault (and it is vain to shift it thence on individuals); for to receive is their responsibility, not that of the proposers.

Q. What are the grounds of admission? what of exclusion? and what is meant by the unity of the body? H.D.

A. I know no ground of admission but the membership of Christ's body. Of course it is implied that the applicant affords no just occasion for exception either doctrinally or morally. Were there known evil in doctrine or practice, the clearest profession of the truth would only produce the deeper distrust. But a Christian, apart from such reasons, inconsistent with the godly confession of the Lord's name, is thoroughly admissible as such, hardly needs to be known. To demand ecclesiastical intelligence in the persons applying is not only without and against scripture, but a proof of lack of intelligence in those who seek for it in such circumstances. We ought not to look for spiritual understanding as to the church in those outside. Press for the confession of Christ, or the knowledge of redemption. All we could hope to find beyond the gospel is mere notions, till a soul is in the place which grace assigns it, till walking in communion. Those who are on church ground ought themselves to be intelligent as well as gracious; and if they are, they will assuredly help to smooth away difficulties for the ignorant, not increase them in the present snares and difficulties of Christendom, in a way the apostles did not when all was at the beginning clear and plain. If it be pleaded that such souls may still go backwards and forwards through ignorance of the evils of the world-church, denominationalism. etc.; the answer is that it is our duty, as far as we can, to instruct them within, not to create artificial and unwarranted barriers, or to keep them dangling without on one excuse or another which there is not honesty to avow, because it would be the avowal of sectarianism. But this largeness of heart, this yearning according to Christ over all that are His, this refusal to allow human rules expressed or understood to stand in the way of receiving in the Lord's name those He has called by grace, is as far as possible from the indifferentism which makes light of fundamental heterodoxy or defies the holy obligatory discipline of God's assembly.

There can hardly be too much care, both for the Lord's sake and His assembly, not to say for the souls themselves, in ascertaining on the most trustworthy evidence that those who come forward are members of Christ, not merely quickened but possessed of the Spirit, so as to join in Christian worship and every other godly function. Acts 11: 17.

To require more, not to accredit and act on that, is in my judgment a slight of the name of the Lord, and neither right nor wise. Honest ignorance we are bound to bear with, while seeking to teach the truth more perfectly; but we are yet more solemnly bound to purge out and keep from all that denies and dishonours Christ whether openly or by neutrality.

This suffices as to grounds of exclusion, the principle and details of which faith can find in the word of God. Originally all the church owned itself and acted as one. Those who so own and act now are seeking to walk in the unity of the body. For they take their stand for united action on the great truth that "there is one body and one Spirit," seeing also that the Lord has provided a resource even for the present state of His saints scattered by inadequate or false, by loose or narrow, grounds of union. They accept the unity produced by the Spirit who baptizes all Christians into one body; and if they cannot convince all others that this is the divine ground of church unity, they can at least act on it by grace themselves. Hence they seek diligently in the measure of their faith to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, while they would also maintain scriptural discipline among those who gather thus to the Lord's name. This is set aside by the Protestant theory of co-ordinate systems, though by none so distinctly as the Congregationalists; for they go so far as to make each congregation independent of every other on principle, whatever they may concede to courtesy — a fatal abuse of churches to deny the whole principle and practice of the church on earth.

Bible Treasury Volume 9, p. 256. April 1873.

Q. Will you kindly reply in the Bible Treasury to the following questions? I feel the subject to be an important one, and shall therefore be glad if you will add your own thoughts respecting it:-

1. Would the fact of servants not being slaves now, warrant the saying that one could not apply Ephesians 6: 5 to christian servants, as they are not in the present day what they were when the apostles wrote?

2. If the exhortations to wives, husbands, etc., flow not only from the relationships but standing brought out in the earlier chapters, can it be true that the relationship of the servant is lost, because he is not a slave? How then can christian servant sin the present day serve the Lord as such; for as far as they are concerned the relationship is supposed not to exist, although that of wives, husbands, children, etc., does?

3. Is the "fear and trembling" there spoken of, used in the sense of fearing wrath or punishment, and trembling in consequence?

4. Is there not ground for watchfulness, lest the spirit that is abroad in the world should manifest itself, in any measure, in the ways of such as serve in our homes or otherwise? And does not the advocacy of such principles tend to unsettle simple minds, and to encourage the insubordination that is so rife in the present day among men? Yours affectionately, F.W.

A. 1. The direct answer to the first point is that the Spirit employs the word οἰκέται, "domestics," in 1 Peter 2: 18, which simply means such as compose the household, and in no way refers to bondage or slavery. But these servants or domestics are exhorted to as thorough subjection as the christian slaves in Ephesians, Colossians, or 1 Timothy. No man can weigh the force of the Holy Ghost's appeal without feeling how deeply God's glory is concerned in their honouring their masters, be they ever so untoward. 1 Timothy 6: 2 shows how they are to feel and act if their masters were brethren, as the verse which follow express the Holy Ghost's strong denunciation of such misguided souls as venture to teach otherwise, turning the Lord's grace to the worst pride and rebelliousness.

2. But even if the care of God had not provided such an answer, what could be more ungrateful and base than to avail oneself of the mitigation of circumstances as to modern servants to deny their duty to their masters? The truth is that the ideas of liberty in these days have modified greatly the state of husbands and wives, parents and children, scarcely less than that of masters and servants; but as surely as the relations subsists, the duty abides for each and all.

3. I should refer to Philippians 2, 1 Corinthians 2, etc. to show that we ought not to lower "with fear and trembling" to mere dread of punishment, but view it rather as sense of weakness with that of solemn responsibility before God.

4. There can be no doubt that we have all to watch against the spirit of the age, lest we might be infected by it; the more because we may be unconscious of its evil and of our own dangerous nearness to it. There is a desire at work among men to burst all barriers and level whatever either checks men or is above them. Christ's servants have therefore in particular to be on their guard, if they would walk with god in holy separateness from that which characterizes the world, and will more and more till the day of the Lord.

Bible Treasury Volume 9, p. 271. May 1873.

Q. 1 Corinthians 5. — Was discipline in Bible days settled by the elders and then communicated to the assembly for it to act upon the judgment so rendered to it? Is this gone now? W.

A. That elders took an active and leading part in discipline, as in the general care and government of each local assembly, seems to me unquestionable according to scripture. It is sometimes forgotten or unknown that nine-tenth of cases of discipline need not and should not come before the assembly, but only such matters of scandal and wickedness, whether of doctrine or practice, as call for extreme measures as in public rebuke or, as the last resort, in excision. In this final act the assembly has the responsibility, though there may have been many efforts on the part of chief men among the brethren to avoid its necessity. In flagrant wickedness, as where a man called a brother is a fornicator, drunkard, or the like, the clear duty is to put away; and the assembly acts as soon as the sorrowful facts are known with clearness and certainty. The ruined state of things has not set this aside. It is a responsibility resting on the saints in the Lord's name. If they do not, they are essaying to keep the feast with leavened bread; they practically deny that they themselves are unleavened. Those who have the Spirit ought not to doubt that they have His power; even as the Lord's authority, to put away the evil doer; and this duty is none the less because he sometimes seeks to escape so solemn an exclusion by a tardy profession of repentance. But such a plea should have no influence in staying this action of the assembly, which is bound to prove itself clear in the matter, and not merely to seek the restoration of the offender. Their first duty is to the Lord, elders or none, chiefs or none; so it always was, and so it should be where we have only here and there men who have the qualifications, not the formal title. It would ill become any man to arrogate a higher place than when apostolic order prevailed. It is a duty to help and guide the assembly. No man is called to judge for it a case which comes before it, though it is happy when faithful men of grace and wisdom can settle matters of minor moment so as to spare the need of an appeal to the assembly — an appeal only right in the gravest matters or in such as all other means have failed to remedy. Otherwise the assembly, instead of preserving its place as God's temple, is in danger of becoming the engine of caprice, terror, or tyranny, for fleshly individuals who drag things and persons there without warrant from God's word.

Q. 1 Corinthians 11. — What is discerning or distinguishing the (Lord's) body? If there is more than apprehending the unity of the body the church, would you kindly state what it is? R.B.W.

A. "Discerning the body" has no reference to apprehending the church's unity or nature, but means exclusively distinguishing between any ordinary  meal and that supper which brings before us the body of Christ given for us. It is the memorial of His death in it, which the apostle here urges, not our union with Him. Not to discern the (Lord's) body is to treat this supper as a common thing. It is profanation, not intelligence about the church's unity.

Q. What place does a standing lecture hold in the ministry of an assembly? J.S.B.

A. Apparently the querist raises no doubt as to the propriety of a lecture. He asks only about a standing or regular lecture. But this clearly depends on God's supply of the requisite gift and the adaptation of its exercise in the circumstances, for which the servant is himself responsible to the Lord. "In the ministry of the assembly" strikes one as ambiguous if not confused; for such an exercise of gift is and must be individual, though if wholesome those who compose the assembly and others would do well to profit by it. But it has nothing to do with the assembly as such; and "the ministry " I do not understand, for it may be taught, comforted, or edified, but it does not minister of course. If there be however one or more, who can happily discourse on the immense field of God's truth for the good of the saints, and who resides permanently in a place, I know not why they should cease their work or others not hear, though all be of grace and bondage be out of place here as everywhere. It is good besides for both speakers and hearers not to be circumscribed; for all things are ours, and the best teaching is not all, and it will be the more appreciated in general after a variety of other food.

Q. Would you kindly solve the following in the "B.T.?" I have no difficulty with Matthew 13 and the parable of the leaven there as showing the spread of inward evil; but in the kingdom of heaven in Luke 13: 20 we read "The kingdom of GOD is like leaven." Now John 3 tells us only those born again enter the kingdom of God; and Romans 14: 17 tells us "The kingdom of God is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost." Can righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost be like the spread of inward evil? Scripture can never contradict itself. Yours, A SINCERE ENQUIRER.

A. Comparison of the Gospels shows that "the kingdom of heaven" in Matthew answers to "the kingdom of God" in Mark and Luke, not absolutely but in general. For the truth is that the latter is a phrase of larger import and capable of moral application, wherever the former is never so employed. Hence, Matthew uses besides his characteristic formula, "Kingdom of God" occasionally, and this, where "kingdom of heaven" could not have been. Thus, when Christ cast out demons, as He did, it was plain that the kingdom of God was come to them; whereas the kingdom of heaven could not come in any just sense (whether in mystery as now, or in manifestation by-and-by) till Jesus cast out and suffering on the cross took the place of exalted Son of man in heaven. Hence "the kingdom of heaven" all through Matthew is said or supposed to be at hand, not come; and in that sense of a great dispensational change Mark and Luke announce the kingdom of God at hand. Again, the apostle in Romans 14, as elsewhere, gives "kingdom of God" a moral force, because righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit are the immutable characters of His kingdom, now individually or collectively, as evermore when the earth shall be so governed.

But John treats of "the kingdom of God" only in the sense of what is intrinsic and divine, not of that dispensational state which the other evangelists show to be then at hand where tares and other evil might be as well as wheat.

On the other hand, the leaven in the parable seems to mean the spread of doctrinal profession, assimilating more after a natural sort within a defined range, rather than the import here of wickedness; so I think from the words used and the context.

Bible Treasury Volume 9, p. 320. August 1873.

DEAR BROTHER,

Would you kindly reply, in an early issue, to the following queries?

Q. 1. Is what is known among us as a "brothers' meeting," entitled to be looked at as representing "the assembly," so that its acts should be held to be those of "the assembly?"

2. Is any meeting whatever, from which any in communion (male or female) are formally or tacitly excluded, entitled to be considered as "the assembly" or as representing it?

3. Should I rightly infer from your May number that you would deem a "brothers' meeting" a simple reunion of those in "the assembly" who "have the rule," for co-operation and counsel in matters of detail not calling for direct assembly action? and that in cases when (acting in the spirit of Matthew 18: 15, 16) they have proved unequal to the correction of the evil, and extreme measures seem called for, their only remaining function is to report the case to "the assembly" to be dealt with there?

4. Would it be proper for the "brothers" in bringing a case of the above nature before "the assembly" to do so in this wise: that they had gone into such a case and were satisfied that the evil called for excision, and that therefore such a one was no longer in communion? Or ought it to assume something of the following shape: that such a case had been before the brethren; that they had gone into the facts and found them as charged; that they had exhausted efforts to rectify the matter, and now, as a last resort, brought it before "the assembly" for its determination?

5. In the latter case, ought "the assembly" to be expected to deal with the case forthwith, simply in view of the report and counsel of the brothers, or should time be allowed (unless in cases of notoriety or imperative haste) for individuals in "the assembly" who might desire it to inform themselves, in private, before assuming the responsibilities of action before the Lord?

6. Would not the recognition of a "brothers' meeting" as representing "the assembly," be a return to "system?" — the very principle of a kirk Session?"

A. A meeting of those who addict themselves to the ministry of the saints may rightly consult and decide on matters which concern the Lord's work and the saints, save in such cases as reception or excision, where according to scripture the assembly as such is called to act. But I know nothing of a meeting even of elders which could be said to represent the assembly. There is individual action, joint action, and that of the assembly: each true, and important, and sanctioned of the Lord; but one does not represent another. The assesmbly is itself and supposes the place of all, brothers and sisters, with the Spirit freely acting in their midst to maintain the glory and will of the Lord. But a meeting of chief men among the brethren is of great value, substantially of the elderhood in principle if not so now in name; for it is mischievous to be ever occupying the assembly with questions, the natural result of men who wish to set the assembly against ministry, and so naturally use it for their own self-importance. But no individuals, however gifted, can act for the assembly, though they may be helpful to the assembly in enabling them to judge before the Lord, and they may morally represent the assembly to the Lord's eye for praise or blame. In general, too, cases of evil, which are rightly brought before all, are so plain as to leave no hesitation. Still there are seasons when the assembly might demand more time or evidence before the extreme act of putting away; nor ought the assembly to be hurried into hasty measures, by individuals, whose sole remedy for all evil (the strongest point of their own lack of wisdom and power) is exclusion. In every instance the assembly should weigh seriously and calmly, but in the sense of its own responsibility to the Lord, not at all as the mere executive of elders or chief men, who are liable to infirmity of various kinds; it has the presence of the Lord to count on in a way quite peculiar and is subject to Him alone. The question of acting forthwith or not depends entirely on the nature of the case; it should never degenerate into a venture but be the fruit of conscientious judgment in liberty before God. To act simply on the judgment of a supposed representative would be presbyterian, not as God's church; to act only for itself would be congregational. It is God's church; and in the present ruin the Lord graciously attaches the same validity even to "two or three" gathered to His name. If representation comes in rightly, it is here; in a certain sense the local assembly represents the church everywhere; and the church everywhere, in all ordinary cases, acts on the judgment of the local assembly. It is the presence of the Lord in their midst which gives it such weight. Church action otherwise is human.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 10.

Bible Treasury Volume 10, p. 15. January 1874.

QUERIES ON EPHESIANS

Ephesians 1.

1. Wherein lies the special fitness of the apostle's designation of himself here (ἀπ. Χ. Ἰ. δ. θ. Θ.) and of the saints addressed?

4. What does the apostle mean by εἵλατο ἀπ᾽ αρχῆς, (2 Thess. 2: 13) as distinguished from ἐξελέξατο ἡ. ἐν. αὐ.? And how does πρὸ κατὰ κ.  differ from πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων (2 Timothy 1: 9)? Should ἐν ἀγάπῃ be joined with προορίσας?

7. What is the proper force of ἔχομεν? will it bear "ever needing and ever having," "never complete here below?" Why ἐν ῳ? Why in Colossians 1 does the Spirit omit δια τ. αἵ αὐτοῦ? Why παραπτωμάτων rather than ἅμ?

8. Difference of σοφία and φρόνησις?

10. What is the force of the plural οὐρ. here and elsewhere as distinct from the singular?

11. Can ἐκληρώθημεν be taken here as "were chosen as His inheritance?" or "were enfeoffed"? Does καί bear on it?

13. Construction of ὑμεῖς with what verb to be supplied?

14. τῆς περιποιήσεως, form why? reference? Why ἡ καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς πίστις rather than ἡ π. ὑμ.?

17. How are we to understand δῳη ὑμῖν Πν. σ. κ. ἀποκ. of those already sealed and anointed? Construction of πεφ. τ. ὀφθ.?

19. Difference of δύναμις, κράτος, ἴσχυς?

21. Difference of ἀρχή, ἐξουσία, δύν. and κυρ.?

23. Precise force of τὰ π. ἐν π. πλ.?

Ephesians 2.

2. Why the twofold description of the enemy?

3. What is the precise idea of ὀργῆς here?

7. Does the phrase τοῖς αἰῶσιν τ. ἐπερχομένοις take in the eternal state?

14. Why τὰ ἀμφότερα rather than τοὺς ἀμφ.?

21. Are we compelled either to adopt either the R.T. insertion of ἡ (with A, C, P, etc.) or to admit the later Greek usage and translate πᾶσα οἰκ. "the whole" or "all the building?"

Ephesians 3.

6. Does εἶναι here express not the design but the subject and purpose, "that the Gentiles are?"

8. Is it just to draw from τῳ ἐλαχ. π. ἁ. not only the remembrance of the former persecution of the church but of his own sinful nature (1 Timothy 1: 15, εἰμί, νοτ ἦν)?

9. How are we to understand ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων compared with Romans 16: 25; 1 Corinthians 2: 7, as well as verse 11 following?

21. Does the last phrase take in eternity as well as the millennial age?

Ephesians 4.

1-4. What exactly is "the calling" here? and what the unity of the Spirit (ver. 3)? and what the connection with "There is one body" etc.?

9. What is the exact meaning of τὰ κατώτερα τῆς γῆς?

12. Are we to regard εἰς — εἰς as two members referring to the more immediate, πρός to the more ultimate and final purpose of the action? Cf. Romans 15: 2.

13. What is the force of the various clauses "at the unity," etc. "at the full-grown man," "at the measure," etc.? Was it then, or will it be when all is complete?

22. What is the construction in verse 22-24?

Ephesians 5.

13. Is it "everything that is manifested" or "that which maketh everything manifest?"

14. What Old Testament scripture is used, and how?

19. Difference of "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs?"

21. The best authorities have "fear of Christ;" what is gained spiritually?

23. What is the connection of "He is the Saviour of the body?"

Ephesians 6.

2. Why this use of the law for Christian children? knowing what 1 Timothy 1 says of its application?

12. Why "blood and flesh?" and what is conveyed by the various designations of the power of evil?

24. The force of "in incorruption" and its connection?

ANSWERS ON EPHESIANS.

Ephesians 1.

Verse 1. There is nothing very special in it, being used in 2 Corinthians, Colossians, and practically in 1 Corinthians.

4. 2 Thessalonians 2: 13, is security in presence of the power of evil; Ephesians 1: 4 is the special calling of God's purpose in Christ as to our place before God, as verse 5 before the Father. ἐν ἀγάπῃ should not be joined with προορίσας. προ κ. κ. is essentially the same with πρὸ χ. αἰ. but the former alludes to the absolute purpose of God's own mind as wisdom, as Proverbs 8, π. χ. α. compares it with God's dealings in all ages and its present revelation through the appearing of the second Man when probation of angels and men had been gone through.

7. ἔχομεν means we have as a present thing in contrast with ver. 14. ἐν ῳ. however gives it as in Christ, not its application at any given moment. Everything is said to be in Him in a special way. The introduction of complete or incomplete is a mistake; it is what we have in Christ, not in ourselves, though we have it. All is viewed in the thoughts of God, in Christ. In Colossians 1: 14, the object was to show what we had and in Whom, not how; in Whom, who by Him, and He is before, etc. παράπτωμα is more the actual offence against God, not the wandering from what is right. He deals as to these in the riches of His grace. Compare Romans 5: 17.

8. σοφία is the mind conceiving all things rightly; φρονήσις is the activity of the mind seizing the objects presented to it.

10. οὐρανοί are the actual heavens; οὐρανός what it is.

11. ἐκληρώθημεν does not mean chosen as His inheritance (eneoffed is the opposite of this, put in possession of a fee or feu). It means 'have been made to have our lot or inheritance,' καί is the inheritance as opposed to calling. We have both, see verse 18.

13. "Trusted" is all right enough, or "pretrusted."

14. περιποίήσεως is the acquired possession in glory contrasted with our being ourselves redeemed. Compare Colossians 1: 20, 21. — The faith which you have, or which is found in you, is much more expressive; that is all. He realizes a set of people where it is.

17. These questions on δῳη are answered in verse 13. Πεφ. τ. ὀφθ. is quite simple, the eyes are the object of the πεφ.

19. δύναμις is competency to act, δύναμαὶ κράτος might, relative power; ἴσχυς mere bodily or actual strength. But the words are multiplied immutatively.

21. ἀρχή is authority contemplated as the beginning or origin of acts; ἐξουσία one who has a title to act, a right over; δύναμις power (see above) κυριότης from one who is over or rules, lordship; but it purposely takes in all forms, not with the object of distinction but of universality.

23. Divine filling of all things absolutely; compare also Ephesians 4: 10, which is not to be left out.

Ephesians 2.

2. Because his power in heavenly places and his influence in heathen minds, specially in idolatry, was before the Spirit's mind.

3. Just wrath, but shows Jews, though nearer in dispensation, alike objects of it.

7. The word is used in contrast with the present time, but I do not doubt as a generality it includes all.

14. Because it is a great deal plainer thus generalized; to whom would ἀμφοτέρους apply?

21. The context shows that it means the whole building. The criticism is difficult. I am supposed to leave out ἡ. (a has it as a correction. Chrys. in text); but I think πᾶσα ἡ οἰκοδομή would not do, as it would be then built, and that the force is as a whole, all the building. Compare Acts 2: 36; Ezekiel 16: 2. Moral words have not the article; in them 'every' and 'the whole' run into one another, as "all righteousness," every thing so characterised. This is quite general: so used of δύναμις. We get Israel as an army where it is Israel as a whole, not those of it; and where a thing which may be composed of many parts but is viewed as a whole, not as one, the article is not added. Often 'every' is tantamount. This is practically the case with πασα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος where 'all' is as good as 'every,' or better. πᾶσ ὁ  Ἰσραήλ is one object, πᾶσ  Ἰσραήλ Israel as a whole. In Ephesians 2 the church as a building is viewed as a whole (not yet ναὸς ἅγιος, it is growing to that); it is a building going on, the building grows as a whole. The following verse gives the particular present habitation in which the Gentiles συνοικοδομουνται.

Ephesians 3.

6. εἶναι is the abstract thought; they were to be so.

8. It is a present sense: what he was accounts for his sense of it. Compare 1 Corinthians 15: 9.

9. The apostle everywhere speaks of a mystery which was in the counsels of God before the world and not revealed before the cross, when the responsibility of man, the first Adam, reached its climax (save Christ's intercession for the Jews on the cross).

21. Yes, it uses elaborate expressions to give continuance and for ever.

Ephesians 4.

1-4. The calling refers back to Ephesians 2 and what precedes, only enlarged by Ephesians 3. The unity of the Spirit is the realization, in walk down here by the power of the Spirit and in spiritual life, of the unity they have in Christ. The body is one and cannot but be; it gives character to the unity but is not it.

9. κατώτερα does not mean anything particular but what is below, the apparent earth in contrast with above all heavens, so as to fill all things. It naturally suggests Hades, which gives no definite idea, and is not meant to do so.

12. πρός is the proper object and purpose first in the apostle's mind, but then use reaches out to the secondary more collective ones.

13. The whole is Christ being fully formed in us and we after Him in soul, according to the revelation that has been made of Him, my soul formed into all revealed of Him.

22-24. The truth as it is in Jesus is the having put off and having put on; the renewing is constant, hence ἀνανεοῦσθαι, in Colossians ἀνακαινούμενον and in knowledge.

Ephesians 5.

13. I believe "what makes everything manifest," though difficulty is made as to the voice of φαν.

14. I suppose Isaiah 60: 1.

19. "Hymns" were more especially festive praises to God. "Psalms" were chanted with instruments, but afterwards, though in divine service, of a general character. "Spiritual songs" were not necessarily divine service, though spiritual with every kind of development of thought. But the object is not to define but to speak of every sort which saints could sing together in liberty.

21. The importance is the place it puts Christ in. The fear of God is not within the special circle of Christ's government as Lord. This is (so in Colossians), the grace of Christ and word of Christ are not the same surely but bring them close to the heart in the path in which we walk. The fear of God is a general moral state.

23. The connection of husband and wife is in the body though in the Lord, and His delivering power and blessing include the body.

Ephesians 6.

2. He is showing the importance which this duty had under the law, and thus God's mind.

12. He refers to Canaan and Joshua. Ours is another kind of combat. "Blood and flesh" are not evil here, but men as such contrasted with wicked spirits.

24. ἐν ἀφθ. is the character of their state and affections for himself before god, remembering that the things of God are spiritually discerned, and this too connected with the thought of God, the mind of Christ: qui hæret in literâ hæret in cortice.

Bible Treasury Volume 10, p. 128. August 1874.

Q. 1 Corinthians 9; 1 Timothy 5. What is the light of scripture as to those who labour in the word, whether in teaching or in preaching and pastoral care? How far does Acts 20: 33-35 control the passages first referred to? X.Y.Z.

A. There ought to be no doubt as to the principle. Those who labour in the word, whether among those without or among those within, are entitled to the care of the church of God. The saints are bound to see that they should be supported without anxiety on their own part. The law itself lays it down, and this, the apostle's twofold citation of Deuteronomy 23: 4 shows, as regards not merely the wandering evangelists, but the stationary elders who labour in the word and teaching. It is mischievous to make it a question of poverty. Divine love has its privileges, especially in honouring those who are its chief witnesses and workers. This no doubt is an appeal to the loving compassion of the saints; but no circumstances should hinder the privilege of loving respect and grateful care for those who give themselves up to serve in the word. Hence says the apostle (Galatians 6: 6), "let him that is taught in the word communicate to him that teacheth in all good things." There is such a thing as the activity of love, not the need of poverty only; and it would be a loss indeed and shame to the saints, if, because the teacher was not actually poor, there was to be no room for love in the taught. Were such ideas to supplant or enfeeble plain scripture, the saints would be demoralized.

On the other hand it is a blessed testimony where a man possessed of the best gift and full of the most self-denying labours, like the apostle, is not above working with his hands in order to minister to the wants not of himself only but of others. In Paul's case it was not laying aside the Lord's work to acquire a respectable and lucrative profession, but the use of a trade he already knew to provide things honest and to help others in want. But, precious as this is, and not less in this day of clericalism than of old, the church has no just claim to plead such a scripture to excuse her own selfishness and neglect. It is a good word from one so working to his fellow-labourers small or great; but it is quite out of place when pleaded by the saints in order to repress the faith of a spiritual labourer, or to forget their own duty to such as are given up to the Lord's work. Would they have Him and His work put in a subordinate place? or the devotedness of the saints quenched? It is most of all serious, where one who has put his hand to the plough is exhorted to take up an occupation for the support of himself and his family, as if the Lord had said not a word to the contrary both for the exercise of his own faith and of love on the part of the saints.

Bible Treasury Volume 10, p. 144. September 1874.

Q. Luke 16. What is the bearing of this opening parable? The unjust steward was commended: wherein lay the wisdom for the children of light to learn by? G . . . .

A. Luke 15 in its three parables sets forth God's ways in grace with the sinner in character, activity, and effect. Luke 16 shows the way of a disciple in grace, now that man (especially Israel or man in privilege and under covenant with God) is viewed as no longer God's stewards, because of his unfaithfulness. Probation under law is closed. Prudence is the point singled out for our imitation in the otherwise censurable house-manager whose occupation was gone. It is no longer a question of rendering as a responsible man in flesh the fruits to God who demanded them as the One to whom all is due, but of sacrificing the present in view of the future. The steward, not now accredited by his lord, does not appropriate the money, however dishonest he may be; he cannot dig, for he has no longer even the land to till; too proud of the place he had lost, he is ashamed to beg. The discarded and outcast Jew can only for the time to come betake himself to sharp and shrewd and clever overreaching. Has it not been verified to the letter?

But what is the profit to which the Lord turns His prudence? Man's title is null; but in fact earthly things are still in his hand. The disciple then, if prudent after a heavenly sort, will not seek to accumulate or retain the means many men call his own; he will profit by the rich grace of God who does not call him to asceticism, while he delivers him from selfishness. For him as for Israel of the age to come it is no question of a state of things that shall not pass away; but on the contrary all judged and soon to give place to the kingdom which shall not be moved, with its "heavenly things" (John 3) for those who meanwhile are dead and risen with Christ. Hence what the steward did knavishly disciples are to do by grace. Knowing that the fashion of this world passes, the eye is on the everlasting dwellings; and instead of disposing of the world as their own (the true meaning of καταχρώμενοι in 1 Corinthians 7: 31, not "abusing" but using for oneself even if there were no misuse whatever. See also 1 Corinthians 9: 18), and so either hoarding or selfishly enjoying, they give away right and left thus making to themselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness. This is one of the greatest snares (for the love of money is a root of all evil) turned into a means of benefiting man, glorifying God, and proving that one's heart is not in the covetous present of fallen condemned man, but in the heavenly future of God. It is the character of those who get to heaven, not the means of being delivered from hell.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 11.

Bible Treasury Volume 11, p. 47. March 1876.

Q. Matthew 18: 18-20. In a company of 40 or 50 saints gathered to the Lord's name, can "two or three" be said to constitute the assembly to the exclusion of the rest? Is the decision of a few to be regarded as that of God's assembly, and binding not only on all the rest, even if their consciences are distressed, but on all assemblies elsewhere, even though some of the grounds taken are now acknowledged by the few themselves to be unfounded? Is a hasty act thus done to be viewed as ratified in heaven and irrevocable? G.W.Y. (Hamilton, Canada.)

A. Such a pretension is intolerable. It is not only without an atom of scripture but directly opposed to the nature and truth of God's assembly, where exclusion, e.g. is not binding unless carrying with it the consciences of all. In peculiar cases there might be of course near relatives or friends, perhaps even partisans or accomplices more or less, whose opinions ought not to be given and if given ought to be rebuked rather than heeded. But as a rule discipline according to the Lord must and does carry the simplest as well as the spiritual with it. Where will or personal feeling works, it would destroy weight, and such persons are not in a state to guide the assembly. It might be that the condition of those gathered might show such a lack of conscience, destroyed by error or given up to self-will and laxity, that godly souls might be forces, after due waiting and solemn warning in vain, to withdraw from the meeting as no longer God's assembly. This is possible no doubt, but a very delicate and extreme case. But the notion of two or three out of the forty or fifty constituting the assembly, and staying in with those whose protest they ignore and despise, is a snare of Satan to force their own will, and is a return to the Popish principle that the clergy are the church. I do not believe that such a decision is bound in heaven or binding on assemblies on earth or individuals; though it does not therefore follow that hasty action would be right, either as to receiving elsewhere the one wrongly dealt with or as to the withdrawal of those aggrieved by it. Prayer and humiliation would be the resource, not agitation nor separation. The Lord knows how to interfere and correct what is amiss; for it is the merest superstition that a wrong or mistake by an assembly is to abide unrescinded. And if the assembly deliberately accepted such a principle as that "two or three" could make up their minds and go through the form of putting away, for instance, contrary to the judgment of the rest, yet binding it on the consciences of all, it is evident that neither the discipline nor the assembly is really according to scripture; and, after due testimony if the evil were persisted in, both should be disowned as not of God.

Indeed the truth is more stringent far. For the putting away to be valid must be through God's action on the consciences of all (allowing for such exceptions as have been stated); and the action of a few, if ever so right in their thoughts, against the consciences of others is no longer the assembly's act. Not even two or three godly men who do not go with the action can be rightly ignored. The rest are bound to wait. The majority is a human principle and essentially different from the assembly where God dwells and in which He acts to glorify the Lord. As the rule, it is when action is precipitate or excessive that it fails to carry the consciences of all. Nor is haste a slight fault in such cases. It is flesh, and not of the Spirit; it breeds parties, no less than excess does, which produces re-action in the saints, and leads to sympathy with the evil-doer who is thus wronged, instead of all the godly uniting in their horror of his evil. If a few were ever so right in their judgment, yet forced it on spite of others who conscientiously differed, it would not be of God, as being a practical denial of His assembly. Hence one must not push things beyond their conviction as before God. Nothing is rightly done unless they prove themselves clear in the matter. Grace thus turns the godly exercise of extreme discipline by the assembly into exercise of soul and positive blessing in their humbling of themselves before God. Human will, whether in one or in many, brings in terrorism or wheedling, confusion and every evil work, self-exaltation and party-spirit, to the utter destruction of waiting on God by faith, subjection to the word of the Lord, and the gracious and holy uniting power of the Holy Ghost.

Q. 1. Romans 6. Does scripture anywhere, in speaking of the Christian being dead, separate it from his having died in Christ?

A. 1. Not so: the ground is that we died with Christ, buried with Him by baptism to death — His death. Thus are we become identified with Him in the likeness of His death. Therefore also we are to reckon ourselves dead to sin.

Q. 2. Is it not possible to deceive one's self, by applying this doctrine to a sort of holding yourself in the place of a dead man, so as to be afraid really to do anything, lest it should be your own life acting.

A. 2. One may of course turn even this truth into bondage; but it is far easier to make our death or having died with Christ the mere fact of knowledge about it; and this might, not to say must, soon land one in light and careless ways, as being powerless.

Q. 3. Is eternal life not a thing but a Person (Christ)? and is it true that a Christian has no life, inasmuch as Christ is in heaven?

A. 3. Eternal life is a thing that we have, though we have it only in the person of Christ; but it is our life here as Christians, with its mind and affections, quite as real and much more important than the natural Adamic life of man.

Q. 4. Is it true reasoning to argue that because Romans 6: 7 says, "He that is dead is justified from sin," it must be the new I that is spoken of as dead, inasmuch as no one could say that the old I is justified?

A. 4. The most that can be allowed is that justification from sin supposes a sinner, though now a believer. It is of course the same person, but one who being a believer has passed from death into life, and has died with Christ.

Q. 5. Can you understand a distinction being made between the new I and the new MAN, and would you say that the former is spoken of as dead, and the latter not? Does scripture use the expression new I at all?

A. 5. I can understand the distinction, "the new I" being the soul as now born again, but referring to what was, "the new man" being only what is by and in Christ. But metaphysics are best avoided in christian teaching.

Q. 6. Does Romans 6 teach that the old man was crucified with Christ, but that the new I DIED with Him? Is there such a distinction between "crucified" and "died?"

A. 6. That our old man was crucified with Christ is what the chapter says; and that he who died with Christ is justified from sin, that is, the believer, not whilst he did not believe.

Q. 7. Is it profitable to ask a Christian, "Are you dead?" since scripture says, "Ye are dead?" Does it not tend to throw one one feelings and experiences?

A. 7. Such a query to an unestablished soul would inevitably lead to an inward investigation. But he who rests simply on Christ might be led to weigh and learn more thoroughly what death with Christ implies, and what becomes him who died with Him. Scripture assumes that the Christian has thus died.

Bible Treasury Volume 11, p. 64. April 1876.

Q. 1 Corinthians 6: 2.  Ἐν ὑμιν is by competent scholars translated "before you." May not this decide the meaning of the world and even angels being judged? That is, not by the saints as assessors with Christ but as witnesses in whose presence the judgment takes place.

A. Wetstein has shown by sufficient examples that νεσθαι ἐν  is a technical phrase for being judged at such or such a tribunal: Aristides de Soc. i. p. 128; Platon. ii. pp. 214, 261. Polyb. v. 29. Plut. Themist p. 123. Cat. p. 349. Lysias c. Philost. and Diod. Sic. xix. 51.

With κρ. therefore ἐν is quite distinct from ἔμπροσθεν or ἐνώπιον and beyond controversy confirms instead of enfeebling what had just been laid down as an axiom of common christian knowledge, that the saints are to judge the world and even angels, not merely to be present when their judgment proceeds before the Lord. So Raphelius and Kypke, the last explaining the idiomatic use of ἐν from a company of judges in the midst of whom the case is disposed of. But the truth is that the preposition branches out from a mere local or material idea of inclusion into various applications characterizing what is spoken of, and so even meaning "with" or "by," as grammars and lexicons will show. κρίνεσθαι ἐπί is much more to be "judged before,"  as anyone can see in the preceding verse 1: ἐν ὑμῖν should be distinguished from this, as it unquestionably is the strictly proper phrase for the closer sense of "by you." It is not the final judgment, that of the dead, which is in the hands of the Lord, the Son of man (John 5), but of the quick, judging akin to the sense of reigning. (See Matthew 19: 28; Revelation 20: 4) Even now angels are ministering spirits sent out for service on account of those who shall inherit salvation: how much more when the saints shall be glorified and reign with Christ!

Bible Treasury Volume 11, p. 80. May 1876.

Q. Romans 8: 9. What is the difference between the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of God? and how can one have the former, and yet not have the latter? E.C.

A. It is not a question here of new birth: this one might have as in Romans 7, and yet have no power but be wretched also. If one have the Spirit of God indwelling, one is in the Spirit and not in the flesh; one is in the Christian place of liberty and peace. It is not said that one could have the Spirit of Christ here spoken of and not have the Spirit of God; on the contrary, the Spirit of Christ is supposed to be the Spirit in practical power forming us according to Christ; so much so that if one has it not, one is not of Him (αὐτοῦ), one is not Christ's in redemption power. The Spirit of God might work in or at least by a man who professed Christ without life, as we see in Judas. (Matthew 7: 22; Hebrews 6: 4-6.) But this is not His dwelling in the believer; it is not the Spirit of Christ.

Bible Treasury Volume 11, p. 160. October 1876.

Q. 1 Timothy 4: 17. (1) Is an elder or bishop the question when brethren wish to begin a breaking of bread where there is none? (2) Ought they to cease when trial, weakness, or scandal exists?

A. (1) Wherever brethren are found alive to the glory of Christ and of their own privileges as His members, they are not only free but bound to meet together and consequently to remember Him in the breaking of bread, the symbol of His death for their sins in divine love and of their unity as His body. They are of course bound to begin in fellowship with those already breaking bread if reasonably near them. It is deplorable to make the sign of fellowship in a new place the occasion of disturbing it in an old; but those in the old locality are not entitled to put any obstructions or delays in their way but such as approve themselves to every godly soul elsewhere. No one, no assembly, has authority to hinder members of Christ from gathering to His name and remembering Him in the Supper and all other acts of the assembly. Scripture amply proves that none should wait for a bishop or bishops first, even when apostles were there to choose such. But it was the rule to begin meeting as God's assembly without them. The qualities suitable for them only developed or were seen in time. It was on a subsequent visit, if the apostle did not spend long enough time, that they were chosen; and sometimes a delegate like Titus at Crete was directed to do so. But in every case assemblies preceded bishops.

(2) Even if a few believers have been hasty in meeting or any element in the meeting is not what one could desire, it would be a grave act to seek or counsel their dissolution: we do not see an apostle venturing on any step like it. And we cannot, we ought not to, without scripture. The state of an assembly might be such as to keep some away, as that of Corinth did Paul; but this is a very different thing, for even so, he is most careful to remind them of their place, privilege, and responsibility as the assembly of God in that city. All this aggravated their failure, and gave him a hold in the Lord's name on their conscience.

Q. 1 Peter 4: 5, 6. "Quick and dead:" is it moral, or physical? The same in each verse? G.W.G.

A. The physically "dead" are meant in both verse. Christ is, and is ready, to judge quick and dead. Only as glad tidings wree preached (though not in the same way or fulness) in times past to men (living then, though now) dead, as well as to men living now, it was to this end that they might be judged as regards men in flesh, but live as regards God in Spirit. The Jews were apt to slight the judgment of the dead, through their pre-occupation with the judgment of the quick at the appearing of the Messiah. Hence the apostle is the more careful to show the believers from among them, not merely as in 1 Peter 3, the judgment which awaits those formerly disobedient who are kept in prison awaiting their final doom, but the twofold end of the good news in the promises proclaimed to men in the past — either judgment as men in flesh responsible for their works, or living according to God in Spirit because the word was mixed with faith and issued in righteousness and holiness of truth.

Bible Treasury Volume 11, p. 224. February 1877.

Will you do me the favour of clearing up one or two of my difficulties?

Q. 1. The hour of temptation (which you take to embrace a longer period than the crisis of the great tribulation) is to come upon all the world (the whole habitable world) to try them that dwell upon the earth (apostate Christendom): why upon the whole earth if only try Christendom?

2. Again, the "great multitude" are of "all nations, kindred, people and tongues:" do you judge that Christendom has no representation in all this? that is, that she comes into the tribulation and is utterly cut off thereby?

Do you think the expression "the great tribulation" embraces all the Apocalyptic judgments, and touches every member of the human family on earth, save the ten tribes who are brought under the Lord's rod in the land?

In what form does the great tribulation come upon the heathen nations — being far away from the seat of the beast?

May the "great multitude" of Revelation 7 be substantially identified with "the righteous" of Matthew 25: 37?

3. Also will you be kind enough to say whether the Jews will rebuild the temple, or a certain part of it in unbelief, to be destroyed after the abomination of desolation has been set up therein? If not, are we not driven to conclude that Ezekiel's temple will be erected by unbelieving Jews, on the divine pattern (somewhat a difficulty), and the idolatrous image be sustained there before the glory of the God of Israel comes into it? Does Ezekiel 63: 7, 8, 9, throw any light on this, "the place of the soles of my feet they shall no more defile, nor their kings, nor by the carcasses of their kings in their high places. In their setting of their threshold by my thresholds, and their post by my posts, and the wall between me and them, they have even defiled my holy name by their abominations?"

4. What countries are "Gomer and all his bands, the house of Togarmah of the north quarters, and all his bands?" Being in confederacy with the king of the north, I suppose they are eastern powers. But in Smith's Bible Dictionary the writer seems to identify them with the Cimbri of the north and west of Europe during the Roman Empire (Denmark, between the Elbe and the Rhine, and Belgium), the whole of the British Isles at one period, and now the Gael of Ireland and Scotland, and the Cymry of Wales. W.R.

A. 1. I consider that "they that dwell on the earth" is here, at least, rather a moral expression than a designation of apostate Christendom. It is opposed to dwellers in heaven, and not merely a distinction from some other part of the world.

2. Christendom seems to be not included in the vague and general mass of nations on whom "the great tribulation" is to fall, having its own special description and judgment, as Babylon, etc., just as it is also distinct form the Jews and from Israel in this chapter. The Jews will pass through a tribulation severer than this, but also more circumscribed, as we may gather from Matthew 24 and Mark 13, compared with Jeremiah 30 and Daniel 12. The scourge is the Assyrian, or king of the north, rather than the beast who is the support of the false prophet, king in Palestine. But it is plain that the Apocalyptic period as a whole is a time of trouble increasing in intensity and over many spheres, extending to Gentiles as well as Jews; and as the everlasting gospel will go out far and wide, so I think the surviving fruit of that last mission will be seen in "the righteous" or sheep of Matthew 25 when the Son of man comes and reigns over the earth. That apostate Christendom will have the sternest doom of all, is plain from 2 Thessalonians 2: 10-12.

3. Undoubtedly the Jews will build in unbelief the temple in which the lawless one or Antichrist is to sit as God. But we have no reason to suppose that God would deign to own it, or that the temple as described by Ezekiel is not distinct. We must remember that it is the habit of scripture to regard "the house" as having a continuity of character, however often destroyed and rebuilt. In Haggai it is not "the glory of this latter house," but "the latter glory of this house."

4. "Gomer and all his bands" are north-eastern; but possibly the Cimri, etc., may be some of the race that migrated westward. "The house of Togarmah" of the north quarters I presume to be the Armenian stock, as the latter people say themselves. They will follow Gog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, an Tubal, that is, the last head of the Russian Empire. (Ezekiel 38, Ezekiel 39.)

Bible Treasury Volume 11, p. 239. March 1877.

Q. Is it traversing the truth of the Holy Ghost's presence in the church and His distributing to or by whomsoever He will, for a brother to have the room, used to break bread in, for preaching the gospel, either doing it himself or asking another?

I quite understand the saints saying, "We wish our room used only for 'open' meetings;" but are they free by the word of the Lord to allow it for meetings that rest on individual responsibility? Does this encroach on the truth that saints gathered to the Lord's name own the guidance of the Spirit who dwells in the church — the house of God? S.

A. It is evident from scripture that the difficulty could not even have occurred to the early saints. For the original breakings of bread were in private houses, the owners of which simply gave the use of a room for that purpose. The gospel may have been preached, as it was certainly freely elsewhere, within doors or without, to a few or to multitudes. The simpler are our thoughts as to both, the better. The same principles lead to the same practice under such circumstances still. It is never wrong to meet or to preach in a private house. And if brethren hire a larger and more central room to meet in more conveniently, they are perfectly free to give the use of it when not wanted for assembly purposes to one or more brothers in whom they confide to preach or lecture in. It is happy when one of known gift and good report accepts the responsibility, preaching in the room or finding one to do so, and thus closing what might otherwise be a source of question and difficulty for the meeting. The church of course neither teaches nor preaches, but owns and honours those who have the seals of such gifts from the Lord. So we see Paul choosing Silas and declining to have Mark at one time, however he might commend him later. This shows the action of a principle wholly distinct from the assembly and the working of the Spirit by one or another in it. It is mischievous to set one against the other; and there is no reason why the same building or room should not be used at one time for the assembly, at another for individual ministry. If there was no brother of such gift or moral weight as to command confidence, they might decline lending their room; if there was, to refuse would be their shame. But the Lord would soon find another room for His workman and work. Only the assembly might and must suffer for their lack of grace and wisdom. It is evident that anything which tends to sever the assembly from interest in the gospel, is to be deprecated. It promotes the divisive feeling of those who have no heart, save for their own work, be it ecclesiastic or evangelic. Wisdom and grace will hold to both firmly, and resist the narrowness which, if allowed, can only end in cliques with their leaders, schisms, or even worse.

Q. It is alleged that in 1 Timothy 5: 17 the word "pay" should stand instead of "honour," and that those who were charged with the care of a local church received stipends. Is this correct? S.B.

A. The word τιμή in the text does not mean "pay," but "honour" as its radical and primary signification, that is, the due expression or payment of esteem or worship as the case might be; hence the dignity, or prerogative, of one so honoured; and even the office, authority, or rank; and the present, or offering, commonly given in such cases. It was also used for the worth or price of a thing; for an assessment or even penalty, compensation or satisfaction. But "pay" in the sense of stipend or wages as expressed in general by μισθός, which, in strict application, would have been scouted by every christian heart is used in a free or simple way by the Lord in Luke 10, and by the apostle in 1 Timothy 5, not as a standing fee. (Cf. John 10.) Later Greek, such as in the LXX or the Greek Testament, gives ὀψώνιον, military pay or rations, as may be seen in Luke 3, Romans 6, 1 Corinthians 9 and 2 Corinthians 1, to which the curious can add Esdras 4: 56, 1 Macc. 3: 29, and 14: 32. As to the phrase, see what Josephus (Antiq. IV., iv. 114) says of Balak, ἀποπέμπει τὸν Βάλαμον μηδεμιᾶς τιμῆς ἀξιώσας, and in Classic Greek we read in Dem. περὶ στεφ., ed. Reiske, 297, 16, ἅπαντας ὁμοίως ἡ πόλις τῆς αὐτῆς ἀξιώσασα τιμῆς.

It cannot then be fairly doubted that the English version is justified, and that salary or pay is not the prominent or even true idea, but "honour." Still that there is included every loving consideration of the elders taking the lead or presiding well seems plain from what follows, but this is rather as honorarium than as stipendium. On the one hand it is degrading to the service of Christ when it is made a question of the earning of a trade or profession; but on the other it is a dishonour to the saints who reap the fruit of unremitting and unselfish care in spiritual things if they do not mark their sense of it, not merely where the servants are needy, but in the reciprocity of loving regard where no such want exists. The payment of "honour," nay, "double honour," might be questioned where there was not the apparent desire to prove it. The apostle had enjoined on Timothy, in the preceding verses, to "honour widows;" here he claims honour doubly for elders that take the lead well. That "double" was used for indefinitely great in good or evil, one sees in Matthew 23, Revelation 18: 6, as in Isaiah 40: 2. The "especially" (μάλιστα) is incompatible with a fixed salary, as indeed is all scripture. The general principle is equally true of those who teach (Galatians 6: 6), and of those who preach. (1 Corinthians 9.) Acts 28: 10 seems to distinguish the attentions paid during the stay at Melita from the provision of requisites on departing.

Q. In Revelation 15: 5, we have the expression, "Temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven:" what is the meaning of it? T.B.M.

A. It was not merely "the tabernacle," but of the "testimony" which was opened in judgment; nor yet the ναός, house or "temple" only, but this "in heaven," the fullest possible expression of the highest source from which the wrath of God was coming forth on the apostate earth before the Lord Himself appeared.

Q. What is "the great city" spoken of in Revelation 16: 19? It is not "Babylon," as we see from the same verse, nor can we connect it, I think, with Revelation 11: 8. T.B.M.

A. "The great city" I should connect with Revelation 11: 8, which distinguishes it from the city which has rule or kinship over the kings of the earth, "great Babylon." The one may be more the expression of worldliness in its Jewish form, the other in its Gentile confusion, unless we take the former for the proud centre of the world's civilization in general, as we may understand, "the cities of the nations" in a subordinate degree.

Bible Treasury Volume 11, p. 288. June 1877.

Q. 1. Do the words, εἰσ τὸ διηνεκές, in Hebrews 10: 1 refer to the sacrifices as continually offered, or to the inability of such sacrifices to perfect in perpetuity those who offered them; that is to say, Do the words refer to the offerings, or to the offerers?

Q. 2. Why is it that we have in this chapter (passim) προσφέρω, to offer, and προσφορά, an offering, and not ἀναφέρω, to offer up, especially as we find from verses 10, 11, 12, that is attributed to the offering, προσφορά, which we should have supposed could only be by ἀναφέρω, offering up, when only it would be a sacrifice (θυσία)? We have both, "no more offering for sins" (προσφορά), verse 18, and "no more sacrifice for sin" (θυσία), verse 26. W.L.P.

A. 1. The connection of εἰς τὸ δ. is not the same in verse 1 and 12. In the former it is with the Jewish ritual, and means that they kept offering unbrokenly the same sacrifices year by year, sacrifices unable at any time to perfect those that approached. In verse 12 the connection is with the continuous, or unbroken, session of our Lord at God's right hand, as having offered one sacrifice for sins. It is well known that Lachmann punctuated so as to connect εἰς τὸ δ. with the clause after in verse 1, and with the clause before in verse 12; but I am satisfied that he unwittingly perverted the sense in both. "Continuously" can run well in the first with "every year," not with "never," or "not at any time;" as again, in the second it is only possible to take it with the preceding clauses by supposing some ellipse as ἀσκοῦσαν ἡμῖν, with Œcumenius and Theophylact, which is not only needless, but weakens what follows. Tischendorf has evaded the difficulty by inserting a comma in neither.

A. 2. The reason why προσφέρω is employed in Hebrews 10 seems to me the need of a more general word than ἀναφέρω, which had been used in Hebrews 9 in distinction from προσφ. wherever it was intended to express the actual bearing of sins. Where a substantive is wanted for this, θυσία is used, which is as specific as προσφορά is general. Hence, where προσενέγκας is defined by ὑπέρ ἁμαρτιῶν and θυσίαν, it is as strictly sacrificial as if it had been ἑαυτὸν ἀνενέγκας, or τὰσ ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν ἀνενέγκας.

Bible Treasury Volume 11, p. 320. August 1877.

Q. John 20: 17; Matthew 28: 9. Is it true that there was a private ascension on the day the Lord rose, fulfilling Leviticus 16: 17, besides the public one forty days after? So say some, to avoid the difficulty; and this they try to sustain by the reception of the Holy Ghost on the first occasion, as distinguished from His descent on the day of Pentecost. H.T.

A. There is not the slightest ground to suppose an ascension previous to that which is described in Acts 1. A little intelligence as to John 20: 17 removes the difficulty, without having to recourse to a supposed private ascension.  Ἀναβαίνω is the abstract present, a common enough usage, not only in Greek, but in our own and other languages, often of the greatest value to remember in exposition. It is really ignorance to infer from the present that the action must be either actually going on, or so imminent as to follow immediately. The present may be used in the New Testament to convey certainty or permanence, but still more frequently perhaps an action eminently and emphatically characteristic as here. Take πορεύομαι ἐτοιμάσαι τόπον ὑμῖν in John 14: 2; take ἔρχομαι and εἰμί in the next verse, or ὑπάγω in verse 4. Here, too, mysticising commentators tell us that this ἒρχομαι is begun in Christ's resurrection, carried on in the spiritual life, further advanced when each by death is fetched to be away with Him, fully completed at His coming in glory, when they shall for ever be with Him in the perfected resurrection state. All this style of drawing ever so many applications out of a word, which here means but one, the last of these alleged comings, enfeebles scripture, and injures the saint. So in verse 17 there is no need to change μένει (abideth) into μενεῖ (shall abide), with some of the old versions, or to understand it, with Euthimius Zigabenus, as the Spirit's then abiding in Jesus, who was among them. It really expresses permanence from the time He comes to abide, not an abiding going on then. In 1 John 1: 7 we have examples of much moment doctrinally, and for the blessing and even peace of souls, where, from the structure of the sentence, as well as the truth declared elsewhere, we know that καθαρίζει means the cleansing efficacy of Christ's blood, without question either of repetition or of a continuous process. So again, in Acts 2: 47 τοῦς σωζ., and in Hebrews 2: 11, οἱ ἁγιαζ., is not the historical present or fact, but the character or class. This is made certain in the last case by comparing Hebrews 10: 10 with 14, where we have the perfect and present used of the same persons — the one the fact and date, the other the abstract character.

The Lord then in John 20: 17 meant, not that He was at that moment, or that day, ascending, but that this was the character of what was before Him; not staying to reign over Israel and the world, but going up to heaven, the model Man there, according to whom the children of His Father and God, now owned as His brethren, were to be formed in and according to the truth. (Compare John 17: 19.) It was to be a new order of sanctification, which the believer, even if a Jew, once separated to Jehovah from the Gentiles, needed no less than the Gentile; a heavenly separateness, not fleshly, or monastic, nor mystic, but sanctification in truth. So we all, says the apostle, looking on the glory of the Lord with unveiled face, are transformed according to the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Lord the Spirit. And this seems to be the significant reason why Mary Magdalene was not permitted to touch the Lord. It was not in bodily presence He was to be known by the Christians, but ascended to heaven; and she who had known Him according to flesh must now know Him so no longer. She thus stands in contrast with the women in Matthew, who were permitted soon after to hold Him by the feet and pay Him homage, the type of those out of that nation who shall have Him to their joy reigning over them here below, and hence as seasonable a pledge in the first Gospel, as the Jew taken out of the earthly hope to know Him above suits this part of the fourth. Indeed a similar truth is taught in Thomas, who, absent on the resurrection-day and unbelieving, was caused in the most sensible way eight days after to learn and own the Lord risen from the dead. So will the Jew yet see and confess Jesus to be the Lord and God in a day still future. But "blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed." So the Christian knows Christ.

With this falls in Leviticus 16: 17, which sets forth our Lord's presence on high ever since He ascended, and not some imaginary appearing there on the day of resurrection. When He comes out, it will be for the reconciliation of all things, as well as the forgiveness of Israel. We enter in spirit where He is meanwhile, identified with Christ, the great high priest, instead of waiting, like God's ancient people, till He come forth. While He is there, the Spirit is come out to dwell in us Christians and baptize us into one body, giving us liberty to enter in boldly through the rent veil. The people meanwhile wait, but will have the blessing when the Lord comes out.

Thus the right view of these scriptures very simply illustrates and confirms the truth of the gospel and the prophetic word; so that we need not take up anything strained or fanciful to vindicate their harmony. On the day the Lord rose He breathed the spirit of life into the disciples, and the Holy Spirit acted in this as in new birth. The gift of the Spirit at Pentecost was power from on high.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 12.

Bible Treasury Volume 12, p. 144. September 1878

Q. 1 Corinthians 5. In an excommunicable case, that it, one of grave or gross wickedness, can rebuke or withdrawal be substituted for "putting out?" If insisted on by leaders and accepted by an assembly, spite of the strongest protest, in what position does it involve that assembly? Is it really proved "clear"?

A. If a person gave just occasion for public discipline, and there was good ground to fear worse, of which no adequate evidence to convict appeared, it would be godly order to rebuke one thus sinning; and, if he withdrew, it would in the actual state be not only a relief to all, but a more proper course for the assembly to accept his withdrawal by announcing it formally before all, than to put him out without full proof of guilt.

But if the guilt were grave and palpable, so that the common conscience of the saints rejects such offenders, merely to rebuke the person is not to "purge out the old leaven," neither is it to be a new lump but a leavened one. And if further and heinous evil came to light, it would still more show the state, not of the offender only but of that assembly, if they then let him withdraw by announcing it, instead of directly refusing such a wish at such a time, and forthwith putting out the wicked person from among themselves. We have no such custom, nor the assemblies of God, as to treat rebuke and withdrawal under such circumstances as tantamount to putting out, or allowable to God's assembly; nor does scripture warrant it. No doubt the assembly cannot put out a man if they have accepted his going out; but who has ever known the acceptance and announcement of withdrawal where the assembly had before it the proof of guilt demanding excision? Such a course would give a premium to the wicked in evading solemn judgment, and the command to put out would soon become a dead letter. It has been often tried but always refused hitherto. And no wonder; for it would hinder all adequate clearing of themselves among the saints; it would annul the Lord's authority by His word in the last resort of the church's responsibility; and it would lower a professing assembly of God (yea, in principle the assembly as a whole if acquiesced in) beneath a decent club of the world, which assuredly would not deal so lightly with flagrant offences against public law or common morality. No special pleading, no detraction of others, can extenuate so plain a dereliction of a holy duty on the part of those who are unleavened. Such an assembly, to its own ease, may have got rid of the offender, as well as of those whose consciences protested against such ways as ungodly; but it has never vindicated the Lord in thorough hatred of the manifest evil, nor so much as mourned that the evildoer might be taken away from among them, still less sorrowed to repentance after a godly sort with diligence, clearing of themselves, indignation, fear, longing desire, zeal or revenge. In no way therefore has it proved itself to be pure in the matter, but the contrary. Till it does, it should not in my judgment to be owned as God's assembly by all who would obey Him rather than men.

Bible Treasury Volume 12, p. 160. October 1878.

Q. It is asserted by some that thanksgiving at the breaking of bread should always be addressed to the Lord Jesus, never to the Father. The ground taken is that the table is that of the Lord Jesus, not in any sense that of the Father. How far have these thoughts foundation in scripture? μαθητής.

A. There is no doubt that the table is the Lord's, but it is as far as can be from the truth, and a mere human inference, to draw thence that there is not the fullest liberty to praise God, and to worship the Father, while fully owning and giving thanks to the Lord. Such thoughts are the mere workings of a reasoning mind; they are not Christ, nor of the Holy Ghost, who never limits the truth as revealed, nor turns one truth against another. The Spirit might on one occasion make God in His nature the theme of blessing, at another His relationship of Father. And even in exalting our Lord Jesus, there is all variety of His personal glory, as there are also most distinct aspects of His grace to us, of which the Lordship is rather the least, however true and important. But He is Son, Priest, Advocate, and Head of the church, which differ quite from His Lordship, and are every one of them fraught with blessing, and call out the praises of the saints. In every point of view then to address our thanksgiving to the Saviour only is narrow and wrong, and especially so were He to be worshipped at His table as the Lord only.

John 19: 5. — A question is sent, whether "Behold the man" may mean, Jesus says, "Behold the man." But the whole context shows it is Pilate. As to the form of the sentence, the words, "And Jesus came forth, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe," are a parenthesis. It runs thus: "Pilate went out therefore again, and he saith to them, Lo, I bring him out to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him (Jesus therefore came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe), and he saith to them, Behold the man!" Jesus had thus, consequent on the first part of Pilate's speech, been led out before them. For they did not enter in where Pilate judged, that they might not defile themselves.

Bible Treasury Volume 12, p. 239. September 1878

Q. 1 John 1: 7. — Is it true that the last clause of this verse teaches us that the blood of Jesus cleanseth the sins of believers as a present process (that is, is actually cleansing)?

A. It is always a serious thing when an effort is made, on grammatical grounds, to overthrow a plainly revealed truth of the gospel. Now, there is not a single fact more certain than that in Christ we have redemption through Christ's blood, the forgiveness of sins or offences. (Ephesians 1; Colossians 1.) So, in the next chapter of our epistle, John writes to the entire family of God, "Because your sins were forgiven you for his name's sake." In Romans 5 we are said to be justified in virtue of Christ's blood, and reconciled by His death; in Hebrews, sanctified by the offering of His body once for all; yea, more, perfected by it for ever (εἰσ τὸ διηνεκές), for unbroken continuance. But why heap together scriptures so familiar and precious to the youngest Christian? To represent the cleansing of the believer by the Saviour's blood as a continuous act, and therefore incomplete, is to dishonour the efficacy of His work, and to weaken the ground of that peace which He is declared to have made by the blood of His cross. (Colossians 1: 20.) How manifest it is that a false interpretation not only introduces an error, but sets one scripture against another — the surest way to discredit all.

Thus, if sin-cleansing by the blood of Jesus is assumed to be only going on, it would falsify the same John's language in Revelation 1: 5, where we are said to be already washed by His blood, and this comes out more strikingly in any exact rendering like Dean Alford's version: "Unto him that loveth us, and washed us from our sins in his blood." His love is constant, but the washing, or loosing, us from our sins is set forth by a participle of that tense which expresses an action simple past, excluding duration. John could have used no such form, if we had to come before God for daily cleansing by the blood of Jesus; for in this case it would be correct to employ, not the aorist, but the imperfect tense, which precisely expresses a continued, or repeated action.

How, then, did the apostle use the present? Was there laxity in his expression, when he said, "The blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from every sin?" On the contrary, the tense is just as exact in 1 John 1: 7, as his use of distinctive participles in Revelation 1: 5. A little learning is probably dangerous; and in the exegesis of scripture voluminous commentators are apt to astray, no less than their followers. But to give an opinion on such a question hardly becomes people ignorant of the fact, that the present in Greek, as in most languages, is in no way limited to an incomplete action yet in course of performance; for it no less correctly expresses an absolute present, as in general propositions, doctrinal statements, apothegms, and descriptions of manners, customs, or matters of frequent occurrence. Just so, in English, we say, "Food nourishes the human body; poison kills." The idea intended is not the continuance of the act, but the quality of each material, or their opposite effects on man. Almost every chapter in the epistles furnishes instances. Take a plain and kindred statement from 1 John 2: "He is the propitiation for our sins." Does the present here mean that He is actually now atoning for our sins? Clearly not; such an interpretation would incontrovertibly overthrow the atonement. It is here evidently used in its absolute sense, without reference to any definite moment, for expressing the great and blessed truth of His propitiation. Just so in our text the notion of continuos cleansing would distinctly contradict the grand doctrine of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and of the gospel in general. It is therefore the gravest error.

Further, it is inexcusable ignorance to assume that the present tense must be so taken; for the present may convey an absolute or abstract statement, and not continuance only. Let the reader take the Epistle of James, or the Book of Proverbs, and observe how often the absolute present occurs in every chapter. The same thing will be found in Paul's epistles, and especially in John. The sense and the context must describe which is meant in each case; and the selfsame principle applies to every book which lays down general maxims as truly as to the Bible.

Let us, then, look yet more closely into the verse and its surroundings. The apostle treats (Not, as in Hebrews, of our access to God as worshippers once purged, having no more conscience of sins, but) of fellowship with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ, in virtue of the eternal life fully manifested and reported. But there is a solemn message, as well as a joy-giving manifestation: not only is the Son seen and heard, and the revelation written for others, but God is made known as light, and in Him no darkness at all; so that those who pretend to fellowship with Him, while walking in darkness, lie, and do not practise the truth. Gnosticism was then at work, soon to advance to still deeper impiety. It is not a question of saints more or less consistent, of falling Christians exhorted or corrected, but of false men contrasted with true believers, for profit and warning. But if (and here he introduces the true) we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus cleanseth from every sin. He is contrasting the believer, not only with Gentile or Jew, but with the spurious class of professors of Christ then spreading. The Christian is not like the Gentiles, walking in the vanity of their mind, darkened in understanding, estranged from the life of God, on account of the ignorance which is in them; nor is he like the Jews, walking at best outside the sanctuary, where God hid Himself behind a veil. Jew or Gentile once, the Christian owns and follows Christ, the light of the world, and consequently walks not in darkness, but has the light of life. There we walk, no longer in uncertainty, but in the true knowledge of God as He is revealed in Christ.

In Ephesians 4, we are exhorted to walk as children of light (that is, according to it), being now no longer darkness, but light in the Lord. Here this is not yet the question, though it follows at great length in 1 John 2 and 1 John 3. The apostle is distinguishing the true from the false, and lays down, that if we walk (not according to, but) in the light, if we walk no longer as men in the dark but as Christians in the light of God fully revealed to our souls in Christ, we have fellowship one with another, we are brought into common thoughts and affections, joys and sorrows, as saints, and the blood of Jesus, His Son, cleanses us completely. No otherwise could we stand in that light, or enjoy this fellowship. It is not a mere momentary emotion, but the standing of Christians contemplated in this threefold way: walking in the light, mutual fellowship, and cleansing by the blood of Jesus. These are blessed privileges, every one, yet do they involve the gravest responsibility. It is no question of practical measure; for how could such as we experimentally be said to walk there as God is in the light? But if grace has brought us into the light to walk there, as He is in the light, in no partial revelation but the fullest of God's nature, all is plain. Christ once suffered for sins, Just for unjust, that He might bring us to God; and now in Him we, who once were afar off, are made nigh by His blood. Peter and Paul perfectly harmonise with John.

There is provision for failure, but this is in 1 John 2: 1, as in John 13. There is fresh application, not of the blood which abides shed once for all in ever efficacious value, but of water, figure of the word applied by the Spirit, in answer to Christ's advocacy with the Father. "He that is washed (λελουμένος) needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit." "Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you." So more generally Christ gave Himself for the church, that He might sanctify, having cleansed it with the washing of water by the word. No one holds so mean and shallow a view as that this means, by reading of the scriptures, but by the Spirit's applying the word to the conscience, both at conversion, and all through the Christian's course. It is not true, as Alford says, that the word translated "washing" means "laver" or "bath" (which would be λουτήρ), but "bathing," and hence the water used, not the vessel which contained it, ὲν ῥ. characterising it as effected by the word, and not ritual or ceremonial as in Judaism. To read the scriptures is all well; but this goes far more deeply to the Lord's application of His word to convict, or otherwise deal with the soul, as we may see in Peter's case, Luke 22: 61. But there is no such thought in 1 John 1: 7, which ought in that case to read, "If we do not walk in the light . . . the blood cleanseth;" just the opposite of what the apostle says and means. "This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ." For repetition in washing with water the feet apt to be defiled here below, scripture leaves ample room; repeated application of Christ's blood is unknown to God's word, though common enough in Christendom — another gospel, which is not another.

We have seen, then, that continuous cleansing by blood cannot be meant, not merely because it has no just sense in itself, but because it opposes other scriptures which treat the effect on the Christian as complete. Scripture cannot be broken. Repeated application of Christ's blood the word does not countenance anywhere else, even if the word here implied it, which it does not. It remains, therefore that we must fall back on the only possible sense of the present here open to us, namely, that the apostle states, in an absolute way, the cleansing of believers by the blood of Jesus, expressed (as it regularly is in such propositions) in the present, but abstractedly, without reference to time past, present, or future, as one of the main characteristics of their place or standing. Hence it is no question of this or that sin, when confessed: His blood cleanseth from every sin. Details are not before us, nor restoration after failure. It is the proper and full value of His blood. Consequently, if it were the design of the Holy Spirit to reveal this absolutely, the present tense was the one exactly suited to the apostle's hand, as we see it now before us. The effort to limit, or even apply, the expression "cleanseth," to the continuous force of the present, is therefore mere ignorance, or worse. The doctrine of the clause, the context, and scripture in general, declare unitedly and unequivocally for the absolute (or, as some less correctly term it, the emphatic) usage of the present in the closing verb of 1 John 1: 7.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 13.

Bible Treasury Volume 13, p. 32. February 1880.

Q, 2 Corinthians 5: 19. What would have happened if men had received the Christ of God? We see Him forgiving governmentally, as in Matthew 9. W.

A. The blessed Saviour was "reconciling," acting toward this gracious end, during His life. "God was in Christ," etc. He was rejected. God knew that redemption by His blood was necessary to reconcile; so that in reality He was made sin in order to put the ministry of reconciliation in the apostles. And when it is said, "God was in Christ reconciling," it is a question, not of the basis necessary for giving effect (which is the thing treated in the verse but one following, 21), but of the ways of God with regard to man by Christ during His life.  If Christ had been received, the result would have proved that evil was reparable. Now we know that the truth is quite otherwise. But God presented the thing to the responsibility of man before manifesting this moral impossibility. Though He called to it, He was calling them according to the knowledge He had Himself of that which He was going to do. "What shall I do? I will send my beloved Son. It may be they will reverence him, when they see him." There is what was presented to man. The object of faith is the person of Christ. Believing in Him one enjoyed the efficacy of His death, during His life true to Him in ignorance, later on with intelligence.

There is a governmental pardon, which could not be save in virtue of expiation, it is true, but which is notwithstanding another thing. Besides, the pardon accorded in detail in view of the offering of Christ was according fully during His life here below in view of the was of God in grace. The effect was shown, the case occurring, by a healing as proof. But grace at all times has its application in view of the work of Christ. (See Romans 3: 25, 26.)

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 14.

Bible Treasury Volume 14, p. 32. February 1882.

Q. Will you do me the great favour to direct me as to the reconciliation of your views of the parenthetical nature of the Christian Dispensation with the passages in the New Testament which seem to teach that Abraham and Christians are one in relation to the benefits that flow from the mercy of God through the Redeemer? If the scriptures alluded to did not seem so plainly to contradict your distinction of heavenly and earthly, I could adopt your view. But with only the light I have now, there is nothing for me but painful uncertainty. Lexington, Va., Dec. 30, 1881. F.P.M.

A. The passages of the News Testament to which our correspondent refers are doubtless such texts as Romans 4: 11, Galatians 3, and Hebrews 11. The reason why they are supposed inconsistent with the special privileges of the believer now, is that the distinctive place of the Christian, and yet more of the Church, is not apprehended. People assume that to be born of God, and to be justified by faith, are the sum and substance of present blessing. But it is not so. All saints are necessarily born of the Spirit. The baptism of the Spirit was never enjoyed till Pentecost; and on this depends the body of Christ. Compare Acts 1: 2 with 1 Corinthians 12: 13. And the gift of the Spirit, as thus over and above the new birth, as it could not be before redemption, was to be the permanent privilege of the Christian. The Comforter or Paraclete was to abide with the disciples forever. Even as to justification by faith, Romans 4 makes this difference between Abraham and us: he believed that God was able to perform His promise; we believe on Him that raised up from the dead Jesus our Lord, after accomplishing His work in death for our offence. The Old Testament had promise; we rest on accomplishment; so that there is a grave difference at the threshold. Then Galatians 4 shows that even the true saints of old were in servitude; but that now it is a question of the adoption of sons, the Spirit of the Son being sent forth into the hearts of the sons, crying Abba, Father. The inheritance of promise is common ground; but this quite consists with fresh and superior blessing consequent on redemption. If we think not of the individual, but of our corporate relationship, the difference is at least as marked. The olive tree of testimony according to promise is not at all the same as the house of God, or the body of Christ. There is continuity in the olive tree, even if some of the natural branches were broken off for unbelief to let in the Gentile wild olive graft; and the Gentile, if not continuing in goodness, is to be cut off, that God may ingraft again the natural branches no longer abiding in unbelief. "And so all Israel shall be saved" in the depth of God's wisdom and mercy. But this quite distinct from Ephesians 2, where the two are formed into one man, in which is neither Jew nor Gentile; and we are built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the chief corner stone. During the Old Testament the middle wall was not broken down, nor were both made one. Even in the Lord's ministry here below, "Go not," said He, "into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:" dead and risen, He sends them to any or all. How could the house be even begun before the foundation, not of prophets and then apostles, but "of the apostles and prophets" whom the ascended Head gave as gifts? And the body is formed in union with Him by the Spirit sent down from heaven.

Thus, if there are benefits which all saints enjoy from God's mercy through Christ, which is thankfully owned, there are fresh and unspeakably great privileges which flow from redemption, and the presence of the Holy Ghost, who associates us in unity with Christ on high. In these last lies the peculiar blessing of the Christian and the Church. When Christ comes, the worthies of faith will, no doubt, receive the promise; but God has none the less provided some thing for us, though we and they shall together enter on glory in that day.

Q. 1 Peter 3: 18-20. — What is the meaning? Did Christ preach after death to the Old Testament saints?

A. To be understood, this verse must be taken with what goes before. Christ was put to death in flesh, but made alive in the Spirit, in which also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, disobedient as they at one time were when the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved through water; which figure also doth now save you, etc. Just as we read in 1 Peter 1: 10-12 of Christ's Spirit in the prophets testifying, so we here learn that His Spirit (i.e. in Noah) preached. Those who heard were disobedient then, and their spirits are in prison now. Christ's Spirit by Noah went and preached to them when they were living men, before the Deluge came; but they rejected the Word, and now consequently their spirits await the judgment at the resurrecion of the unjust. The collocation of the Greek (τοῒς ἐν φυλακῆ πνέμασιν) is decisive, that the true connection is not with the preaching, but between the spirits and prison. They were sinners disobedient to the message, not saints comforted. The preaching was on earth, where the unbelieving rejection was; and because of it their spirits are now imprisoned (the very opposite of paradise) till judgment come.

Bible Treasury Volume 14, p. 96. June 1882.

Q. Hebrews 13: 7, 8. Does this mean that the faithful leaders here alluded to make Christ their constant theme in their speech with one another as well as with others?

A. I do not doubt that so it was with these servants of the Lord, as it should be with all of us who love Him. But this scripture says nothing about it, speaking of two wholly distinct matters. (1) Ver. 7 calls on the Hebrew Christians to remember their guides, who (the which) spoke to them the word of God, revealed truth in general; and to follow their faith, surveying throughout the issue or termination of their career. Their "conversation" in the sense of Christian course was closed. The saints who remembered them would do well to imitate their faith when here. (2) Ver. 8 introduces a new subject: if there be any link with ver. 7, it is a contrast with the faithful servants who were gone. "Jesus Christ [is] yesterday and today the same, and forever." He is declared to be, the man, the unchangeable. What a safeguard against being carried away by various and strange teachings! Christ truly known satisfies the heart and gives rest to the mind otherwise greedy of novelties. Thus do even the naturally fickle become by grace restful and stable as they grow up to Him in all things.

Bible Treasury Volume 14, p. 112. July 1882.

Q. Genesis 1: 20, Genesis 2: 19. Can the translation be correct? The first text seems to teach that the fowl as well as fish sprang from the waters by God's fiat; the second distinctly states that out of the ground were formed the fowl as well every beast of the field. X.Y.Z.

A. The margin corrects, or rather in giving the true construction leaves no room for, the error. Nothing really is said or intended about the waters bringing forth fowl: the latter are spoken of in a distinct clause. Benisch and Leeser are just as faulty as the Authorised Version, or more so, as they perpetuate the error in the face of its marginal emendation; De Sola, Lindenthal, and Raphall break off from the error, due probably to the Targum of Onkelos, the Talmud, R. Eleazar Hagadol, Rashi, and other Rabbis, who maintain hence the common origin of fish and birds from the waters. Many follow these from Bishop Patrick down to Professor Gaussen; and no wonder as the Septuagint and the Vulgate and the Arabic are wrong, though the Hebraso-Samaritan and the Syriac are right. The true rendering is, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly, etc. and let fowl fly, etc." There is no discrepancy in this case to be reconciled.

Bible Treasury Volume 14, p. 160. October 1882.

Q. 1. Philippians 2: 21. Will you please interpret the passage "All seek their own things, not the things of Jesus Christ"?

2. In a paper of a small periodical for September the writer defines "their own things" as the "certainty of salvation," "my portion on earth" "heavenly joys conveyed to my soul by the Spirit of God come down from heaven." Then he says "Now when we are seeking our own things . . . It is very evident that we cannot devote ourselves to Christ's things." Is this in any sense the right force of this scripture? Do you consider that any of the things enumerated were in the mind of the Spirit of God in this passage?

Are not "the things of Jesus Christ" His own interests, in the plucking of a brand from eternal ruin as truly "the conscious union (of the beloved) with Christ . . .in heavenly places"? QUERIST.

A. 1. There is no just doubt that the apostle here speaks with deep feeling of the waning of love and devotedness to Christ, His interests and objects, among all that bore His name. It is not to be limited to his then companions, any more than to unwillingness to undertake so long a journey as from Rome to Philippi. It is his solemn assertion of the selfishness creeping over Christians as a whole, though he intimates in the passage itself blessed exceptions in Timothy and Epaphroditus, as in the saints doubtless to whom he was writing. "The things of Christ," it is manifest from the epistle itself, include the gospel and fellowship with it and its conflicts, love for the saints and sympathetic help in their every need, not only spiritual but personal and temporal, individual progress in the grace of Christ as well as gracious consideration of one another, with Himself before us both in the love that came down to obey even to the death of the cross and in the glory where He is now on high, as well as in the assurance of His speedy coming. The Epistle essentially contemplated the saints as in the wilderness, not in Canaan, though this be true also and the view in Ephesians.

2. It is false doctrine, therefore, that Christ's things according to this epistle (and it is here only this expression occurs) begin in heavenly places (Jordan behind), and that "my own continue during my course," in the true sense of this scripture. This is an exaggeration of the truth which is always untrue, an atmosphere of falsetto for those who are not breathing the free air of Christ and all the truth. The apostle, the Holy Spirit, does not mean, "a great deal in Christianity" as "one's own." Selfish interests are meant, I do not say open sins which man would blame, but such things as he would rather praise (Psalm 49: 8). It is not only a false interpretation, but, it is to be feared, of the enemy, that seeking our own things means to learn the certainty of salvation, the heavenly joys, etc. The practical issue of this dangerous and evil one-sidedness would be to expose souls under such influence to real selfishness, value for rank and social enjoyment, love of money, power, and party, etc. the very snares against which the unsophisticated truth would guard the simple in God's grace. It is false that "our own things" ought to continue during our course. We fail if we allow selfishness for an hour. In every respect the teaching is erroneous and mischievous.

Bible Treasury Volume 14, p. 272. May 1883.

Q. Acts 2: 46; Acts 20: 7; 1 Corinthians 11: 20. A few, in a gathering, met on a week-day for the breaking of bread at the house, and at the request of a sick (perhaps dying) person, and another (who had previously expressed a desire to break bread, but who cannot go to the Lord's-day meetings for that purpose) is allowed to do so at the same time, both not having been publicly received at the Lord's table, and the gathering not having been previously acquainted with the intention thus to break bread.

1. Does this not in effect bring these two into fellowship?

2. Is it not irregular reception?

3. If the Lord's table is the expression of unity, should not intermediate meetings for breaking of bread be confined to those in fellowship?

A. Undoubtedly the breaking of bread is the sign of Christian fellowship, the communion of Christ's body and blood. And it is as well, as a regular rule, to inform the assembly of any such act as breaking bread with a sick saint, as also of another expected to break bread there who could not usually, both being souls on adequate testimony recognised as members of Christ's body, against whom no valid objection existed. Otherwise the act, if done without such care, might become a plea for factious persons and real offences against godly fellowship. Acts 2: 46 proves that there is no scriptural hindrance. The saints at first used to break bread at home daily. A week-day, therefore, in a private house, is no sufficient objection, though the Lord's-day be rightly owned as the constant claim of grace on all saints with the authority of the word in Acts 20: 7, 1 Corinthians 11: 16. But we have to take into account the present ruin of the church, and, while careful of order and zealous for edification, we must not forget the many members of Christ outside as to whom we should act in gracious wisdom. Hence it is notorious that when at the close of many a conference breaking bread on a weekday, and in towns where there might or might not be saints gathered to Christ's name, we have gladly let known saints break bread with us though there had been no previous intimation. We should seek to apply the "one body and one Spirit" in grace, as well as stringently. Singleness of eye, with a heart of love, in subjection to the Lord, will have His guidance.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 15.

Bible Treasury Volume 15, p. 111. July 1884.

Q. Dear Sir,

In Daniel 7: 8, the prophet is occupied with the horn and his audacious pretensions, which cause the "Ancient of Days" — the everlasting God — to act judicially (ver. 9). Hence the thrones are set, and the books are opened. After this, in the same sequence of events, it would appear, and as the result of God's judgment, the beast is slain, his body destroyed and given to the burning flame (Revelation 19: 20), in contrast with the other beasts which had their dominion taken away, but their lives prolonged for a little time. Then in the night visions the prophet sees one like the "Son of man" coming to the Ancient of Days and receiving a kingdom, the world-kingdom of Revelation 11: 15, it is to be supposed.

Now the question in my mind is as to when this will take place. The books I have read on the subject seem to treat the matter vaguely. They all seem to conclude that the Lord Jesus first receives the kingdom and afterwards comes to execute judgment on the nations. But is this the Scripture order of events? Psalm 110 says, "Sit Thou on My right hand until I make Thy foes Thy footstool." And in Matthew 26: 64 the Lord says "Hereafter ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds." He does not leave His own throne then to come in the clouds; and therefore cannot have received His kingdom at that time. It is true in the counsels of God, the Lord Jesus is King already; but it seems to me from the word that He does not receive His kingdom until the nations are subdued and the eve of the millennium come. W.T.H.

A. Is not the querist also a little vague? No intelligent reader of the prophetic scriptures conceives that the Lord "leave" His own throne but the Father's, when, receiving the kingdom, He comes to execute judgment, whether warlike (Revelation 19) or sessional (Matthew 25 or Revelation 20: 4). Psalm 110: 1 speaks of His sitting at Jehovah's right hand meanwhile, till the moment comes for the judgment of the quick, quite passing by (as an unrevealed mystery) His descent to receive to Himself the heavenly saints. His advent in judgment will deal with His foes made His footstool. But scripture does not describe the nations as "subdued" before He comes in His kingdom to judge, though God will have smitten the earth with increasing severity in His providence before then. During the millennium the Lord will reign over them all in peace and righteousness; after it will be the last outbreak, when Satan is loosed for a little, but they are destroyed. And then follow the dissolution of all things, the judgment of the dead — the wicked dead, and the new heavens and earth in the full and final sense, the eternal scene with its solemn background of everlasting punishment.

Dear Mr. Editor,

I beg to submit the following queries to you.

Q. 1. John 1; 14, δόζαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός. Is there anything in this passage which necessitates or even allows departure from the regular rendering of παρά with a genitive by "from, proceeding from" etc.? Is "with" (which requires a dative, see John 1: 40, John 17: 5, twice, etc.) permissible here? It is so given in "A new Translation." Every other instance in John's Gospel of παρά with a genitive seem to exclude any but the regular construction of "from" or "of." Cf. John 16: 28, John 17: 6, 8, etc. Of course the interpretation will be affected by the translation.

Q. 2. John 1: 18. ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν κ.τ.λ. The reading here seems a difficult question, θεοῦ, υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ and other variants having some support. But μον. θεός appears to be supported by some uncials, cursives, versions and Fathers. It is adopted by Alford, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and others. Griesbach marks υἱός as doubtful; Lachmann inserts θεός in margin. This being the case, is the evidence brought forward in favour of θεός really strong enough to shake confidence in the Received Text of this passage? Yours faithfully in Christ, W.J.

A. 1. All the older English Versions of John 1: 14 favour "of" and avoid the usual rendering "from," as does the new translation which prefers "with," ordinarily answering to the dative. "On the part of" of shortly "of" seems best here.

A. 2. There is no doubt of the ancient, if not large, support, of θεός, instead of the ordinary reading υἱός, "Son." Nevertheless Tregelles alone ventured to follow them as he does in other harsh readings, till the Cambridge Editors joined him. All others, notwithstanding B Cpm L 33, two or three versions, and patristic allusions, prefer A and fifteen other uncials, all cursives but one, the ancient Vv. and Fathers. It is not according to the analogy of scripture to speak of "only-begotten God"; and "Son" is their true correlate to "Father." Alford stands with Griesbach, Lachmann, Scholz, Scrivener, Tischendorf, Wordsworth, as well as all the older critics.

Bible Treasury Volume 15, p. 224. February 1885.

Q. The true application of 2 John is asked, more especially of verse 10, 11; and proof is wished that those refused for Newtonianism or for receiving its partisans fall under this scripture.

A. Is the raiser of the question aware that several grave and intelligent men printed and circulated their own full confession that the doctrine in question, which they had received and taught, did deny the Christ of God and must destroy the souls of all who abode under its poisonous influence? It is not in question therefore what opponents may have said. Abler persons than those who now palliate the error know far better what they held, and that it was as bad or worse than we said who resolutely rejected it and denounced its deadly nature. Can he be aware of what was taught about Christ? Was He really "exposed, for example, because of His relation to Adam to that sentence of death, that had been pronounced on the whole family of man"? Had He "the exercises of soul which His elect in their unconverted state ought to have?" Could the Spirit's anointing never have come on Him, unless foreordained and known as the Victim? Was it so that Christ was sealed of the Spirit? Had He to find His way to a point where God could meet Him, and that point, death on the cross under God's wrath? Is any one of these statements (a small sample of this awful heterodoxy) compatible with "the doctrine of Christ?"

He who questions this understands neither the doctrine nor its denial, and proves himself quite incompetent to speak, as being under the blinding power of the enemy. The doctrine overthrows Christ as come in the flesh and would make Him wholly unfit to be made sin for us. Now, not to speak of reproof or avoidance, putting out is far to mild for such an evil. Hence 2 John lays down in the broadest way, not this or that special form of antichristianism, but that if any bring not "this doctrine" [i.e. the true teaching of Christ's person], "receive him not into your house," nor salute him. This is much more stringent than the measure prescribed for the incestuous man in 1 Corinthians 5, and of course very much beyond withdrawing from the disorderly in 2 Thessalonians 3 or the divisionists in Romans 16. It is the most heinous sin, with which the christian has to deal, and very precisely was the turning point of our great breach in 1849. For ver. 11 extends the partaking of evil deeds to all who have fellowship with those who do not bring this doctrine.

The reasoning that questions and undermines it is mere unbelief, in direct opposition to God's object in the church; which is bound to purge out all leaven (doctrinal, Galatians 5, as well as moral, 1 Corinthians 5). It is in principle to build again Babylon on the ruins of the pillar and ground of the truth, and more worthy of a worldly man than of a soul that loves Christ and God's word. Yet I doubt not that real Christians have been and are beguiled into this indifference to Christ. But this makes it the more urgent that all who are true to His glory should prove their love to God's children, not by the faithless allowance of the worst evil in a person because he may be a christian, but by loving God and keeping His commandments. And this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not grievous.

Bible Treasury Volume 15, p. 367. November 1885.

The book of yours which I have by me is, "Lectures on the Book of Daniel," second edition.

Q. 1. I cannot reconcile some passages in it with Scripture. On page 103 I read "'The first was like a lion and had eagle's wings.' There, beyond question, we have the empire of Babylon" and on page 33, "Babylon was first made an empire of in the person of Nebuchadnezzar, who here includes, as it were, those that were to follow." Surely the description in Daniel 7: 2, 3, "......beheld the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea. And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from the other") in no way applies to Nebuchadnezzar's accession to the throne of Babylon. Was not his father Nabpolassar king of Babylon before him?

Q. 2. In pages 106 and 107 Alexander's (the Grecian) kingdom is represented (you say) in the vision by the "Leopard which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads." You add "There you have not so much what was found in Alexander himself, but rather in his successors." Why do you say so? The scriptures must be correct. The leopard appeared with four heads, not with one which was replaced by four, like Alexander's own kingdom which was divided into four! The interpretation of this vision in Daniel 7: 17 ("These great beasts which are four, are four kings which shall arise out of the earth") was given within some three years of the fall of the Babylonian empire. And yet you say, "'The first was like a lion and had eagle's wings.' There beyond question we have the empire of Babylon" (page 103). The interpretation given to Daniel says "shall arise," while the Babylonian empire began (page 33) in Nebuchadnezzar some (?) sixty-six years before. J.S.C.

A. 1. The book of Daniel is itself the nearest and weightiest help to explain the difficulties of its several parts. Thus Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 reflect light one on another. There is a manifest unity in the colossal image seen in Nebuchadnezzar's dream, which has its answer in "the four great beasts" that "came up from the sea" in Daniel's vision during the first year of Belshazzar's reign. In the visions all were thus seen at once, though in historical fact they were to succeed each other; as the rest of the chapter would plainly enough indicate. It was not a question of what Babylon had been, or of Nebuchadnezzar's succeeding Nabopolassar, but of God's gift of world-empire to these four successive powers. They begin with Nebuchadnezzaar, and are terminated by the judgment to be executed on the final form of the fourth or Roman empire by the Stone cut without hands, i.e. God's kingdom wielded by the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven. Nabopolassar was doubtless king of Babylon; but in no way head of the image or imperial system which commenced with his son Nebuchadnezzar, to whom God gave this place expressly. He, not his father, could say though arrogantly, "Is not this great Babylon that I have built?" as he built enormously besides. His foreign  conquests were great, yet less momentous than his energetic home policy. But his overthrow of the Jewish kingdom in its last stronghold was the turning-point, and in him the Gentile imperial system began. Daniel 2: 37, 38 affords light clear enough for beginning with Nebuchadnezzar and excluding his father or any other before him; as no reasonable mind doubts the parralelism of the two chapters. Compare Jeremiah 27, Ezekiel 12, 17.

A. 2. Here the comparison of Daniel 8: 21, 22 simply and fully solves the difficulty as to Daniel 7: 6. So one must say because scripture so explains. The latter vision of Daniel 8 bears on important details of the second and third powers, laying aside all reference to the first and fourth in Daniel 7. "It is written again" is of the greatest moment when "It is written" is misapplied. Scripture is everywhere consistent as well as surely correct. The fourth beast appears with ten horns; yet we know from other scriptures that these mean ten kings at the very close of the last empire, in no way that they were so found when that empire first began. The same remark applies to the four heads of the leopard or Macedonian empire. Each vision gives characteristic differences without in the least implying that they all appeared from the start. Other or subsequent statements correct such an inference as unfounded and contrary to fact.

So "shall arise" in Daniel 7: 17 must in fairness be taken as a whole, connecting the three powers to come with the Babylonian though already in being and tottering to its fall. To construe the words with such rigid technicality as to exclude the Babylonish empire from answering to the lion with eagle's wings is, not a difficulty for my exposition, but really a setting of Daniel 7 in opposition to Daniel 2 and a groundless upturning of the plain fact. From a full consideration of these scriptures I hold that truth calls one to interpret the "four kings" which "shall arise" as comprising the beginning to the end of these earthly bestial systems, but not as to exclude the first beast from Nebuchadnezzar's day; four this would set scripture against scripture and thus disproves itself as erroneous. "These great beasts, which are four, are four kings which shall arise out of the earth." One cannot fairly use this to deny retrospect, must include Babylon from Nebuchadnezzar. For the object is to give the imperial system relative unity; whilst "the first" and "another," etc. in ver. 4-7, gave also succession adequately, as indeed had been done yet more plainly in Daniel 2. Verse 11, 12 contrast a prolonging of the three previous beasts after the loss of dominion; whereas the fourth is utterly destroyed when it ceases to be an imperial power at the close. Scripture therefore sustains the statements questioned, without meddling with the ordinary version of the passages; it shows that the difficulty lies rather in divorcing one text from another, instead of receiving all. Scripture cannot be broken. A priori expectations of what or how God should reveal are sure to be disappointed. Our blessing is to own His wisdom and goodness in what He gives or withholds. The Holy Spirit, as He wrote all in view of Christ's glory, so works in giving us to expound aright just so far as we have His glory in view, the true safeguard of explaining aright.

Even the incredulous Gibbon in his Letter to Bp. Hurd (Hurd's Works, pp365,6) says, "The four empires are clearly delineated, the expedition of Xerxes into Greece, the rapid conquest of Persia by Alexander, his untimely death without posterity, the division of his vast monarchy into four kingdoms, one of which is mentioned by name, their various wars and intermarriages, the persecution of Antiochus, the profanation of the temple, and the invincible arms of the Romans are described with so much perspicuity in the prophecies of Daniel, as in the histories of Justin and Diodorus. From such a perfect resemblance the artful infidel would infer that both were alike composed after the event." He argued that the author of the book of Daniel was too well informed of the revolutions of the Persian and Macedonain empires supposed to have happened long after his death; and that he was too ignorant of the transactions in his own times: in a word, that he was too exact for a prophet, and too fabulous for a contemporary historian.

It is enough to reply that the book is no less distinct in Daniel 9 about Christ's death and the destruction of Jerusalem; and that the alleged contemporaneous history is declared to be "at the time of the end" when Israel are to be delivered, and therefore, as future, necessarily unfulfilled prophecy. Hence, to say "fabulous" is not only premature but ignorant, as it will be surely proved to be the baseless scepticism of Gibbon, in the wake of Porphyry. Bur even they took no exception to the Four Empires as laid down in Daniel 2, Daniel 7, and saw no such force in Daniel 7: 2, 3, 6, or 17, as to enfeeble that interpretation. Now there was no empire of Rome till long after the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, where it pleases unbelief to imagine the writing of a book of Daniel. Yet the book not only speaks of a fourth or Roman empire, but dwells with peculiar fulness on its last phase, not yet accomplished, when its blasphemy is to draw down the holy vengeance of the Son of man. Then shall follow, not the white throne judgment when the wicked dead shall arise from their graves for judgment, but the kingdom which He shall previously exercise over all peoples, nations and languages. This therefore clearly presupposes the earth, when it shall be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea. Indeed even before that kingdom the latter part of Daniel 11 shows us "the time of the end," in which Antiochus Epiphanes has no place whatever. But three kings figure: "the king" (36-40) in the land, who will be so distinct from the then "king of the north" and the "king of the south" that they will both attack him at the same time. Ver. 41-45 are occupied exclusively with "the king of the north" in that future day, who becomes an especial object of divine wrath, as "the king," we know from elsewhere, will have been before him. Thus minutely writes the prophet on the solemn crisis at "the end of the age," which future detail is clearly after the gap where Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabees are done with.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 16.

Bible Treasury Volume 16, p. 96. June 1886.

Q. T.C.J. (N.Y.) sends Zion's Watch Tower, Vol. iv. No. 12, and asks whether the following paragraph (p. 2, col. 2) is trite. "It is an important scripture; and a line on the subject would be appreciated by many of us."

"Rev. 20: 5, first clause, which reads, 'But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished' is the subject of dispute. We showed conclusively that the above text has no support from any authority older than 'the middle of the fifth century.' It is not found in any of the older MSS. — it is not in the Syriac — and the confessedly oldest, most complete, and best of all Greek MSS. of the New Testament, the Sinaitic — does not contain those words. It is wanting too in several of the more recent MSS., among which is the Vatican, No. 1160, a MS. of special clearness and harmony with the most ancient ones."

The criticism, there need be no hesitation in saying, is unfounded; of which there can scarce be conceived a better proof than the fact that out of more than 500 editions of the Greek New Testament not one known to me exhibits the text desired. All present the clause which these manuscripts and the Syriac V. omit. Every editor of the most ordinary information knew of the various reading in question; yet not a single man of judgment has ever doubted that the omission is an error owing to one of the most fertile sources of variants, homoeoteleuton, as it is technically called. The clause before (end of ver. 4) closed with the words χίλια ἔτη; and so does the first clause of ver. 5. This naturally misled the eyes of weary scribes. So the critical editors in all lands and times have judged.

But it "has no support from any authority older than 'the middle of the fifth century'"! Can the Ed. of Z.W.T. have weighed his own words? There is but one MS. of the Revelation older, the Sinaitic; which is often and notoriously faulty, and nowhere more so than in this Book. Thus in Rev. 20 Only, ἐκ τοῦ οὐρ. in ver. 1 is omitted; the precisely same sort of error. as in 5 occurs in its form of ver. 2, 3, from αὐτόν to αὐτόν being omitted. In ver. 6 it adds καί in error. In ver. 8 it omits wrongly τῆς γῆς τόν; and it wrongly adds πάντα, and καί after M. In 9 there is the corrected insertion in error of ἀπὸ θεοῦ, and in 10 ὅπου is falsely repeated. In 11 there is the mistake of ἐπανω for ἐπ , as the article is wrongly dropt from 12, with ἐπί for ἐνώπιον, with the absurd correction of both inserted later. In 13 is the misreading against all authorities of κατεκρίθησαν. In 14 καί is added wrongly and 6 as wrongly left out. In 15 the future supplants the aorist. Now large as this list is, all the blemishes of the Sinaitic text of this one chapter are not here registered, but enough surely to prove bow little the real character of that document is known, and how precarious it would be to demand support from authority older than the middle of the fifth century.

Next, though the Peschito Syriac was made in very early days we have no MS. of any great antiquity; and even if we had, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, with Jude, are supplied from a later version, and the Revelation from a copy in the Leyden library, whose age is so uncertain, and character of text so doubtful, that it ranges very low indeed in a critical point of view.

The Alexandrian Uncial (A) is a capital authority as to the Rev.; and so is the Ephr. Rescr. of Paris (C), but here we do not hear its voice after 19: 5. But the Alex. is, like it, of the fifth century and is supported by the Basilian Vat. 2066, a MS. of far greater weight than the cursive 40 (=Vat. 1160), by an adequate number of cursives of which more than twenty have the same defect here as N. All the ancient versions, save de Dieu's Syriac, confirm the clause, as well as the early commentators, Greek and Latin.

Further, the clause is so entirely in keeping with the context that, if we had not these words at the opening of ver. 5, the same truth is conveyed, or supposed, by the first resurrection of the righteous who reign with Christ for a thousand years (ver. 4-6), followed by the little while of Satan's last deceit and war of the external nations, and the standing before the great white throne for eternal judgment of the dead, who had had no part in the resurrection of life and glory.

Bible Treasury Volume 16, p. 128. August 1886.

Q. Rev. 20

DEAR SIR,

A friend of mine says that the living and reigning with Christ refers to those beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and cannot apply to a reign on earth. It is, he says, a vision in heaven. Would you kindly refute this error in "The Bible Treasury" for August? Yours truly, A SUBSCRIBER.

A. The reign of Christ and the glorified saints is heavenly, but over the earth. Only the old Chiliasts, and their modern followers, treat it as "on" the earth, as is wrongly said in the Authorised and even the Revised versions of Rev. 5: 10. The local dwelling is properly ἐν, the sphere of rule is ἐπί, a distinction maintained in Hellenistic Greek, as in the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament. The vision being "in heaven" determines nothing as to actual place, as we may see from Rev. 12 and else where. Nor is it confined to those beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, but comprehends, first the general body of saints in those seen seated on thrones, then those beheaded, and lastly such as refused the worship of the beast and his mark. The first general class was already risen; the two other companies only now lived, in order to reign with Christ, as all of course are to do. "Know ye not that the saints shall judge the world? Know ye not that we shall judge angels?" (1 Cor. 6: 2, 3)

Bible Treasury Volume 16, p. 190. December 1886.

PROPITIATION. (Lev. 16; Heb. 2, 8, 9.)

Q. 1. A correspondent writes of "Recent Utterances," especially pp. 40-42, as "most confusing. That is, I know less than ever what Mr. Stuart wishes to prove, as differing from former teaching; I wonder if anybody knows."

A. The question is not whether Mr. Pinkerton who is criticised is quite justified, when he speaks of Christ's entrance into heaven "in virtue of His own blood." This would require ἐν not διά as here. It was a slip, perhaps from thinking of Heb. 13: 20, which does mean "in virtue of the blood of the everlasting covenant," and not, "through." Mr. P. would repudiate as cordially and emphatically as Mr. S., all thought of Christ's needing His own atoning blood to enter heaven. But "by" would be hardly less objectionable, if intended to convey the means whereby He entered, in derogation of His, person, as well as inconsistently with the use of διά in the early part of the verse. Some who contend for such a rendering are obliged to make the first mean "through" locally, the second and third "through" i.e. "by means of." But it has been long pointed out that διά (with the genitive and even with the accusative) sometimes points neither to the means whereby, nor to the cause for which, but to a characteristic state in which the person was or acted. as in Rom. 2: 25; Rom. 4: 11; Rom. 14: 20; Gal. 4: 13. In some of these cases "with" seems the least equivocal English rendering, though "in" or "by" may suit other places better when understood as simply characteristic.

But in the course of a singularly unfair comment, harping on a sense given to Mr. P.'s words which Mr. S. owns was not meant, he himself lays down doctrine inexcusably false, which he does mean distinctly and deliberately, on the foundation truth of propitiation. He censures in the most sweeping terms what Mr. P. holds in common with all rightly taught believers, that propitiation was accomplished in this world, not in heaven, and his denial that Christ entered heaven to complete it. The affirmative is the fundamental error which Mr. S. has embraced and teaches now, if not heretofore. From the type of Lev. 16 he declares boldly that, as propitiation by blood, an essential part of atonement, "was done and only done inside the most holy place, and by the high priest," so propitiation by blood was made by our Lord "in heaven, and after death!" Thus the plainest and most solemn declarations of Christ's atoning death in the N.T. are annulled, and His work, according to Mr. S., was not finished on the cross, because he is sure that his interpretation of the type so requires! Instead of believing Scripture that the law has only a shadow of the coming good things, he virtually makes it the image itself, thereby overthrowing the gospel truth of Christ's expiation completed here below. Indeed he is not the only one of his company led on, by the same confidence in his own handling of the types, to override the surest anti-typical truth now alone fully revealed.

But this is not all. Some of his staunchest supporters notoriously disapprove of his teaching, yet most hold together though differing wholly on what is only short of Christ's person in vital moment. Not only does Mr. S. wax bolder in his evil view, but the organ of the party for last month (Words in Season, xi. pp. 331, 2) stands committed to it, without the slightest warning of the Editor. And one may add with sincere grief that the statement is misleading enough for more than one upright man among them to circulate the periodical, in order to show that the matter was misjudged. Here Mr. S. says, "Atonement, then, was completed ere He rose" (p. 331). This was supposed to be a return to orthodoxy. But it is not so. It would have been, had Mr. S. written or meant, that atonement was completed by blood when He died. But he wrote carefully avoiding the truth, and still maintaining his fatal dream that "He made propitiation in the heavenly sanctuary as the High Priest after death, but before ascension" (p. 332)!!

That is to say in plain words, Mr. S. holds and teaches that, after death and before resurrection, Christ went up and by His blood made propitiation in heaven! In the disembodied state He entered on the office of High Priest to effect propitiation, before His present priestly service of intercession on high after He rose and ascended! Every believer, I should have judged, recognises in the word, as particularly in the Hebrews, but one entrance of Christ on high, risen and glorified, no matter how often the high priest had to enter the holiest in the type. Far from seeing "no difficulty in this" distressingly strange doctrine, every saint sound in the faith will reject it as a different propitiation which is not another. It is not the atonement of the gospel, but an abuse of the type to supplant the truth by what is really a ghastly fable. "We must unhesitatingly answer, "No!" to Mr. S.'s assertion that Christ in the separate state entered the heavenly sanctuary to make propitiation for the sins of the people. Scripture gives it no countenance; and the Epistle to the Hebrews knows of but one entrance, i.e. on His ascension.

Christ's entrance into heaven was in no way to effect propitiation: His atoning blood had already done so. He entered once for all (not once as a separate spirit, and a second time as risen), having obtained everlasting redemption, not to obtain it. For now, in His death, was the Son of man glorified, and God was glorified in Him, and would straightway glorify Him in Himself. But even then, if earth, and hades, and the grave, and the law of God attested the efficacy of His death and blood-shedding, heaven assuredly appraised it no less, without an unworthy tissue of human imagination perverting God's word.

Perhaps the worst part of the bad reasoning and strange doctrine is the argument drawn from putting together Heb. 2: 17, Heb. 8: 4, and Heb. 9: 12. This would go much farther than the author intends; for, if just, it would confine the entire work of propitiation to Christ on high and deny any part of it to His suffering on the cross! The true answer to such incredible rashness is that Heb. 2: 17, like the sacrificial part of Lev. 16, is exceptional and extra-priestly, being peculiar to the high priest in a representative way; which merged in our Lord as the one victim of everlasting efficacy, the basis of, while directly apart from, the regular priestly action which is alluded to in Heb. 8: 4.

May the grace of God deliver the author of the scheme, as well as his ensnared companions — more especially such as, knowing the error, practically mike light of it to the dishonour of Christ, of the cross, and of the truth as a whole.

P.S. Thus far was written and printed before "The Atonement" by B. F. Pinkerton comes to hand. The chief defect in it is his "difficulty about Heb. 2: 17" (p. 17), and especially Note 1 (p. 47). There is no ground whatever for doubting that this verse does strictly and solely refer to atonement for sins. Compassion of course no one denies; but the true meaning is "to expiate," or make propitiation for, "the sins of the people." This was not the function of the priest in the sanctuary (which alone is the point in Heb. 8: 4), but the high-priest's peculiar work on the day of atonement, in the anti-type Christ being alike Victim and high-priestly Offerer. Neither Luke 18: 13, nor still less Matt. 16: 22, bears on atonement. Even B. W. N. & Bethesda would be ashamed to put such an affront on Christ's atoning death.

COL. 1: 24.

Q. 2. Though I am afraid you will consider my question more curious than important, I trust you will bear with it as being among the follies of youth.

What is the force of the phrase in Col. 1: 24, "Who ...... fill up that which is behind of the sufferings of Christ in my flesh for His body's sake which is the church?"

The main difficulty to my mind is whether ὑστερήματα connects itself with the sufferings of Christ or with the sufferings of Paul. If the latter, by what grammatical or syntactical rule? If the former, the idea conveyed seems to be somewhat incongruous; for surely Christ did not leave His sufferings unfinished. If so, in what sense? Even if θλίψ. τοῦ Χριστοῦ be taken as a generic term (as in 2 Cor. 1: 5 et al.) in opposition to ascetic mortification or any other *spurious suffering, a difficulty still remains: for would not this imply that Paul's previous sufferings were not for Christ's sake?

(* Not for Christ's sake.)

Bloomfield (also quoting Elsner and Newcome), supports the idea of Paul suffering for Christ's sake in a general sense. The French version (S.P.C.K.) also reads, "j'accomplis ce qu'il me reste à soufirir dans ma chair pour la cause de Christ." And so I suppose J. N. D. ; though I confess I am hardly sure whether I rightly understand his note in the New Trans. (1st. ed.); nor have I the means of consulting Meyer and others to whom he refers.

On the other hand, Ostervald appears to be equally bold in the opposite direction. He escapes the seeming ambiguity of the A.V. and the R.V. by translating thus : — "j'achève de souffrir en ma chair le reste des afflictions de Christ," etc.

I am quite ignorant of the value of these versions: but I quote them simply because I have occasionally found thereby help on the meaning of a word. In this case they differ considerably.

A. The meaning seems to my mind clear. Christ suffered in love and holiness from the evil around, as well as in atonement ; in the latter He alone, in the former not exclusively so. Paul was filling up part of those afflictions, as he in his flesh for His body which is the church. It is not that Christ did not suffer as well as walk perfectly as none ever did; but yet He left us to follow in the same path of suffering love here below, and specially for His body's sake. The afflictions of Christ were not so filled up as to exclude Paul's (or in our measure our) sharing them thus. To suffer with Christ is indeed the common privilege of those who look to be glorified with Him.

Bible Treasury Volume 16, p. 207. January 1887.

A. Without consenting to open these pages to controversy, I print J. F.'s effort, to implicate J. N. D. in the strange doctrine of Mr. C. E. S, on propitiation. It scents the fashion now, on both sides of the Atlantic, to quote the late Mr. D. for errors which he never taught but abhorred. It were better to stick to scripture. Similar blunders (to give them the mildest designation) had been made in his lifetime. Many witnesses must remember this or that brother saying, "But, Mr. D., the Synopsis says so and so," to which came the prompt reply, "Then the Synopsis is wrong." The truth is, however, that only these brothers were wrong; for the Synopsis was right, and tallied with the fresh statements of its author.

After examining carefully all the passages we are now referred to, I affirm that Mr. S.'s heterodoxy finds no countenance from the writings, any more than from the oral ministry, of Mr. D. How then account for this confident but baseless reference? The very passage cited at length distinguishes the high-priestly action on the day of atonement from the whole of the priesthood carried on in heaven itself. The propitiation was on the cross of Christ, Whom God set forth a mercy-seat through faith in His blood; and when He set Himself down on the right hand of the majesty on high, it was as having Himself made the purification of sins. It is mere. fiction that, He had to make propitiation there. It is true that Mr. D., like everybody else, has allowed himself, from the Aaronic type, the figurative language of Christ's "carrying in the blood," etc.; just as he elsewhere speaks of burying the remembrance of our sins in the grave of Christ. Is it possible that any are so "unlearned and unstable" as to take such words in a literal and material way?

In not a vestige of his Collected Writings does Mr. D. teach propitiation after death, in heaven, and in the disembodied state, consequently, before resurrection, as Mr. D. teaches: all which things are false, and no truth, but the undermining and supplanting of revealed truth by a really revolting dream from the enemy. Readers who are not leavened will see that Mr. D.'s doctrine was no other than that which has been now, as always, maintained in these pages, if they weigh his Doctrinal iv. 325, where he says, "save the fact of propitiation in Heb. 2 in which the high-priest represented the people (not a proper act of priesthood, though of the high-priest on the day of atonement)." Now the pith of Mr. S.'s theory is the putting together of Heb. 2: 17, Heb. 9: 12, and Heb. 8: 4, which results in deadly error annulling the cross, and inventing a ghostly priesthood; whereas Mr. D. expressly discriminates Heb. 2: 17, and thus maintains the holy balance of the truth, giving the cross its fundamental value, and showing the true distinctive character of priesthood on high. Mr. D. expressly calls the propitiation "an exceptional case." It was here below and by the blood of the cross, though the right hand of God in heaven alone adequately expresses its moral glory and efficacy.

But if plain scripture is so gravely perverted, we must not wonder at the misunderstanding of a dead saint's words. If he had been alive, they would probably have been let alone. But it is well, if error be at work, that it should come out plainly, and that we should know who seriously stand for the truth.

Q. 2. "Reception at the Lord's table."

A. The true standard by which to try the question is the claim not of a Christian, but of Christ, as revealed by the written word; and this in spirit, not letter. Compare 1 John 5: 2.

Now the question raised of late years among us is one of value for the Christ of God, or of indifference to His dishonour indirectly if not directly. An ecclesiastical error of episcopacy, presbyterianism, or independency is quite subordinate. A known saint of proved godliness, being a member of these ostensibly orthodox societies, we receive if seeking to break bread; but we should require him first to clear himself if false doctrine were taught where he goes. Still more peremptorily should we refuse one who came from a heterodox party, as Campbellites, Irvingites, etc., even if he were said to be ever so pious and possessed personal soundness. Scripture is too plain: he is a partaker of their evil deeds, and we decline to license his lukewarm and leavened state. The assembly can rightly be nothing else than the pillar and support of the truth, without becoming a party to Christ's shame, and, in these last days especially, a trap for unwary souls. The present ruin of the church in no way alters the responsibility, though the sphere be only two or three on that ground; otherwise it is at best a human society, exposed to Satan instead of shielded of the Lord, even were each soul there a saint.

It would be well to say plainly where the many simple Christians are, whose only disqualification seems to be that others call them "Open brethren." If known to be only so called and not such really, they would claim and have help to guard them, from the snare they are exposed to, by teaching them truth more fully. All would welcome a call for care in this way. One such company lately came before us; and God was pleased to clear their way; and they are happily in fellowship, gathered to Christ's name, instead of floating without divine principle or centre. Another recently presumed to be such proved to be O.B. A third, for which simplicity was vaunted, the O.B. declared to be "a bad meeting," and too loose for them, though individually admissible. But those of us, who moving most about have the best means of information, do not know of these undefiled meetings; and we are certainly guiltless of refusing any such persons. Also, if we believe scripture, we are sure that Christians may be defiled by a lax principle which glosses over evil generally, and particularly in doctrine. It is a deep fall when a Christian sinks below even the law of God — "though he wist it not, yet is he guilty." Could we any longer, in dealing with so delicate a case, trust the spiritual judgment of one so dull in bearing God's word? Only he who is firm in truth can safely show grace. Such looseness as this is really to have slipped away from God's principles into a practice never yet sanctioned; and may it never be!

Nor is it ignorant souls that have given us trouble, but rather people more or less intelligent, anxious for their ease or zealous for their friends, but heartless as to Christ or the responsibility of those gathered to His name corporately. Of this character is the argument from those within guilty of intimacy in private with such as are publicly rejected. How sad, instead of censuring this sort of laxity, to apply it as a reason to throw down the holy barriers, or make it seem a yoke too hard to bear! There is a wide margin, on the one hand, between treating an offender as a heathen man and a publican, and, on the other, receiving him at the Lord's table.

So also the balance is uneven and the weights unjust, which put the O.B. companies with Anglicanism and dissent. Both the Church of England and the Nonconformists emerged from darkness into better light; whereas the O.B. began by departing from what was of God in order to screen the partisans of an antichrist, and have never cleared themselves from this plague-spot: to do so would be to give up their raison d'être. Then, again, the O.B. profess, like ourselves, to be gathered to Christ's name, and deny that they are a sect, as they believe Anglicans and Dissenters to be. In both ways therefore it is untrue and unjust to deal with them alike, according to our conviction and that of the O.B. God judges according to profession; and so should we. The falling back of the O.B. on congregational ground also is to escape from corporate responsibility. But this aggravates their guilt, instead of leaving us more free to receive individually from them, as from churches or chapels. What then is the worth of the palliation before us?

Indeed it may be doubted if any respectable teacher among the O.B. would go so far as the text and note of this paper to destroy the true force of Matt. 18: 18-20. Think of lowering it down to Christian intercourse apart from any ecclesiastical position! Thus to blot out the solemnity of "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven," and reduce it to ordinary prayer and Christian intercourse, looks like infatuation, is it certainly is a misinterpretation of the first magnitude. And this is the more deplorable because the writer in his last printed "Letter" taught the contrary — taught the truth here we all hold is of the deepest importance practically. Now he denies it to the irreparable loss of himself and all who are influenced thereby, if any should be so weak as to turn away from the very voice of the good Shepherd Himself. Certainly we who profit incalculably by this rich provision of the Saviour's grace are not, if wise and true, the men to condone the guilt of so mischievous a perversion. May the Lord recover by and to His own truth, and save the weak and careless from shipwreck.

Bible Treasury Volume 16, p. 222. February 1887.

Q. 1. Can the Parousia (Coming in Person) of the Lord be separated from His Epiphaneia (shining upon); or from His Apokalupsis (Revelation)?

A. Without doubt, the first is distinct in character and even in time, if scripture is to decide, as it surely ought. Add two other words, Hemera (day) and Phanerosis (manifestation), to give a substantival form to the verb often used in this connection. For the truth is that "coming" or "presence" (π.) as applied to the future of our Lord does not involve display, unless modified by other links such as "Son of Man," (as in Matt. 24: 27, 37, 39), or by a term which openly adds it (as in 2 Thess. 2: 8), or by facts like 1 Thess. 3: 13. These accompaniments unquestionably intimate not "presence" only, but its display. Now such texts as 1 Cor. 16: 17; 2 Cor. 7: 6, 7 ; 2 Cor. 10: 10; Phil. 1: 26; Phil. 2: 12; as well as the 2 Thess. 2: 9, simply prove the general fact of a personal arrival or presence; and 2 Peter 3: 12 is not exactly our Lord's own coming, but that "of the day of God," though no doubt our Lord with them have come also.

It is not contested that Parousia is applied very frequently to our Lord's coming again, as in both Epistles to the Thessalonians, in the First to the Corinthians, and in those of James, Peter, and John. And all admit that Epiphaneia means "appearing" (as it should be in 2 Thess. 2: 8), and apokalupsis "revelation," both applied often to the manifestation of the Lord, like φανερόω, in His "day." But how do these scriptures prove to a, demonstration that Parousia is not distinct in character as. well as time from the words indicating display? Mr. B. assumes, but never even approaches, the proof. He marshals the various occurrences, and forthwith states his conclusion without a reason. What is the worth of this?

The intelligent reader sees that, where grace is in question, the coming, or presence, of the Lord is set  out; where responsibility and its results, it is "the appearing," "day," etc. This disposes of Mr. B.'s first effort, at an argument in p. 15, whilst the revelation of Christ will still be the full favour of the saints in its display. Instead of confounding Christ's Parousia and the connected gathering of the saints unto Him in 2 Thess. 2: 1 with the Epiphany of His Parousia which annuls "the man of sin," the pointed difference of the phrase ought to have led him to distinguish them. If His coming to gather the saints together to Himself were necessarily visible, where is the force of adding the appearing of His coming when it is a question of destroying the antichrist? But there is much more when we take in the light afforded by the second verse, and the context generally. For the error which the Thessalonian misleader taught was that "the day of the Lord was actually present." This the apostle dissipates, first, by beseeching them by, or for the sake of, the Lord's coming (παρουσία) and our gathering together unto Him; secondly. by the declaration that that day was not to be unless the apostasy first came and the man of sin were revealed, whereas a hinderer acted as yet till he should go. Mr. B.'s confusion not only makes the added epiphaneia meaningless, if Parousia in itself is a display, but it renders the motive, urged in ver. 1 against the delusion of ver. 2, not only powerless but unintelligible. For if the Lord's coming and His day coalesce, as they do absolutely in Mr. B.'s view, there is no sense in the passage; whereas to recall the saints to their hope was calculated to guard them from the false rumour that the day had set in. Then we have the plain disproof that follows: the cup of Christendom's iniquity was not yet full, as it must be the Lord Jesus judges it (not at His coming, but) at the appearing, of His coming. What he calls "the secret rapture" deserves to fall, if assumption, and arguments like these, dispose of it completely.

Mr. B. has to learn that Matt. 24, 25 is a large prophecy, which deals with the Jews first, with Christendom in the central parables, and finally with all the Gentiles alive in that day. Hence "Son of man" (Christ's judicial title) is His title with the Jews and the Gentiles, but disappears in the part that relates to the Christian profession. The critics (Tregelles, like the rest) little knew the service they were rendering to the truth in striking out the spurious clause at the end of Matt. 25: 13. The Parousia of the Son of Man is judicial for the earth; the Parousia in 1 Cor. 15: 23 is to raise the saints that sleep for heaven, though all admit they will be manifested with Him in glory at that day. Mr. B. also ignores the face that the "shout" of the Lord in 1 Thess. 4 is a word quite peculiar and of special relationship, as of an admiral to his sea-men, or of a general to his soldiers. There would be no propriety in employing such a word if it were a shout for everybody. It is no question of shaking earth and heaven, though this will be also; and it is amazing to see Ps. 50: 4, 5; Jer. 25: 30; Hosea 11: 10; and Rev. 1: 7 classed with so wholly different an aim. Those that come out of the great tribulation in Rev. 7 are expressly distinguished from the elders and the four living creatures, who symbolize (one or both) the saints seen glorified in heaven from Rev. 4 and onward. And Rev. 20: 4, in the grand description of those saints who share the First Resurrection, gives three classes: those already enthroned (embracing the O.T. saints, and the church), who followed Christ out of heaven; the early Apocalyptic sufferers (Rev. 6: 9); and their brethren who were to be killed as they, after the Beast and the False Prophet ravaged beyond example, as we see also in Dan. 7. "The consummation of the age," in Matt. 13, is not an epoch, but a period or season, in which distinct operations take. place, beginning with the severing of the darnel and file gathering from the field of the wheat, and ending with the burning of the darnel, the lawless ones, when the righteous shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father, that is, in the heavenly sphere which sovereign grace gave them to share with Christ. The just application of Luke 21: 25-36 will be manifest from the context, and is in perfect accordance with the title of the Son of Man seen coming in a cloud with power and great glory. If we fail to distinguish things that differ, only confusion and error can ensue.

Q. 2. What means "the groanings which cannot be uttered"? (Rom. 8: 26).

A. The meaning of the passage appears to be this: we do not know what to pray for as we ought, and therefore the grace of God gives us, not only an Advocate on high for us, but the Holy Ghost, within us to identify Himself in grace with our sorrowing suffering condition, so as to put us in fellowship with God as His redeemed ones in bodies withal and a creation not yet redeemed. He accordingly intercedes for us — within us of course — according to God, so as to give a divine and sympathetic character to what otherwise would have been but selfish sorrow. Thus we are entitled to know that our very groanings as Christians is not without the Spirit, though these cannot be expressed in words, and they rise up acceptable to God, and will be surely answered by the revelation of the glory by and by, for which we who have the first-fruits of the Spirit, and all creation also, wait. How sweet to think that the Holy Spirit, who gives and directs the joys of our hearts and makes us bid the bridegroom "come" (Rev. 22) takes equal part in our present griefs and travail of spirit! And if we do not know what to ask for, we do know that all things work together for good, as the apostle proceeds and proves so triumphantly to the end of the chapter.

Bible Treasury Volume 16, p. 320. August 1887.

Q. 1. Ps. 110: 1. Is this, as Mr. J. Gall conceives, the Father's "evangelistic work?" Is the Son's work "by outward judgments?"

Q. 2. Is it true, as Canon Faussett says, that "Christ as the Son of God never gives up His session on the Father's throne"? X.

A. In both statements there seems no small confusion through inattention to scripture.

1. The Father and the Son, as such, do not appear in Ps. 110. It is wise to adhere to scripture. The true correlates here are Jehovah and Messiah. No doubt the persons may be otherwise and elsewhere so regarded; but beyond controversy what the Psalm reveals is Jehovah saying to David's Lord, the Messiah, Sit Thou at My right hand until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool. Nor in fact does scripture ever, that I remember, speak of the right hand of the Father, but of God, and avoids it pointedly as in Acts 2: 33. Surely also the N.T. which speaks of "evangelistic work" connects it with the Son yet more than the Father. It was He, not the Father, Who came to seek and to save the lost. It is not said of "the Father," but that "God so loved the world that He gave" etc. The truth is that in the O.T. Jehovah and His Anointed have perfect communion in "outward judgments," as in the N.T. Father and Son have in "evangelistic work." The Law, Psalms, and Prophets prove the former, as the Gospels and Epistles the latter, the Revelation bringing us round transitionally to the world-kingdom of the Lord and His Christ, and the eternal state which follows again confirming their fellowship in judgment as before in grace.

Nor can any interpretation be more egregious than that Jehovah's making Messiah's enemies to be Messiah's footstool means "converting grace." Subjecting them to Christ it is, but this, as 1 Cor. 15 shows, for actively putting down and aunulling all antagonistic power. Such is one of the main objects of "the kingdom," which is as distinct from the gospel and the church as from eternity.

2. That Canon F. believes Christ will come again, we are assured. It is indeed the common creed of Christendom. This means that Christ will cease to sit at God's right hand, and on the Father's throne, in order to sit on His own throne. The divine intimation which tells us that He, the risen Man, sits there, tells us that He will leave it to tread down, and rule in the midst of, His enemies. His friends will then reign along with Him. When all things have been subjected to Him, then He delivers up the kingdom which is given Him for that purpose, that God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) may be all in all. This is the eternal state, the new heaven and new earth (not in the incipient or millennial sense, but) fully and finally, all evil having been judged. But the coming of the Lord is not at the epoch of sitting on the great white throne which follows the millennium; for the earth and the heavens will then have fled, and no place be found for them. His coming, or rather appearing, the second time, is where He came and appeared the first time; and, therefore, as Rev. 19 and many other scriptures show, before the millennium begins. Of course the Father's throne will be left before taking His own throne.

Q. 3. Is it not laid down in scripture that to be an evangelist is much more than to teach? Such seems to be the meaning of 1 Cor. 4: 15. J.H.S.

A. Not so, though comparisons are odious; and it is the plain call of grace for the teacher to uphold the evangelist, as for the evangelist to give all honour to the teacher. Each fills up a different and all-important part of ministerial work, each a gift from Christ for the perfecting of the saints to the edifying of His body. But while the evangelist, might be a babe, the teacher needs ripe spiritual intelligence. The truth, however, is that the apostle by ten thousand "instructors" in Christ does not refer to the teachers, but to the meddlesome talkers at Corinth, to whom he gives the rather slighting title of παιδαγωγοί (as in Gal. 3: 24). So was called the slave that led the child to and from school, a boy-ward, not his teacher. Paul had toward the Corinthian saints the affections of a father.

Bible Treasury Volume 16, p. 335. September 1887.

Q. Is the close of Mark (Mark 16: 9 to the end) authentic and genuine?

A. Having long since protested against those who treat this most interesting passage and the beginning of John 8 with suspicion, I proceed to state my reasons, passing over the disputed portion in John, which has already been well defended in another place by another hand.

Even Dean Alford, who certainly does not err on the side of credulity, admits that the authority of the close of Mark is hardly to be doubted. Eusebius, and the Vat. and Sin. MSS., omit it; and several others note its absence in certain copies, but generally add, that it appears in the oldest and best. All else of the Greek MSS., all the Evangelistaria, all the Versions (except the Roman edition of the Arabic), and a large proportion of the earliest and most trustworthy Fathers are allowed to be in its favour. Lachmann, in spite of his notorious tendency to follow the very slips of the most ancient copies, edits the entire section without hesitation.

In his notes the Dean urges that the passage is irreconcilable with the other gospels, and is disconnected with what goes before; and that no less than twenty-one words and expressions occur in it (some of them repeatedly) which are never elsewhere used by Mark, whose adherence to his own phrases is remarkable, and that consequently, the internal evidence is very weighty against his authorship. That is, he believes it to be an authentic addition by another hand.

Before examining these criticisms, I must object to a reasoning which affirms or allows that to be scripture which is irreconcilable with other scriptures. If its authority be clear, every believer will feel that, with or without difficulties, all must be really harmonious. For God cannot err.

But, it is said, the diction and construction differ from the rest of the Gospel. Did the Dean or those who think with him adequately weigh the new and extraordinary circumstances which had to be recorded? In such a case strange words and phrases would be natural if Mark wrote (nor does he by any means want ἅπαξ λεγόμενα elsewhere); whereas, a supplementer, adding to Mark, would as probably have rigidly copied the language and manner of the Evangelist.

Πρώτῃ σαβ. (ver. 9) is alleged to be unusual. Doubtless ; yet, of the two, it is less Hebraistic than τῆς μιᾶς σ. (ver. 2), and each might help the other to a Gentile or a Roman ear. And, so far from being stumbled by the way Mary Magdalene is mentioned here, there seems to me much force in Jesus appearing first to her out of whom he had cast seven devils. Who so suitable first to see Him and hear from Himself the tidings of His resurrection, Who through death annuls him who had the power of death, that is, the devil ? As to the absolute use of the pronoun in 11, 12, is it not enough that the occasion here required what was needless elsewhere? — If πορευ. is found only in 10, 12, and 15, it is because the simple word best expressed what the Holy Ghost designed to say, whereas elsewhere the evangelist employed its compounds in order to convey the more graphically what was there wanted. Thus, he uses εἰσπορ. eight times, while Matthew, in his much larger account, has it but once. Is this the least ground for questioning Matt. 15: 17 ? So, again, Mark has παραπορ. in four different chapters, Matthew once only (27: 9), Luke and John not at all. — Leaving these trivial points, the phrase τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ is to me an argument for, rather than against, Mark's authorship. Compare with it Mark 1: 36; Mark 3: 14; and Mark 5: 40. As to ἐθεάθη ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς and its difference from θ. τοῖς θ. αὐτόν, the answer is, that the word is most appropriate here and uncalled for in other places, and if the difference prove anything, it would show two hands instead of one supplementing Mark's narrative! Thus, for instance, the same verb occurs but once in all the Epistles of Paul: are we therefore, to suspect Rom. 15? Matthew has θεωρεώ only twice; are we for a score of such reasons as these to speculate that "another hand" added Matt. 27 and 28?

As to reiterated mention of unbelief and the Lord's upbraiding the eleven with it, what more instructive, or in better keeping with the scope of the context and of the Gospel? It was wholesome for those who were about to preach to others to learn what their own hearts were, and the Lord in His own ministry sets them right before announcing their great commission. Even if we only look at the word ἀπιστία, it occurs in Mark 6: 6; Mark 9: 24. If the verb is found only in Mark 16: 11, 16, what more marvellous than Luke's having it only in his last chapter (ver. 11, 41), and never once using the substantive either in the Gospel or in the Acts of the Apostles? — It is true that μετὰ τ. and ὕστερον are found in no other passage of Mark, but his customary precision may be one reason why the former is not more common; and the latter occurs once only in Luke and John. — It is confessed that τὸ εὐαγ. π. τῃ κτίσει is in Mark's style. The fact is, neither of the later Gospels contains the noun and Matthew always qualifies it as "the gospel of the kingdom" or "this gospel;" whereas, whether or not Mark has the qualified phrases in Mark 1: 14 and Mark 14: 9 (for MSS. etc. differ), he repeatedly has "the gospel" elsewhere, as Mark 1: 15; Mark 8: 35; Mark 10: 29; Mark 13: 10. This, then, affords no slight presumption that the passage is the genuine production of Mark, as well as authentic.

Παρακολ. in 17, ἐπακολ. in 20, occur nowhere. else in Mark, and that for the best of reasons; the accuracy which the compounded forms impart was demanded here, and not before, where the simple form sufficed. And this is the less surprising, inasmuch as the former appears only in Luke's preface, and the latter nowhere else, as far as the four evangelists are concerned.

As to the singularity of καλῶς ἕξουσιν, what simpler, seeing that this promise (as well as that about the new tongues, serpents, etc.) is revealed here only, and was unquestionably verified in the subsequent history? It is the natural converse of a common scriptural designation for the sick οἱ κακῶς ἔχοντες, and if the occurrence of ἄῤῥωστος should be here objected to, the reader may find it twice already in Mark 6, while Matthew and Paul use it each only once.

Only one further objection remains worth noticing, the use of κύριος in 19, 20. In Mark 11: 3, I suppose it is equivalent to Jehovah, and at any rate I would not press this as in point. But the absence of such a title before seems to me a beauty, not a blemish, in Mark, whose business was to exhibit the service of Jesus. But now that God had vindicated His rejected Servant by the resurrection, now that He had made Him both "Lord" and Christ, what more natural, or even necessary, than that the same Gospel which had hitherto traced Him as the Servant, Son of God, should make Him now known as "the Lord?" But this is not all. The Lord had uttered His charge to those who were, at His bidding, to replace Him as servants, and in a world-wide sphere; He was received up to heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. Now it was Mark's place, and only Mark's to add that, while they went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord was working with them. Jesus, even as the Lord, is, if I may so say, servant still. Glorious truth! And whose hand so suited to record it as his who proved by sad experience how hard it is to be a faithful servant; but who proved also that the grace of the Lord is sufficient to restore and strengthen the feeblest? (Compare Acts 13: 13; Acts 15: 38; Col. 4: 10; 2 Tim. 4: 11.)

There is no doubt of the fact that this section had its present place in the second century, i.e., before any existing witness which omits it or questions its authorship. And even Tregelles, notoriously subservient as he was to favourite voices of antiquity and to points of detail, owns, that the very difficulties it contains (exaggerated as I have shown them to be) afford a strong presumption in its favour. Thought and expression point to Mark only. It is therefore genuine, as well as authentic.

Bible Treasury Volume 16, p. 365. November 1887.

Q. Romans 5: 15-17. — No exposition of this passage which I have seen has appeared to me quite satisfactory. My opinion is, that every one of these verses contains a separate thought, which is fitted, by its position and progression, to magnify the grace of God. The apostle is illustrating the leading truth of the christian system, justification by divine righteousness accomplished in Christ; and, in order to establish conclusively the gratuitous nature of it, he draws his illustration from the way in which we became guilty, viz., by the guilt of Adam's first sin. As we are reckoned by God, and treated, as in fact guilty persons, before we do anything personally to involve us in guilt, so we are reckoned by God as righteous persons, and are treated as such, before we do anything to make us righteous. There is such a striking analogy or resemblance between guile and grace — the fall — and the restoration. But the apostle begins to show, at verse 15, that this analogy does not hold in all respects: by showing that the side of the parallel formed by materials drawn from file, new and gracious dispensation is the broader, deeper, and more outstanding and noticeable. It illustrates grace superabounding and triumphing over guilt, in three particulars: 1. in its provision (ver. 15); 2. in its communication (ver. 16,); and 3. in its consummation (ver. 17).

1. The Source. — Verse 15 points us to the fountainhead or source of sin and righteousness; of guilt and grace. There is evidently a comparison of stocks or stores in this verse; and grace gets a triumph over guilt when we look to Jesus, in whom, as in a storehouse, all fulness of it dwells. If we are condemned for the sin of Adam, a mere creature like ourselves, shall we not much more be justified by grace for the sake of the Divine One, Jesus, who is "full of grace and truth"? If natural connection with the creature has brought us so much evil, much more shall spiritual connection with the God-man, Jesus Christ, bring us good.

2. The Communication. — Verse 16 shows, that the communication of grace far exceeds the communication of guilt. Adam shares what is his with his race, so Christ shares what belongs to Him with His seed; but the righteousness which believers enjoy in Him covers far more than the guilt they inherit from Adam For by Christ we are justified not only from the guilt of this one sin, but also from the aggravated guilt which we have contracted by our "many offences," i.e., all our sins. Besides, we were involved in Adam's guilt by generic necessity; we are put in possession of righteousness in Christ as "a free and gracious gift."

3. The Consummation. — Ver. 17. Here we have the rich excess of grace over guilt in consummation, or in what it will do for believers when communicated to them and possessed by them. The point contained in this verse is this: If all connected with Adam are made subject to death for his one offence, much more shall all connected with Christ (who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of justification) not only have their original condemnation to death removed, but also reign in life with Him, on account of His obedience even unto death, and His resurrection, as their representative and living head, to the enjoyment of an endless life. Their connection with Jesus not only frees them from death, but it gives them a right to life, nor only here, but in the glorious kingdom to come: "Being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." He is now possessed of an ever-enduring life in resurrection, and all believers are sharers with Him in this life, for "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life." Just as death began in Adam the moment he sinned, so life begins in believers the moment they believe in Christ: "God hath given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son." And as the time is fast approaching when Jesus, the Son of God, Who once suffered for our sins, shall return to reign, so all His saints shall then reign in life with Him: "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive." "Thou hast redeemed us, and made us unto our God kings and priests, and we shall reign over the earth."

The, analogy being thus explained, limited, and illustrated, the apostle resumes his argument, and sums up the whole matter in verses 18 and 19, which contain his main position. This, in nearly the words of these verses, may be thus stated: — "As by the offence of one all connected with that one are condemned; so by the accomplished righteousness of One all connected with Him have 'justification of life.' For as by the disobedience of the One (the representative) the many (the represented) were constituted sinners, so by the obedience of the one (the representative) with the many (the represented) be constituted righteous."

I should be glad to see the above passage in Romans thoroughly examined by you and your correspondents. It is one of the most vital, seeing that it forms the keystone of the gateway of grace. W. R.

Q. 2. Hebrews 6: 19. What is "The hope set before us"?

A. It 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 he 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 steadfast 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 a risen Christ glorified above, though still having "need of patience."

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 17.

Bible Treasury Volume 17, p. 14. January 1888.

Q. What is the meaning of the closing verses in Ecclesiastes 4? More particularly, who, or what, is the "the second child that shall stand up in his stead?" The R.V. does not seem clearer than the A.V. J.D.

A. From the sorrow and trial of isolation in this world, the royal preacher turns to the wretchedness of despising counsel, one the one hand, and to the vanity of reckoning on the stable loyalty of the multitude on the other: men worship the rising sun. The R.V. is more forcible here. "Better is a poor and wise youth than an old and foolish king who knoweth not how to receive admonition any more. For out of prison he came forth to be king; yea, even in his kingdom he was born poor." Such an one who from such a low origin came to the greatest height of earthly dignity ought of all men to take heed when old, and to watch against self-will so natural in his circumstances. "I saw all the living which walk under the sun that they were with the youth, the second that stood up in his stead. There was no end of all the people, even of all them over whom he was; yet they that come after all shall not rejoice in him." The youth, "the second," is so in relation to the old king become unpopular (not the second of two youths). The first was the father who was raised to the throne; the second, his son that followed. Men grow weary of each in turn. Surely this also is vanity and a feeding on wind (or striving after it).

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 18.

Bible Treasury Volume 18, p.224. February 1891.

Q. The expression "baptised into Christ" is found in Romans 6: 3; also in Galatians 3: 27. See also 1 Corinthians 12: 13, where the agency of the Holy Spirit in Baptism is clearly indicated. Is it not so? CLERICUS.

A. The premises are unsound and the conclusion an error. The Greek preposition means "unto" (or "to") as often as "into": which depends on the context or on the nature of the case. Now baptism with water is clearly indicated in 1 Corinthians 10: 2 as a warning to the baptised at Corinth. Impossible to think that the Israelites were baptised into Moses; and here therefore the A. and R. Vv. rightly say "unto". The marginal note of the R.V. is a delusion, for the Greek means "to" no less than "into". So in Acts 19: 3 it is as in the A.V. "unto," not "into" as in the Revised. Baptism is the symbol of profession. Reality depends on faith; which might, or might not, be true of the baptised, as is certain from out Lord's words in Mark 16: 16. To say "into" therefore goes beyond God's word and implies vital efficacy without and against scriptural warrant. This falls in with the self-importance of a caste (on which the truth frowns), and takes away efficacy from living faith in Christ (on which scripture insists). All have not faith. "He that disbelieveth shall be condemned" (the same sense as "damned" in the A.V.). Baptism will no more save him than dead faith. Baptism is "unto" or "to" only, not "into", even in Matthew 28: 19. Compare 1 Corinthians 1: 13, 15.

But the Spirit's baptism is wholly distinct. It is the peculiar privilege of the church of God, and consequently never was till Pentecost and only is after men believe. See Galatians 4: 6, Ephesians 1: 13. Hence on the church's birthday the apostle Peter told the convicted Jews to "Repent and be baptised", and the "should receive the gift of the Holy Spirit". It was a consequence for genuine faith, never a necessary accompaniment of the water. Indeed in Acts 10: 44 we see the believers received the gift, attested by outward powers, before they were baptised in the name of Jesus Christ (ver. 48). So false is the ignorant and dangerous tradition which identifies the baptism of water and that of the Spirit. John 3: 3-8 means no baptism at all.

Further, even the import of the sign in baptism with water is misunderstood generally. It is a sign not of life-giving, still less of the gift of the indwelling Spirit of God, but of death with Christ, as Romans 6 and Colossians 2 make plain. "We who died to sin, shall we any longer live therein? Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptised unto Christ Jesus were baptised unto His death?" Baptism by or in virtue of the Spirit, as we see in 1 Corinthians 12: 13 is into (not "unto") one body, Christ's body; because His work efficaciously unites. Water baptism does not go beyond profession, as in Galatians 3: 27 and elsewhere, though we are responsible to be true. No one is true save he who believing has Christ as his life. But the baptism of the Spirit unites the believer to Christ as a member of His body, the church, in the truest and abiding sense.

He who is baptised thereby says he died with Christ to sin and put on Christ. Yet it is only "to" Christ he was baptised, as it may turn out to be without life and only an outward confession, however important it may be, and whatever the privilege. Baptism is to the objective truth of Christ dead and risen, to the remission of sins therein, to sin judged; and not the sign of our subjective state.

Bible Treasury Volume 18, p. 240. March 1891.

Q. Was sin-bearing only on the cross, when the Lord said "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" Yet when Christ expired, God was not then hiding His face from Him; for He said, "Father, into Thy hands I commend My Spirit;" still, atonement is in the blood. How would you reconcile this? Did Christ pass through death to undergo God's judgment on man, (namely, "the wages of sin is death,") and to conquer him who had the power of death, even Satan (Hebrews 2)? Then how would this be reconciled with "He died for me and He shed His blood for me?" Would it be right to say Christ died for us under the chastening hand of God? would it not do away with atonement if Christ died under the chastening hand of God? It would almost be saying that God had accepted the work, would it not? The hiding of God's face was removed before death. W.

A. It is an all-important principle for a Christian that his responsibility as well as privilege and joy to believe, without pretending to "reconcile". This is always a question of his spiritual capacity, which we may not always discern to be small. It is often enough for his own satisfaction, without expecting to silence gainsayers, or even to meet the difficulties of other minds. Many a thing passes human comprehension. But in all cases a saint is called to accept cordially and without question on the warrant of God's word.

Now as to the subject-matter raised, it is equally certain that in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark our Lord is seen on the cross suffering for sin and our sins, and uttering that cry of deepest anguish under the sense of God's face, then first, then only, hidden from Him: "My God, My God, Why hast Thou forsaken Me?" Here then is the true Sin Offering; but Luke presents Him subsequently saying, "Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit." This is rather the Burnt Offering and the expression of conscious acceptance; not His soul realising His holy horror and infinite suffering in bearing the divine judgment, but the outpouring of His confidence and unclouded enjoyment of His relationship. John lets us know His calm and divine satisfaction in His dying words: "It is finished"; and He dismissed His spirit, for He had title, He alone, to lay down His life and to take it again. Some of these inspired declarations unbelief stumbles at, if not all. The believer receives them all adoringly as suited to the fulness of Christ.

Negative judgments in these questions are dangerous, for before we deny we ought to know all that God has revealed. Do we flatter ourselves thus? To say that Christ's death was not judicial is to oppose many scriptures ignorantly: as Romans 4: 25, Romans 5: 6-10, Romans 8: 32; 1 Corinthians 1: 23, 1 Corinthians 2: 2, 1 Corinthians 15: 3; 2 Corinthians 5: 21, 2 Corinthians 13: 4; Galatians 3: 13; Hebrews 1: 3, Hebrews 2: 9, 10, 14, 17, Hebrews 9: 12, 14, 16, 23-28, Hebrews 10: 10, 12, 14, 19, 20; 1 Peter 1: 19, 1 Peter 2: 24, 1 Peter 3: 18. This surely suffices. His death was much, very much more, but it was in the profoundest way the Sin Offering, and what in the Holy One can be judicial if this be not? The notion is a rash one-sided expression of such as are jealous of Christ's glory; but one truth must not be sacrificed to another. All that is revealed has supreme claims on our souls, and all is perfectly harmonious in Him Who is the Truth, and in the written word, which perfectly reveals all to us, whose simple place is to believe, and then in due time to understand. "Chastening" is an un-meet and unscriptural word for Christ, and especially for His death. Analysing His word is almost as perilous as dissecting His person. "The right faith is that we believe and confess — that we worship."

Bible Treasury Volume 18, p. 256. April 1891.

Q. What is the baptism of fire, spoken of in Matthew 3: 11, and Luke 3: 16? L.R.

A. I understand it to be that unsparing divine judgment which the Lord at His appearing is to execute on all evil, from which the righteous are for ever separated. John the Baptist presented the work of Messiah as a whole. The cross severed the two baptisms: that which followed His first advent when He ascended on high, baptising in the power of the Spirit; and that which awaits His second advent, detailed in the verse that follows in both Gospels. The Gospels of Mark and John speak only of that power which in virtue of the cross severs the Christian from the evil condemned therein. So in the Acts, we hear nothing of baptism in fire: this is to be when the Lord comes.

Bible Treasury Volume 18, p. 286. June 1891.

Q. Does "day dawning and day-star arising" (2 Peter 1: 19) refer not to the second advent but to the hope of Christ "in the heart" now? In other words is it meant that we do well to take heed to the more sure word of prophecy; but that we may do better by having the heavenly hope in the heart? I have understood the words to contain a parenthetic insertion, as follows:- "We have also a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well that ye take heed (as a light that shineth in a dark place until the light dawn and the day star arise) in your hearts."

When this passage is taken with the context I fail to see how it can teach anything short of, or more than, the fact that the "word of prophecy" is our guide in the midst of the darkness which so rapidly thickens "until the day dawn." The transfiguration referred to in ver. 16-18 was intended to place before the disciples the future Kingdom of Christ. The vision was no cunningly devised fable, although but transitory: what then must the surer word of prophecy be to us? Theirs was only a transient witness placed before the eye; ours is a more abiding testimony which we are called upon to take heed "in our hearts".

If I have misunderstood, I shall be pleased to be corrected; and if what is here expressed is not the teaching of the passage, I shall be thankful to have it expounded more perfectly. R.H.

A. This Epistle is characteristically practical. As a final message to the faithful of the circumcision (1 Peter 1: 1, and 2 Peter 3: 1), the apostle is earnest that the heart be in unison with the truth. Many were backward, content with elements and not going on fully into grace. So they adhered to old expectations of Messiah, though on fuller ground. This gives occasion to what is in question. "And we have the prophetic word surer [i.e. confirmed by the transfiguration just recounted], to which ye do well that ye take heed, as to a lamp shining in a squalid place, until day dawn and the day star arise in your hearts, knowing this first" etc. He could not but approve of their heeding that prophetic word which was God's gift to His people: no Christian would slight it if guided of Him. Less the apostle does not say, more he would not; for the danger is not slight of misusing the old to leave no room for the still more precious new revelation of Christ already come, and the true light already shining in Him risen, glorified, and about to come in a way special to the heavenly saints as their Bridegroom. All this whether in present communion or in living hope is peculiar to Christianity and might easily be overlooked or neglected unconsciously perhaps, by those he was addressing, occupied as they would naturally be with that enhanced meaning, force, and beauty of the O.T. which the gospel gave it. Here Peter is doing in His last words what Paul habitually and pre-eminently did — seeking to urge on the saints to lay hold of our "better thing" than the promise. For that heavenly hope was not revealed till Christ spoke of the Father's house, and of His personally coming to take us there.

Hence we may notice that the prophetic word, confirmed as it is by the vision of the divine kingdom on the holy mount, is compared to a lamp shining in a murky place. To this the Jewish or any saints did well to attend; but the fall of Babylon (past or future), the destruction of Edom, the judgment of the nations, or even the deliverance and blessing of Israel, could hardly command the hearts of those who have a rejected Christ as life and righteousness and draw near to Him where He is, yea, who are one with Him on high. Therefore the apostle adds (whatever the value of the lamp in a place dark, sad, and evil) until day (i.e. not the day, but daylight, as descriptive of the superior brightness of christian truth) dawn, and day-star (Christ in His quality of Day-star, the personal heavenly hope of the Christian) arise in your hearts. This might have been practically most feeble or nil in many believing Jews then, such as the apostle was writing to. Alas! it is now largely the need of crowds of Gentile saints; though they have had the New Testament as a whole before them all their days: so naturally do saints slip back into Jewish things which they blend with Christian privileges so as to lose all the distinctive power of their own proper blessings. Accordingly the force of "day" as contrasted with "lamp" comes out plainly, as of day-star likewise. Compare Revelation 2: 28, and Revelation 22: 16. On the one hand the day-star of the prophetic word is the king of Babylon, typical of his final representative in the last days; on the other hand, Christ is its sun of righteousness bringing in the day of Jehovah in power and glory and judgment. The day-light of the gospel ought to shine through in hearts now, as also the blessed hope of His coming arise therein now. It is not unbelievers getting converted, but saints truly converted going on from an Old Testament measure to enjoy that light of heaven which shines from Him Who is in glory and coming to bring us there. For the proper place of a Christian is to walk in the light (1 John 1: 7), as he is already a son of light and of day; and his hope is just as peculiar. This scripture has nothing to say of the day coming on the world, in which case the day-star arising could not follow.

It is true that the opinions of commentators on the passage are vague and often erroneous. Still only two men ever dared, as far as my remembrance goes, to tamper with the passage by the aid of punctuation, and both violently through ignorance of the truth conveyed. One of the two ventured on the parenthesis which has misled "R.H." The other equally erred by severing "in your hearts" from the only context that suits them (immediately foregoing), and by joining the clause in a union which suits not. Either result is nugatory, instead of real power and propriety. The aim of the enemy in such expedients is plainly to oppose the apostle's (i.e. the Spirit's) object — the hearts of the saints embracing their proper portion in enlightenment and hope. The lamp is good; but there is a better light now in the gospel, and a brighter hope in Christ than any expectation of old, however glorious. These are for the heart's joy rather than prophecy, grand, solemn, and true as it surely is.

Q. J.H. (Blundellsands) questions the correctness of the BIBLE TREASURY, No. 415 (December 1890), p188; as the Lord's words quoted from Isaiah 66: 24 refer to "carcases", i.e., (as hell also refers) to the intermediate state between death and resurrection. "Their worm" ceases to be theirs when the victim is consumed or destroyed, and its death then would in no wise weaken the true force of the words. The fire is everlasting and not quenched as was that of Sodom and Gomorrah. It consumes all and is everlasting, inasmuch as there is no recovery or restoration from it.

When the Lamb has literally taken away the sin of the world, every creature, everywhere (then) will ascribe praise to the Lamb as sh0wn in Revelation 5, which depicts the full eternal results of the redemption work of the Lamb, as Revelation 4 the millennial glory of the Creator.

The apostle John (as Moses on the mount) is shown as picture of God's purposes, in time and eternity respectively; then the succeeding chapters show how it is all going to be accomplished.

A. Our Lord in Mark 9 carefully rises above the letter of the Jewish prophet and gives nothing but eternal consequences for the lost.

Hence He expressly leaves out "carcases", however important in adding to the horrors which the prophet unveils for those in Jerusalem at that future day. In neither is there a thought that their worm will ever cease to gnaw, or the fire to lack its object. The solemn warning is lost if we imagine the annihilation of the punished. For how is it "their" worm, or why the fire perpetual? We ought not to trifle with God's word and man's doom.

Again, Revelation 5 is wholly misunderstood. The vision of Revelation 4 and Revelation 5 is after the heavenly redeemed are seen above and before they issue thence (Revelation 19), when the Lord appears for the execution of judgment on the quick and dead. The ascriptions of praise in Revelation 5 are when the Lamb takes the book before a seal is opened, a trumpet blown, or a vial poured out. The removal of the saints to heaven evidently furnishes the occasion, and the Lamb's taking in hand then to reveal the providential preparations to enforce the power of the kingdom. Verse 13 is therefore necessarily anticipative; just as our Lord, when the seventy reported demons subject to them in His name, could say, "I beheld Satan fall as lightning from heaven." (Luke 10: 17, 18). Actually it is not accomplished yet, but it is to be before the millennium. (Revelation 12.) If St. Paul heard in spirit the groans of creation (Romans 8) longing for its coming deliverance, here similarly St. John heard its joy when the liberated sons of God were translated. "And every creature which is in the heaven and on the earth, and under the earth, and on the sea, and all things that are in them, heard I saying, To Him that sitteth on the throne, and  to the Lamb [be] the blessing, and the honour, and the glory, unto the ages of ages." Demonstrably this is not eternity either that is anticipated, for then will be no sea (Revelation 21); and what a wretchedly low and false assumption that eternity will have such creatures, distinct from angels or the redeemed! Not even men will then be in unchanged bodies, but incorruptible and glorious; whereas the verse in question contemplates the creatures of a lower kind, and all such, birds, beasts, animals that burrow under the earth, as well as marine, all delivered from the bondage of corruption, as assuredly must be in the millennial day and only then as a fact.

On the other hand, the overwhelming fact is that Revelation 21 beyond dispute reveals as part of the eternal scene (1-8), that "for the cowardly and unbelieving, and abominable, and murderers; and fornicators, and sorcerers, and idolators, their part [shall be] in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone; which is the second death." Nothing more solemn or sure. The lost wicked are devoted to a punishment without end, if we believe scripture.

This is the fullest picture god gives of eternity which knows no change: and the condemned are then in the lake of fire, as certainly as we see the blessed by grace in a new heaven and a new earth in the most absolute sense. To hope or believe otherwise is rebellion against god and His word. The second death is no more extinction of being than the first. It is the full wages of sin; it is perdition everlasting. Either annihilation or universalism is the foul dishonour of god and the cruellest deception of guilty man. Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. And He employed some of the words of Isaiah66 in the unlimited sense of eternity, dropping terms which are to be literally accomplished in the kingdom that precedes, as we see in other N.T. applications of O.T. language. Both are accurately true.

Q. The following sentence occurs in "The Bible Treasury" for February, p210. "There is nothing in scripture to exclude a succession of creatures rising to higher organisation from lower, as the rule with a striking exception here and there, from the Eozoon in the Laurentian rocks of Canada to the mammalia which most nearly resemble those of the earth as it is."

1. What reasons are there for supposing that creatures thus rose without a creative act?

2. Would not such an idea be out of analogy with the present creation, where God has made each after its kind? Genesis 1: 11, 12, 21-25. C.O.A.

A. There is and can be no good reason for the notion that creatures rose from the lower forms as the rule to the higher ones without God's creative act. The very word "creatures" implies as much. Scripture is most explicit that all things came into being through Him, and that apart from Him not one thing received being which has received being. All such unbelieving theories of development are therefore in rebellion against the word of God. A creative act introduced each new species.

2. The answer to the second query follows as a matter of course. Even the most unprejudiced cannot fail to recognise that creation, vegetable and animal, is ordered on grand typical principles, and that species hold throughout, though admitting of large variation within fixed limits, an immense accession for use and beauty.

Bible Treasury Volume 18, p. 320. August 1891.

Q. Believing that the rejectors of God and His Son and salvation by grace will be everlastingly punished in hell, I ask will it be varied in intensity? We know that there will be degrees of reward in God's kingdom. Does this principle apply equally to punishment? W.F.U.

A. It is revealed distinctly that men will be judged according to their works. Old and New Testaments are equally clear. "For all these things God will bring thee into judgment" (Ecclesiastes 11: 9). "For God shall bring every work into judgment with every hidden thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil" (Ecclesiastes 12: 14). "God shall judge the secrets of men according to my gospel by Jesus Christ" (Romans 2: 16). "The dead were judged out of the things which were written in the books according to their works . . . They were judged every man [each] according to their works" (Revelation 20: 12, 13). Such is man's portion, death, and after this judgment; for he is sinful and lost. But grace has intervened after the sin and before the judgment. God has sent His son to save all who believing receive life in Him Who died and bore their judgment on the cross, and who manifest life in a fruit-bearing course here below. Hence the Lord Who is to judge has Himself ruled that the believer comes not into judgment. Even while here he has passed out of death into life. But none the less must we all, the whole of us absolutely, be manifested before the judgment-seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things [done] by the body, according to what he did, whether good or bad (2 Corinthians 5: 10). This will be true of all, saint or sinner, not all at the same time, but each at the time and in the way and with the aim as well as result laid down in other scriptures. The careful reader will note "manifested" is the word where the faithful are included, "judged" is confined to those who refusing divine mercy in Christ must own judgment to be righteous.

But along with this, scripture speaks of "reward" for work done (1 Corinthians 3) and declares in many forms and occasions that God will not forget work and love shown toward His name. Similarly, as saints will differ, not as to salvation or heavenly glory, but in special recognition of fidelity, so surely (judgment being according to works) the Lord will mark His unerring sense of special iniquity, though all the lost be forever in the lake of fire. He is righteous altogether, always and everywhere. Cf. Luke 12: 45-48. But every spiritual mind will appreciate the comparative silence of scripture in a matter so harrowing to the affections, and so appropriately left in His hands, Whose judgment unbelief must solemnly prove, as we have mercifully proved His grace by faith.

Q. What is the distinctive force of the various terms for our evil mentioned in Psalm 32: 1, 2, and translated "transgression," "sin," "iniquity," and guile" in both the A. and the R.Vv.? I.C.

A. The English versions seem to me more exact than the Greek Septuagint or the Latin Vulgate, so that it would be vain to look for a closer reproduction of the Hebrew original.

"Transgression" (not sin) is the violation of a known and imposed law. With this the psalmist begins. It is what would first act on the conscience of a Jew, and blessed indeed to know it "forgiven." Where no law is, as the apostle teaches us in Romans 4, there is no transgression. It works wrath. It is the power of sin, forcing out into manifestation what otherwise was latent, that through the commandment sin might become exceeding sinful. "Sin" is then the evil root which is uncovered to the conscience, that it might be "covered" of God by the blood of atonement, as here. Verse 2 brings forward a great accession of blessing: not only the past evils effaced and gone, but the consequent present state of absolute non-imputation of iniquity by Jehovah. This at once opens the heart, and takes away all "guile" from the spirit. There is no desire to hide the least evil. Because He imputes no iniquity, no guilt, there is no guile in one's spirit, no wish to extenuate or deny. The psalmist then shows how far from this he had been. God had wrought to bring the Israelite to acknowledge his sin, and not to cover his iniquity. When he confessed his transgressions to Jehovah, Jehovah forgave the iniquity of his sins. The psalm itself is a fine comment on the words. How a learned and pious scholar could say that ἀνομία, lawlessness, is never in the N.T. the condition of one living without law, but always the condition or deed of one who acts contrary to law, is marvellous. Romans 2: 12 should have corrected the error. It is just the word to describe the lawlessness of a Gentile ignorant of law, no doubt sin, and iniquity, but most precisely "lawlessness."

Etymologically the Hebrew words mean respectively, desertion or revolt, missing a mark or error, perversion, and deceit or fraud. But the usage sanctioned by the Spirit is the true criterion.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 19.

Bible Treasury Volume 19, p. 207. January 1893.

Q. J. C. asks whether the little horn of Daniel 8 is distinct from that of Daniel 7.

A. First, the very language differs. The prophet, who wrote in Aramaic from Daniel 2: 4, returned to Hebrew after Daniel 7. The course of the four world-powers is given in a very instructive two-fold form, one Nebuchadnezzar's vision (Daniel 2), the other Daniel's (Daniel 7), with corresponding differences in the language of the first empire, the captor of Judah. The chapters between contribute important moral features needed to fill up the divinely given picture. From Daniel 8 we receive special details which concern the Jews, which are accordingly given in Hebrew.

Secondly, Daniel 8 deals only with the second and third of the world-powers, Medo-Peria, and Javan or Greece the great and first ruler of which was to have his vast kingdom broken into four in due time after his death, and of course with inferior power. One of these was to meddle disastrously with the Jews and their religion and worship above all, whether in the type that is fulfilled, or in the antitype of the latter time "when the transgressors are come to the full."

Thirdly, the empire of Babylon, the lion-like beast with eagle's wings, had a unity peculiar to itself. The Medo-Perisan (a bear in Daniel 7, a ram in Daniel 8 with two high horns of which the higher came up last) answers truly and solely to the second of these world-powers, which, fierce and devouring in general, was mild and generous toward the Jews, as indeed was the notable horn of the Macedonian power, Alexander the Great. In the third empire the unmarked and settled partition after it's founder death was four-fold, which no historian can question.

But the no less marked division of the fourth or Roman empire is into ten horns, of course contemporary, with one small at its rise which plucks up three by the roots, as remarkable for its intelligence as for its pride and blasphemous audacity. Here however we are in presence of that which awaits its fulfilment, even admitting a partial application to past history. For that horn by its lawlessness brings on, not providential loss of dominion as in the case of the earlier beasts, but direct, distinctive, and divine judgment at the appearing of God's kingdom in the person of the Son of man. How can these things be? The Revelation answers by the rising again of the fourth or Roman empire, when its imperial head (slain unto death) was healed to the wonder of the whole world (Revelation 13: 3), the beast that was, and is not (its present negation), and shall be present, having emerged from the abyss. For it will be the brief destined hour of the dragon's wrath, power, and authority. Here also is shown that the Roman beast had distinctly seven successive forms of government or heads, besides (at the close, if not before also) ten contemporaneous horns or kings. Compare Revelation 17: 8-12 with Daniel 7.

Clearly then it is no question in Daniel 8 of the Roman power of Daniel 7, whose last horn, little at first, greater afterwards, is to wield and direct the whole force of the empire, so as by his blasphemies to meet with destructive judgment from God. He will be the immediate precursor of the Son of man's coming in His kingdom. Even the unscriptural Josephus could not but see this, though he was prudent enough to be reticent on a future so repulsive to his Roman patrons. But Daniel 8 speaks not of the west but of the east, even of the Graeco-Syrian kingdom and its persecuting profanation in the person of Antiochus Epiphanes, of whom we have ample details in Daniel 11: 21-31. Indeed this prediction is so exact as to surpass what any ancient historian extant furnishes; so much so that the heathen Porphyry betook himself to the same refuge of unbelief which the destructive critics of late days affect — the pretence of a writer in Maccabaean times, who personated Daniel in Babylon! The vision in Daniel 8: 9-14 dwells on what is now history; the interpretation, in 23-25, mainly on what is yet to be fulfilled.

It is well to observe that verse 11 and the first half of twelve are really a parenthesis. The change of gender "he," faithfully owned in the A.V., is alighted in the R.V. Its aim seems to have been to make the personality stronger, and here therefore to refer rather to the antitype than to the historical horn, which before and after the parenthesis is called "it." In the interpretation nothing is said of the "2300 evenings-mornings," or 1150 days, and of treading down the sanctuary, which may therefore be accomplished already. This period is known to be approximately near: none can deny its absolute exactness, of which the believer is sure. Prophecy interprets history, not the converse. The one is absolutely reliable, as from God; the other imperfect at best, often partial and prejudiced, too often adverse to the truth. The historical horn did not play the Solomonic part of "understanding dark sentences" to deceive the Jews, reserved for the antitype, who is also to be "mighty, but not by his own power." This can hardly be said of Antiochus Epiphanes. The future apostate ruler of Turkey in Asia, the enemy of Israel, will be sustained by a mightier monarch still further north. See Ezekiel 38, Ezekiel 39.

As to unfulfilled prophecy, superstition (slave of tradition) is dull and dark, rationalism is blind and hostile to God. Superstition is not faith and therefore incapable of understanding beforehand; rationalism is in principle antagonistic to the truth, for it denies that prophecy is ever specific, and especially on the remote future. Hence, as superstition is unbelieving and unexercised, so rationalism offers nothing but futile interpretations to block out the glorious future of God's kingdom by any little earnest in the past. But this falls so short as to give the willing impression that the prophets exaggerated or lied, like the poets or politicians of the day. Who but the unintelligent could confound the little horn of Daniel 8 with that of Daniel 7? or either the western or the north-eastern chief with the wilful king, to reign at the time of the end in Palestine, described in Daniel 11: 36-39? The last no doubt is the Antichrist, here viewed politically, in 2 Thessalonians 2 religiously as the man of sin opposed to the Man of righteousness, Who will appear from heaven to destroy him. There are many antichrists; but this does not justify the pretentious ignorance of scripture, which jumbles all three into Antiochus Epiphanes. For he was but a type of the final representative of that power, the enemy of the Antichrist whose ally is the last chief of the Roman empire: all to perish for ever in the day of Jehovah.

Bible Treasury Volume 19, p. 223. February 1893.

Q. What do you think of Dr. Bullinger's "Spirits in Prison" (Second edition revised, 1891)? A.B.

A. The greater part of this pamphlet prepares the way for the simple truth as set forth by Leighton, Pearson, and many more; quite as much as for Dr. B.'s notion that the "spirits in prison" are angels whom God cast down to Tartarus, and committed to chains or pits of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment (2 Peter 2: 4, Jude 6). It may have force against the anile superstition, popularised in our day, whether for a broad-church purgatory or the vulgar Popish one. He seems to have overlooked Hebrews 12: 9 (a reference probably to Numbers 16: 22, Numbers 227: 16). Besides, "spirits" we find here qualified doubly, by their present imprisonment, and by their past disobedience in the days of Noah, the cause of that safe keeping. But the language pointedly differs, both in connection and in strength of phrase, from that which describes the doom of those angles so singularly contrasted with the actual freedom of the dragon and his angels. The connection of 1 Peter 3: 19, 20 is clearly with 2 Peter 2: 5. For Noah, a preacher of righteousness, was the instrument by which the Spirit of Christ wrought in that day of divine long-suffering; the now imprisoned spirits were then the world of the ungodly on whom God brought the deluge, because they stumbled at the word, being disobedient. Dr. Be, though he claims especial credit for it, fails to catch the touching force of the "For," or rather "Because," with which 1 Peter 3: 18 opens. "It is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well-doing than for evil-doing; because Christ also suffered once for sins, Just for unjust," etc. He suffered once for sins. Let this suffice. Ours it is to suffer for righteousness and for Him. What has this to do with angels that kept not their first estate, sinning atrociously and unnaturally? What had they to do with "disobedience" only? And why here baptism?

All is most appropriate to the unbelieving world which rejected Noah's preaching in Christ's Spirit, for it is not said that He went into the prison and preached there, but to the imprisoned spirits. The apostle is combating such objections to christianity as present suffering, spiritual power only through the word, comparatively small numbers, absence of Christ, etc. This he does effectually by laying down Christ's unique suffering for sins, leaving us to suffer as He did also for righteousness. To this he adds the most solemn judgment that befell the world of old, which our Lord also compared to the coming day of His appearing, when His word and Spirit (cf. Genesis 6) were despised. None need wonder if few be saved now or by-and-by, seeing that eight only passed safely through the flood. In connection with this he speaks of baptism as the standing sign, not of new birth as men say, but of salvation, the request or demand of a good conscience Godward by Christ's resurrection. The water, through which Noah and his family were saved, was the power of death for all outside the ark. Christ's resurrection was not only God's honour on Him and His work, but peace to the believer; and if Christ be not yet come in power and glory, He is at God's right hand, which in itself is higher still, gone into heaven, angels, authorities, and powers being subjected to Him, whatever the unbelievers scoff at on earth.

Dr. B.'s reasoning is valid against "the larger hope" as well as purgatory. But his own application is quite irrelevant. For the revealed use of the guilty and apostate angels in 2 Peter 2 and Jude differs totally from the scope of 1 Peter 3, and is a warning to false teachers of licentious life or even apostate from christianity, not an encouragement to Christians who shrank from suffering, and were tried by the paucity of their brethren, and did not adequately stay their souls, conscious of salvation, on Christ's exaltation on high, the pledge of His sure appearing in glory. He is right, as we have long pointed out, as to the difference of ἐκήρ in 1 Peter 3 and εὐηγ in 1 Peter 4. But his notion of "spirits" has exposed him to a heterodox view of "the seven Spirits of God" in the Revelation, as some unreliable men had taught before him. Think of "grace and peace" from angels, no matter how high their rank! So he errs as to Acts 8, where the "Spirit" stands in contradistinction to "the angel." Compare Acts 12 and Acts 13. Each is appropriate. But this is a trifle compared with misinterpreting Revelation 1: 4, revelation 4: 5, etc., or even "sojourners of the dispersion" which Dean Alford mistook, and thereby the true bearing of the Epistle.

Bible Treasury Volume 19, p. 240. March 1893.

Q. Did the high priest, after coming out of the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement, bless the people? D.T.

A. People confound that day's rites with the eighth day of priestly consecration, Leviticus 9. There we find the figure of Aaron as Christ, the Priest after the sacrifices, blessing the people; then under the combined types of Moses and Aaron i.e. King and Priest, going in and coming out to bless them, the glory of Jehovah only appearing on this. But the holy force of Atonement Day is kept intact as the judgment and remission of sins. Only in Aaron and his sons we have the Christian place, indeed better than even Aaron's, as made free of the holiest at all times while Christ is within on high.

Q. Does 2 Corinthians 5: 21 teach that the saints become in glory the righteousness of God in Christ? X.Y.Z.

A. There is no room whatever for such a force in the language of the Spirit; imported into the words, it is a meaning which distracts from what the apostle lays down from God, and therefore it tends to destroy his aim. The full scope of what is conveyed is its true meaning, not an imaginary sense which the words taught of the Spirit will not bear. The object of the enemy is plain: now as ever anything new or old to enfeeble the blessed fruit of Christ's work. Nobody doubts that righteousness was proved in setting the rejected Christ in glory (John 16.) But here we are taught that, as God made Christ sin for us, so we become His righteousness in Christ. Nor does anybody question the future glorification of the saints; but this hope is wholly outside the passage, which refers exclusively, as its full scope, to what we christians become (or were made) now in Christ — even God's righteousness. This is what many saints fail to believe. And the objection to apply in an absolute way to the believer, in his mixed condition down here statements in scripture which refer to what he is in Christ, shows that it is pure unbelief, which is so blindly put forward as "advanced truth," to ensnare, unsettle and overthrow the unwary. For the truth, which is to deliver from the weakness, and doubts, and all other evil to which the mixed condition is naturally subject, must be received and applied absolutely if taught of God: the faith is made void, and what is worse and goes along with it, the work of Christ and the grace of God alike. If I am not to believe in the most absolute way what the Holy Spirit declares I, a Christian, am already made in Christ, not only is all claim of advanced truth vain, but the gospel in any full sense is systematically denied. And the more evidently it is of Satan, because those who adopt such destructive reveries flatter themselves that they are going on to higher things, instead of virtually, though unwittingly, abandoning that distinctive truth, even as to the foundations of the faith, which used to characterize those waiting for God's Son from heaven. A sober and duly instructed Christian cannot doubt, unless under the strong bias of personal or party feeling, that the teaching is retrograde, false, and incompatible with the gospel.

Bible Treasury Volume 19, p. 272. June 1893.

Q. Do Matthew 18: 20, Luke 24: 32, John 14: 23, teach that the Lord leaves the right hand of God to come down in the midst of believers gathered to His name? E.J.L.

A. We may not rightly set scripture against scripture, but are to believe all. The Holy Spirit is now come, as Christ went on high to send Him to abide for ever with us and in us. But this is not the same as Christ's presence, promised conditionally on the obedience of the assembly or the individual saint, which is in no way to leave God's right hand. He is there bodily, but deigns to vouchsafe His presence here also, which w by faith enjoy in the Spirit. Precious as is the truth of the Holy Spirit's presence, faith does not forego these comforting assurances. Prayer and discipline are only special cases of the more general truth, that Christ may be counted on to be in the midst where two or three are gathered to his name. So, even when the lord appeared extraordinarily to the apostle, and more than once, He did not leave heaven; yet it was all real. Mystery is no less true than material fact, far more momentous, and inseparable from Christ, as Christians know Him at any rate. We walk by faith, and own scripture as absolutely authoritative.

Q. Does 1 Corinthians 15: 47, imply manhood morally before the Son took human form.

A. The assertion that the Word was in any real sense man, before He was made flesh, derives no authority from this text or any other. It is a dreamy fable. There was purpose of course, but more seems here meant and without warrant. The divine nature which was His eternally could of course connect itself with human nature, as in fact it did to form the person of Christ, Who could therefore be characterized as of, or out of, heaven. But this sure truth is very different from an unmeaning jargon unless it have a false meaning. Even to babble about the Son's person is eminently perilous and profane.

Q. Romans 5: 11, Hebrews 2: 17. Are these texts correctly rendered in the A.V.? AMERICAN.

A. Not so, but in the R.V. The late Abp. Trench (Synonyms of the N.T., seventh ed. 276) owns that the word "atonement," by which our (A.) Translators have once rendered καταλλαγή (Romans 5: 11), has little by little shifted its meaning, and confesses that, were the translation now for the first time made, "atonement" would plainly be "a much fitter rendering of ἱλασμός," as "reconciliation" of the term in Romans 5: 11. Indeed no christian scholar can doubt it. It is therefore astounding confusion for anyone, not merely to go back to "atonement," which the present force of our language forbids, but to imagine this to be the primary meaning and according to its Biblical usage, if we mean the original, which of course alone is authoritative. The simple and certain fact is that our A.V., now at least, is doubly incorrect, it gives "atonement:" in Romans, where "reconciliation" is the sole right rendering; as "making atonement for," or expiating is requisite in Hebrews. A similar blunder pervades the O.T. rendering of the corresponding Hebrew term. To reproduce that error is strange, especially with a view to clearness and accuracy of statement, which it destroys. Wiclif and the Rhemish were right as to Romans 5: 11; which fact goes far to convict of error the others from Tyndale, notwithstanding the amiable prelate's desire to excuse it on the ground of the language shifting. On the other hand, Wiclif's "merciful to" is very inadequate in Hebrews 2: 17, as Tyndale's "to pourge" is incorrect and rather the effect, which has its own proper expression, though followed by all the older English save the Rhemish (here as usual servile to the very odd "repropitiaret" of the Vulgate). In the R.V. of this text to make "atonement" takes the place of "reconciliation" very properly. Καταλλαγή in the N.T. sense is unknown to the Septuagint. Trench's doctrine of "reconciliation" is well meant, but, like that of theologians in general, infirm and clouded. God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. Such was His aspect in the incarnate Word. But man, ungodly and implacably hostile, rejected Christ even to the death of the cross; wherein God made Him sin for us, and raised Him from the dead for our justification. Therefore, justified by faith, as being reconciled by His death even when enemies, we shall much more be saved by His life. To be reconciled to god supposes more than atonement, redemption from the enemy, and justification; it comprehends, besides, ourselves set in relationship with god righteously, according to the purpose of His grace. It means, neither changing God's mind from alienation into love, nor merely man brought out of his enmity to God, but the God of love and holiness having so wrought in the sacrifice of Christ, that He can righteously send the gospel of grace to every creature, and establish every believer in a new and stedfast relationship of favour with Himself.

Bible Treasury Volume 19, p. 304. July 1893.

Q. In a little book lately issued, an effort is made to qualify the great truth of acts 2, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, by citing Acts 8, Acts 10 and Acts 19. Does scripture warrant several descents of the spirit, little Pentecosts following the great one? Does He in fact come down from time to time? If He came down repeatedly in apostolic days after Pentecost, why may He not come down any day now? Why may He not do so more than of old? Is the argument or insinuation sound? P.

A. It is the common unbelief of Christendom in the personal presence of the Holy Spirit. Our Lord announced His coming as "the promise of the Father," and to "abide for ever" when come. John 14-16, Luke 24, Acts 1. Was this fulfilled or not at Pentecost? One can understand an influence renewed ever so often; but what of a person, and a Divine Person? Hence an immense difference marks off Acts 2 from the three subsequent occasions. Only then came from heaven a sound as of the rushing of a mighty wind filling all the house, only then tongues parting asunder as of fire which sat on each. Yet it was of high moment that the Samaritan believers, and the Gentile ones should receive the like gift, attested as at Pentecost by signs following. So at Ephesus much later, where god put honour on the apostle Paul, as at Samaria on the apostles Peter and John. But on the two great occasions, for Jews and Gentiles, the Spirit was given without the imposition of hands, which was due to special reasons in the two lesser cases. As the rule, we get the blessing now, as Cornelius and the other Gentiles did at Caesarea, while the word is spoken. The principle is just the same, though we have not the extraordinary powers then vouchsafed when it was a new thing. But the reception of the Spirit, or even His falling on all that heard the word, is not His coming or descent. His abiding presence is a cardinal truth of the gospel; and not much of its "heart" would remain, where either is undetermined. For He it is Who glorifies Christ and leads into all truth. What then are we to infer justly?

There are not several comings or descents of the Spirit, but impressive and cheering communications of the blessing to others who successively the gospel of salvation, and greatly needed the given proof, as did the Jewish believers, so slow to credit the indiscriminate grace of God. Those of Samaria "received the Holy Spirit;" Who "fell on" all that were hearing the word at Caesarea; as He "came on" the dozen disciples at Ephesus. Yet it was the successive operation of the same Holy Spirit Who had already been sent forth from heaven to abide for ever. But Christendom, like Israel, is apt to be proud as well as poor, and boasts more, as the hour of judgment draws nigh. Unbelief is ever the down-grade.

Bible Treasury Volume 19, p. 336. October 1893.

Q. 1. Is there any difference between "carnally" and "of the flesh" in Romans 8: 5, 6, 13, etc.?

2.What is "fleshy" in 2 Corinthians 3: 3? A.L.

A. 1, 2. It is the same word and sense in Romans 8, the mind of that flesh which is enmity to God, and came into man's moral constitution through Adam's sin. But "fleshy" means the different fact of the physical material, consisting of flesh, in contrast with stone; and the critics prefer it in Romans 7: 14 to the received reading, which only differs by one letter. So do the oldest copies in 1 Corinthians 3: 1, though they give the form "fleshly" or "carnal" in verse 3. In Hebrews 7: 16 they prefer "fleshy" or at any rate the Greek form for the material. Yet in Romans 15: 27 the word for "fleshly" or "carnal," is read; so that this would seem capable of both applications, where the other is confined to the material sense.

Bible Treasury Volume 19, p380. December 1893.

Q. Is the A.V. [and Revised] "to bring us unto Christ" a correct translation? or does the text mean "until" or "up to" Christ? W.D.

A. The Geneva V. by the English refugees (1557) seems to have suggested first, in our tongue at least, the words printed in italics. Cranmer's Bible in 1539 gave merely the literal "unto"; but Tyndale (1534) has "unto the tyme of," which is in sense equivalent to "until." So ἕως is sometimes added to lend strength or precision; sometimes is used alone, as are ἄχρι and μἑχρι, as more definite, though eacj has its own propriety. "Unto," "for"," or "up to" appears safest, though the temporal meaning is often legitimate, whether an epoch or point as "until" or a period as "for." But it is even more frequently used ethically for aim, state or effect and result, as the case may require. So it means here: certainly not "in" Christ, as Wiclif and the Rhemish following the error of the Vulgate: εἰς never really has such a force. Nor is it correct to confound the "child-guide" with the "school-master" or teacher. Even 1 Corinthians 4: 15 uses the word disparagingly, though the apostle be not contrasting the law as in Galatians 3 with the promise and the gospel. Severe dealing is implied in both, not parental love. The law shut up and kept in ward; but Christ sets free. Law may alarm and distress the soul; it cannot deliver; yet how often God has used it to drive the labouring and heavily burdened to Him Who alone gives rest! a use rather negative than positive; for indeed its ministry is of death and condemnation. But what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God has done; for He, sending His own Son in likeness of flesh of sin and [as offering] for sin, condemned [not us, but] sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us that walk not after the flesh but the Spirit. Our Saviour annulled death and brought to light life and incorruption through the gospel.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. 20.

Bible Treasury Volume 20, p. 32. February 1894.

Q. Are "the sheep" in Matthew 25: 33 the same as the Gentiles in Revelation 7: 17? They are alike out of the nations, but which? Heathen or christened? How then 2 Thessalonians 2: 10-12? G.R.

A. That they are the same objects of mercy in that day is confirmed by the remnant in Matthew 24: 15-26, answering to Revelation 14: 1-5, and His elect in Matthew 24: 31, answering to Revelation 7: 1-8. "All the nations" seems from the context to be outside Israel and Christendom (already judged in the previous parts of the Lord's prophecy on the mount). 2 Thessalonians 2 does not exclude a remnant that love the truth, even when all that reject it perish irremediably.

Bible Treasury Volume 20, p. 48. March 1894.

Q. It is not at all that a soul should by grace believe the gospel. The Lord enjoins the outward act of baptism, as the appointed and standing sign of burial to His death, in subjection to His name. He that would refuse it on principle despises Christ and His work. On the other hand, he that has no more than submitted to the sign has only an external name before men, and no real intrinsic part in the privileges he claims, which is inseparable from faith, without which millions have been baptised in vain. See Mark 16: 16. The apostles, etc., were told to baptise, as they did: and even Paul was baptised by a simple disciple. But it is a grave fact for system-makers, that scripture is silent about the twelve themselves. There is no ground to believe that one of them was the subject of Christian baptism. Some or all may have been baptised by John; but his baptism was quite distinct, as we see in Acts 19.

Bible Treasury Volume 20, p. 63. April 1894.

Q. (1) 1 Corinthians 15: 29 — Will you kindly explain?

(2) Also, when do the O.T. saints rise? A.C.W.

A. (1) "Baptised for the dead" means, in my judgment, simply those that entered ("that are being baptised") taking the place and filling up the ranks of the deceased saints. For grace in the face of all dangers keeps up God's standing army here below. It refers to ver. 18, as 30 to ver. 19 (20-28 being an evident parenthesis of great value and positive), which resume the apostle's interrupted argument. The resurrection is the key to suffering and death itself for Christ's name. Without such a hope it were folly to join such a devoted band; but with it, His name will never lack recruits in faith even for a death or life of suffering. To suppose (like Deans Stanley and Alford) a superstition alluded to, and the apostle dealing gently with such folly as "survivors getting baptised on behalf of friends deceased without baptism," seems as contrary to his character as in itself strange. In all probability what Bishop hall calls "the usual but ungrounded practice" was a conceit grafted on this verse misunderstood. Again, Luther's idea of "over the dead," i.e. over their graves, is another imaginary superstition, worthy of the middle ages. Nor is it a tolerable interpretation that the plural is used for the singular and refers to the Lord. Sir R. Ellys seems to have first suggested the true thought in his "Fortuita Sacra" (1728), adopted and popularised by Doddridge in the "Family Expositor."

(2) The O.T. saints as well as those dead of the New rise at Christ's coming (ver. 23) (the living being then changed, 51, 52). "They that are Christ's" is surely comprehensive enough to embrace both. Revelation 20: 4 adds the rising of the Apocalyptic martyrs, too late for the rapture but just in time to be raised and reign with the previously risen saints, before the kingdom of Christ's and of His saints over the earth begins. For in that verse we have, in the first class already seated on thrones, the saints of the Old and New Testament, whom the Lord translates to heaven at His coming (the twenty-four elders of Revelation 4, Revelation 5); then the souls of those beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the word of God (Revelation 6); and lastly those who worshipped not the beast or his image (Revelation 13): which two classes, having been killed, needed to live, in order to reign with Christ, like the enthroned ones. "Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world?" (1 Corinthians 6: 2) — not the church merely, but "the saints." The reason why these two classes of sufferers are carefully shown to have part in the First Resurrection is because Christ had come and received to Himself the first and general company. Otherwise, being slain afterwards, they might seem to have been to late for that blessed part. Here they are assured of it.

Q. A Christian writes from Guernsey as to Isaiah 63: 19 variously rendered, and asks D. Martin's authority for "long temps" in that verse; and the reason for "maison" instead of "moisson" in Isaiah 8 last verse (or Isaiah 10: 2 or 3 as in others). So it is in Bagster's reprint of Martin's version.

A. Our correspondent is correct; and Martin, though far closer than Ostervald, is wrong in the first text, and misrepresented as to the second in the London reprint, which seems an erratum. But the former is quite mistranslated in the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate, and consequently in the R.C. versions such as that by le M. de Saci. As the A.V., the French Bible of Jean Diodati (Geneve, 1644) gives "jamais." The first clause in the A.V. is unwarranted; it interpolates "all thine" and severs the connexion. "We are from of old [looking back from the future tribulation before deliverance] over whom thou ruledst not, those not called by thy name." Alexander comes to the result of the English Bible in supposing Israel to be contrasted with their adversaries: — "We are of old: thou hast not ruled over them, thy name has not been called upon them." Isaac Leeser represents the Jewish preference of "We are become as though we are those over whom thou hast never ruled, over whom thy name hath not been called;" rather paraphrastic but right substantially. Benisch gives more concisely, "We are like those over whom" etc.

Q. Does scripture determine the serpent in Genesis 3?

A. Surely Revelation 12: 9, Revelation 20: 1, with 2 Corinthians 11: 3, are ample to decide this question. Satan availed himself of that subtle animal, not yet reduced to its humiliating condition.

Q. Why should it be "all the house of Israel" in Acts 2: 36, as there is no article in the Greek? Does not πασ οἶκος mean "every house"? ENQUIRER.

A. Without "of Israel" connected it would be "every house"; but with it the case is altered. "House of Israel" is in thought a compound term and is sufficiently defined without the article, like "all Jerusalem" which dispenses with it. So it is with "building" in Ephesians 2: 21, a composite whole in sense, which makes "every" improper and false. The Revisors seem to have been quite astray in all this, though right of course in Ephesians 3: 15, as "family" has no such reason to plead. "Each several building" is gravely false, at issue with the context even, as with all scripture, which insists on unity.

Bible Treasury Volume 20, p. 80. May 1894.

Q. Why is Daniel omitted in Revelation 7?

A. Not because this tribe is not to have its share in the future partition and blessing; for Ezekiel 48 enumerates it as the first and most northerly of all. A tradition among the fathers prevailed, founded on Genesis 49: 17, that it was because antichrist was to spring from this tribe. It is certain that it was the first to sanction idolatry: and evil reprobated the more solemnly in the Revelation, because it will revive as the judgment of the quick draws near. It seems also omitted among the genealogies of the early chapters of 1 Chronicles.

Bible Treasury Volume 20, p. 95. June 1894.

Q. Genesis 46: 26, with Acts 7: 14: how to be explained?

A. There is no question really of truth, but of object and mode of speech; for the original history speaks of 66 (ver. 26) and 70 (ver. 27). Even in ver. 26 the Hebrew strictly means "belong to," rather than with Jacob. The 70 are his house, including more. The LXX, in their Greek version, which Stephen quotes, include five more though born in Egypt, according to this well understood usage of regarding parent and children as one.

Bible Treasury Volume 20, p. 112. July 1894.

Q. Does the word of God really mean "eternal" or "everlasting" in Matthew 25: 46? or only "age-lasting?" T.H.T.

A. The word is used in Romans 16: 26 of God, in Hebrews 9: 14 of the Spirit, and in 1 John 1: 2 of that life which Christ was and is. Are They merely age-lasting? In 2 Corinthians 4: 18 the same is contrasted with "temporal," instead of being similar in force, as these false teachers aver. Nay, the verse itself refutes their desire; for even they own that the life of the saints is "everlasting," and the same word in the same sentence is applied to the punishment of the wicked. Hebrew, Greek, English, or any other tongue, makes no difference. The N.T. differs from the Old in the utmost clearness as to this, now that Christ is come; as the O.T. had dwelt chiefly on the present government of God, while pointing here and there to the eternal things which are now unveiled under the gospel.

Q. Does "the whole world" in Luke 2: 1 include Russia, etc., or merely the Roman Empire?

A. It is clear that a decree of Augustus or any other emperor could not run in its effect outside the empire. But it was the phrase of the day, as we see in acts 24: 5. To a Roman the urbs ruled the orbem terrarum. The world and the empire were the same; all without was of no account. But the apostles had a true and larger view, as we may see in Acts 17: 31, Hebrews 2: 5, Revelation 3: 10, and elsewhere.

Q. Genesis 49: 10 compared with 2 Chronicles 36: 21, and Matthew 2: 1, etc.; how would you deal with them?

A. The "sceptre" may be no more than the tribal symbol; and if this be the sense, Judah was thus kept till Shiloh, the Prince of Peace, came and was rejected, when in due time the place was lost, till He come again: then, and not before, the gathering or obedience of the peoples shall be unto Him. If it mean one entitled to royal sway in Zion, this is also true. So the line of David through Solomon went on to Jesus, as Matthew 1 shows; and in Him dead, risen, and glorified it abides, to be made good when God's time comes.

Q. Parables of Matthew 13; what do they teach?

A. There is a complete circle of truth: seven, of which the first, though not a likeness of the kingdom of the heavens, shows the Lord sowing the word, with the opposition of the devil, the flesh, and the world. The six after open its mysterious form while He, the King, is rejected and on high. Three were spoken outside to the multitude, three (with the Wheat-and-Tares interpreted) to the disciples within the house: the external and internal views of the kingdom. In the first the crop is spoiled by intermingling of tares, and no remedy till judgment at the Lord's appearing. In the second the little seed rises to a towering tree. In the third the leaven works, over a given space — creedism, not life.

But to the spiritual the Lord shows the treasure, and the field bought to have it; the one pearl of price, the union and beauty of His loved object for which He surrendered all His Jewish glory; and the final severance of the fish taken out of the sea of nations in the net, at the completion of the age.

Bible Treasury Volume 20, p.128. August 1894.

Q. Parables in Matthew 24 and Matthew 25: what do they teach? W.E.

A. The successive parables of Household Servants (faithful or evil), the Ten Virgins (wise or foolish), and the Talent-given Servants (good or wicked), are the portion of the Lord's great prophecy on Olivet, which sets forth Christendom after the introductory part devoted to the Jews and the remnant in particular at the closing scenes (Matthew 24: 1-44), and before He winds up all with all the Gentiles (before His judgment seat as King in His glory) who will have been put to the test by His messengers preaching the gospel of the kingdom in the whole habitable earth, for a witness to all the nations before the end comes when He shall appear and sit on the throne of His glory. Accordingly, in the central parables, which treat of christian profession, all Jewish allusion is dropped, which abounds in the opening portion.

Q. Matthew 7: 7, 8: what is the bearing of these verses? W.E.

A. To encourage the disciples in dependence and prayer, with ever rising degrees of earnest importunity on our part, with every assurance of a gracious answer on our Father's. Even in human relationships the needy suppliant is not refused or mocked. "If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more will your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?"

Q. John 19: 14, compared with Mark 15: 25?

A. It would seem that the hours are regularly different in John, after the destruction of Jerusalem, from the Jews' familiar reckoning in Mark. If this be well founded, the different computation furnishes no real difficulty. Thus John would speak of the early morning; Mark of three hours after.

Bible Treasury Volume 20, p. 144. September 1894.

Q. Is there typical meaning in Jacob's serving for Leah and Rachel, in Genesis 29? W.E.

A. It appears that Rachel was the first beloved wife, but in fact the last to enjoy, and bear the fruits of, the relationship — Joseph rejected of his brethren and exalted in another sphere over Gentiles; and Benjamin, his mother's sorrow, but son of his father's right hand. Leah before this is the mother of many sons, as there are before Israel comes into full and happy view.

Q. Psalm 22: 21. What is the true rendering of this verse? J.N.

A. I see no reason to question the common view. The R.V. is clearer than the A.V. The force of the verse lies in the unexpected turn. For "and from the horns of the r'eem" (wild oxen or buffaloes) the natural thought would have been "answer me." But there can be no doubt that the only legitimate sense is, as is generally if not universally given, "thou hast answered," or heard, "me." It is impossible, without wresting the scriptural expression, to extract a future bearing. Parallelism is usual, but cannot override the plain language of inspiration; nor can a priori doctrine, which is sound only as far as it is subject to scripture. Nor is there more difficulty in understanding these words of our Lord than what He subsequently cited from Psalm 31: 5. Is there not something to learn?

Q. How is 2 Corinthians 5: 21 to be taken? W.E.

A. In 1 Corinthians 1: 20 saints are said to be of God in Christ Jesus, who was made to us wisdom from God, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption (for the body itself will be under the power of redemption at His coming). This is all of grace that no flesh may glory save in Him. But in the second Epistle the apostle goes further and affirms that God made Christ Who knew no sin to be sin for us (i.e. dealt with as a sacrifice for it on our behalf) that we might be made or become His righteousness in Christ (i.e. blessed righteously according to His estimate of Christ's work and its answer in glory).

Q. 1 John 5: 11? What is the force? W.E.

A. It seems impossible to make the truth plainer than the apostle was given to do. He is showing God's witness worthy of the greater heed, as in itself greater beyond comparison than any witness of men. And it is this, that God gave unto us, Christians, eternal life (not merely promises or a kingdom), and this life is in His Son. For He is that life, though of course far more, as being very God no less than the Father. But it is ours now, and it works in us all that is pleasing in His sight; though we have it in His Son, and all the more surely and incorruptibly ours because it is in Him. But it is equally true that we have life, as it is destructive error and unbelief to doubt or deny, to darken or defile, this grand truth of Christianity.

Q. How is it the πᾶς without the article in many cases like ἐξουσία, δικαιοσύνη, κ.τ.λ. means "all" and not "every"? QUERY.

A. Because they express moral thoughts, grouping every case under the word; so that it is a question of our language not here admitting "every" but requiring "all" in idiomatic English. With article before or after, πᾶς in English must be translated not "every" but "all." So without it words expressive of moral ideas, as righteousness, joy, fear, power wisdom; but it really means every such case. So of the common "all flesh," all the individuals without distinction. But ordinary appellatives come under the regular rule which is true of all languages.

Bible Treasury Volume 20, p. 160. October 1894.

Q. 1 Corinthians 11: 5. Does it imply that in apostolic days women prayed and prophesied in public? Compare Acts 1: 14, Acts 2: 17, 18; and Acts 21: 9. V.L.

A. It is in ver. 18, that we hear of "in public" or in assembly. The early verses of the chapter treat of decorum in females. Wherever they might pray or prophesy, they were bound to walk in the subordination of God's order. But 1 Corinthians 14: 34, 35, enjoins imperatively silence on the women in the assemblies. They are to be in subjection, as the law also says. If they wish to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is a shame for a woman to speak in the assembly. Compare too 1 Timothy 2: 11-14. It is likely that among other disorders Corinthians women spoke in the assembly: if so, the apostle put an end to it. Yet women might prophesy, as Philip's daughters in their father's house, and even then with careful decorum of subjection even outwardly marked. It is certain that they were charged to keep silence in the assemblies of the saints.

Bible Treasury Volume 20, p. 176. September 1894.

Q. Hebrews 12: 17. Is it the blessing or repentance Esau sought carefully? F.H.

A. Genesis 27 is explicit. Esau sought importunately the blessing of his father and with tears. He was a self-willed, profane, and unclean man. Not a word is breathed of repentance. He had already despised his birthright heartlessly. God was in none of his thoughts, but he counted on Isaac's carnal partiality; as Jacob, misled by Rebecca, trusted to cunning, instead of crying to God and resting on His purpose, which, spite of their low state, both believed in. Hence the R.V. joins J.N.D.'s, and very properly in parenthetically marking the clause, "for he found no place of (or for) repentance." One fails to see any sufficient reason for taking μετανοία in any other than its uniform sense elsewhere in the N.T. To make it here only equivalent to μεταμέλεια demands at least the strongest proof, and seems to be uncalled for, though an expositor second to none appears to have been of that opinion for this place.

Bible Treasury Volume 20, p. 192. December 1894.

Q. When do the O.T. saints rise? A.C.W.

A. "They that are Christ's at His coming": not the church only, but the O.T. saints also, being Christ's (1 Corinthians 15: 23).

Q. Are any of the church left behind to go through the final tribulation, or to miss the millennial reign in Christ? A.C.W.

A. Not a single scripture intimates either. That which is written forms and strengthens the hope that every member of Christ's body will enjoy all so clearly and fully pledged in John 14, John 17 and elsewhere. The bride of Christ is no mutilated body, as the error imagines. Again, those that go through the great tribulation are demonstrably (as in Revelation 7, Revelation 14, etc.) either Israelitish saints or Gentile ones, while the symbol of the glorified company is seen on high. So far is it from being true that any real Christians miss the millenial reign with Christ, Revelation 20: 4 is explicit that such of the Jewish or Gentile saints as follow after our translation to heaven, and are put to death under the earlier persecution of Revelation 6, etc., or under the Beast's violence later (Revelation 13, etc.), are to be raised from the dead and share that reign, though only called after the Lord comes and takes us to heaven. Those who survive are kept to form the nucleus of the Jews and Gentiles blessed on the earth under His reign.

Q. Psalm 69: 4 (5). What means "Then I restored what I took not away"? I.H.

A. Our Lord pleads that He was not guilty of the wrong, but yet it was His to make good the right. His causeless enemies were innumerable; they were as strong as they were false; and where He was unrighteously charged, He walked in grace, seeking at all cost nothing but Jehovah's glory.

Bible Treasury Volume 20, p. 208. January 1895.

Q. What means Job 22: 30? Or is it that the A.V. fails, as well as others? The connection too in ver. 29, is obscure as we read them. X.

A. The translation correctly given serves to make all plain, as any one may find in a version which appeared long ago in the B.T. and reproduced by Morrish, the Publisher.

"When they are dejected, then shalt thou say, Lift up,

And He will save him of downcast eyes;

He will deliver him that is not guiltless,

And he is rescued by the cleanness of thy hands."

This was unexpectedly illustrated before the book closed in the rescue, not of Eliphaz only but of the other two self-righteous friends, when Jehovah's anger was kindled against them and their unjust opinions, and Job prayed for them. "Island" or "house" (J.M. Good) ruins the sense of the sentence; for the word here is simply a negative particle, as taken in the Chaldee paraphrase, and approved by the ablest of late. I. Leeser's Version is even closer: "He will even deliver" etc., i.e. not the humble only, but the faulty.

Bible Treasury Volume 20, p. 224. February 1895.

Q. Wine, John 2 etc. Are there two kinds in scripture, one unfermented and legitimate, the other fermented and only evil? ENQUIRER.

A. There is no ground whatever for such a distinction, which is due to teetotal imagination. Wine in its natural and proper sense means the fermented juice of the grape, though it may be applied figuratively to other liquor, or even more widely still. The Nazarite only abstained when under vow; the priest, when about to enter the sanctuary. It was offered to God: not a word of an unfermented liquid. Must was also drunk, which was not fermented. But the new or sweet wine of Acts 2: 13 was intoxicating evidently. So wine is supposed throughout the scriptures, Old or New; and hence the warning against excess, never, save in special circumstances, against is use. The Lord made the water into wine at the marriage feast in Cana, and made it "good wine," and abundantly. Nor is the late Dean Alford unduly hard, when he says in his comment, "He pours out His bounty for all, and He vouchsafes His grace to each for guidance; and to endeavour to evade the work which He has appointed for each man — by refusing the bounty to save the trouble of seeking the grace — is an attempt which must ever end in degradation of the individual motives and in social demoralization, whatever present apparent effects may follow its first promulgation. One visible sign of this degradation, in its intellectual form, is the miserable attempt made by some of the advocates of this movement, to show that the wine here and in other places of scripture is unfermented wine, not possessing the power of intoxication." (The Greek. Test. i. 701, fifth edition, 1863).

Q. 2 Corinthians 5: 10. Has this to do with "the great white throne?" or is it to magnify God's grace? D.M.

A. It is general, and applies to both. Hence the word is "We all," we, the whole of us, a larger term than "we all" in 2 Corinthians 3: 18, which is restricted to the Christian community. Next, it is "shall appear" or rather "be manifested," so as to embrace every one, believing or not, though of course as we know from other scriptures not at the same time, any more than for the same end. Were it "judged," it would apply only to unbelievers and only to the great white throne: no believer, as our Lord declares in John 5: 24, comes into "judgment," which is in contrast with the eternal life which the faithful have in the Son of God. Here again the language employed is expressly general. It is equally erroneous to limit the manifestation to believers or to unbelievers. Both in their season are to be manifested before the judgment-seat or Bema of our Lord; and all the deeds done by the body as an instrument will come out in result before Him. In the believer's case, how magnifying for God's grace! in the unbeliever's, how vindicating His judgment of evil! Even for the saints, what was worthless will bear its consequences, though by grace they are saved, as what was good will be rewarded. But hopeless at last will be seen the lot of the wicked when manifested there, all their works bad, and above all, their rejection of Christ and the gospel.

Q. What is meant by "Ye are fallen from grace" in Galatians 5: 4? Does it mean gone into sin or become infidel? X.

A. If the context were duly read, the answer would be apparent. The apostle is proving to the Galatian confessors their exceeding danger in mixing the law with the gospel: ceremonial or moral makes no real difference. We as Christians are under grace, not law. We are saved by the faith of Christ, not by deeds of law moral or ceremonial. Indeed the moral law must condemn the sinner more tan the ceremonial. For a Gentile to be circumcised is to abandon grace, to lose Christ, and to become debtor to do the whole law. Such "are fallen from grace." It is to give up God's grace in Christ, now published in the gospel and for every Christian to enjoy.

Q. 1 Corinthians 11: 33. How does this apply in our day? M.

A. It exhorts against selfish or unholy haste, it calls to mutual love and esteem, in coming together before the Lord.

Bible Treasury Volume 20, p. 240. March 1895.

Q. 1 Corinthians 4: 5. Does this verse refer to the Lord's coming for or with His saints? M.

A. The Lord comes and receives the saints to Himself for the Father's house. As the last act before the marriage supper (Revelation 19), the bride gets herself ready; which appears to point to that manifestation of the glorified before Christ's bema or judgment-seat, as the result of which each shall receive according to what he did by the body as an instrument. Then follows, after the bridal supper, the appearing before the world.

Q. Genesis 11: 26-32; Genesis 12: 4. How was Abram but 75 when he left Haran? Terah lived to 205. If Abram was born when Terah was 70, would not this make Terah live 60 years after Abram went to Canaan? H.B.

A. The difficulty is due to supposing that Terah's eldest son was Abram. Genesis 11: 25, 27, does not give the order of birth, but names Abram first from his superior dignity, as is common in Biblical genealogy.

Acts 7: 4 is express that Abram came into Canaan only after Terah's death, who was 205 years old. Deducting 75 years (Abram's age at that epoch) we have 130 as the years of terah's life when Abram was born. Haran was really the eldest; Nahor, the second son of Terah, married Haran's daughter Milcah, his own niece; and Abram was youngest of the three. Lot was Haran's son, as Sarai (or Iscah) was his daughter. Thus Lot was Abram's brother-in-law, as he also is called his brother, and Abram called Sarai his sister. The great difference (60 years) between the eldest and the youngest sons of Terah (by two different mothers, as Abram intimates) made this possible and explains the matter.

It is plain therefore that Dean Alford was not only precipitate but predisposed to think Stephen in error, and the inspired word guilty of "demonstrable mistake." Josephus and Philo were right and confirm the account in the Acts; and so was Usher.

The mistake arose from assuming that Genesis 11: 26, 27 meant the order of birth, and consequently that Abram was eldest. There is no ground to doubt that he was the youngest, but named first because of his honourable position. So was Shem in Genesis 5: 32, Genesis 6: 10, Genesis 7: 13, Genesis 9: 18, Genesis 10: 1; yet Genesis 10: 2, compared with verse 21 plainly shows that Japheth was the eldest, Ham being probably the youngest (Genesis 9: 24). The place of precedence is due to both Shem and Noah, not to birth but to the honour God set on the respectively. Haran then was the eldest son of Terah, and Abram born 60 years after. And with this agrees the fact that Sarah (or Iscah) Haran's daughter was but 10 years younger than Abram. Nor is there force in the objection that this makes Terah 130 years old when Abram was born; for Abram took Keturah after Sarah's death, when he was at least 137 years old and had six sons subsequently (Genesis 25: 1, 2). It is Stephen in Acts 7 who enables us certainly to adjust what in the O.T. was not so clear. And so the early Jews saw, as may be gathered from Philo (de Mig. Abr. i. 463). Bengel made no mistake here.

Q. John 14: 16, 17. What is meant by the Spirit dwelling with you and to be in you? and how does it differ from the O.T. action?

A. As we had the Father and the Son in the first half of the chapter, the Spirit, another Paraclete or Advocate, introduces the second half at this point, Who when given should remain with the disciples for ever (unlike Christ Who was leaving them for heaven), or, as it is added later, He remaineth with you and shall be in you. It is a mistake as old as Euthymius Zigabenus to fancy a distinction here between the then time and after Pentecost. The true sense is that, when given as at Pentecost, His was a permanent stay with them; and not only so, but He would be in them in a way peculiar to Himself, and only known since redemption. No doubt, He had acted on souls and in saints at all times, as we see in the O.T. throughout. But now His presence personally and forever was the fruit of Christ's redemption and heavenly glory. The Father was revealed in the Son; the Son incarnate had done the will of God, consummating all sacrifice, and was received up as risen man in glory; and the Holy Spirit, given and come for ever, was the witness and power of all, both in the Christian and in the church; as we wait for the coming of the Lord to receive us to Himself and set us before the Father in His house, where Christ is now.

Bible Treasury Volume 20, p. 255. April 1895.

Q. 2 Samuel 5: 8: how do you explain? C.S.H.

A. The blind and the lame seem to have been set as a taunt to the anointed of Jehovah on the supposed impregnable fortress of Zion; and David felt it with all indignant ardour. They were the hated of his soul. Nevertheless Joab took the hill of Zion on David's behalf, the centre of his kingdom, and the prize that secured his own place of command. All in man's hand fails. How blessedly does the Lord contrast with it, Who, when He cast out those that made Jehovah's house a den of thieves, received blind and lame that came to Him in the temple, and healed them!

Q. Daniel 9: 26, 27. Is Young's version correct, or that of the A. and R. Versions? The latter substantially agree; but Young changes the sense by confounding Christ with the one who confirms in ver. 27. Have the English translators forced the Hebrew? or is Young without warrant? I greatly desire information. G.A.S. N.J., U.S.A.

A. There need be no hesitation in accepting the general sense of the A.V., modified by the Revisers. The article of reference is due to "sixty-two weeks," after which Messiah was to be cut off and "have nothing," as the Genevese E.V. had already rightly said. But the force of the next clause is utterly missed by Dr. R. Young. It really means, "And the people of the prince that shall come [in contrast with Messiah the Prince already come and cut off] shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood [or overflow], and even to the end war — desolations determined. And he [the coming prince] shall confirm a covenant with the many for one week; and in the midst of the week he shall cause sacrifice and oblation to cease; and because of sheltering [lit. wing of] abominations [or idols] a desolator [shall be], even until the consumption and that determined shall be poured out upon the desolate." So in fact the Roman people (not yet their coming prince) did come, and destroy the city and the temple [or holy place], followed by a flood of desolations on the guilty people and on Jerusalem for ages. But the time hastens, when the thread must be resumed and the last or postponed week of the 70 be accomplished. Then the coming Roman prince, in his incipient form, shall confirm covenant with the ungodly majority of the Jews, "the many," but break it by putting down their worship, and protecting idolatry and the Antichrist as we know from elsewhere. This will bring on the closing scenes of the Assyria, or king of the north (Isaiah 10, Isaiah 28, Isaiah 29, Daniel 11: 40-45), "the desolator;" and the last word of predicted judgment will be accomplished on the desolate Jerusalem. The death of Messiah broke the chain; but that closing link has yet to be joined, and all will be fulfilled in due season. The attempt to foist in the gospel is baseless. To translate the last verse, as Wintle does, following ancient versions, may be grammatically possible, but is unaccountable harsh, if not absurd: "Yet one week shall make a firm covenant with many, and the midst of the week shall cause the sacrifice and the meat offering to cease" etc. With what propriety or even sense could "one week," or its half do these remarkable things? The coming Roman prince is to confirm "a" covenant with "the mass" of Jews for seven years; and then breaks it when half the time expires. How strange to attribute either to the Messiah! "The many" rejected Him and shall receive the Antichrist. "Many" and "the many" are by no means to be confused in Daniel, any more than elsewhere. Translators (the Revisers among the rest) have not heeded the distinction, nor have commentators generally. It is the few, or the remnant, who receive the Messiah in faith, and in due time (when their wicked brethren, "the many" meet their doom) become the "Israel" that "shall be saved." This plainly and powerfully refutes the assumption that the last verse alludes to Christ's covenant. It is rather a covenant with death and hell; as Isaiah 28: 15 also lets us know. This will be for seven years, but broken.

Q. Titus 3: 10, 11, kindly explain, giving the significance of "heretic" and "reject." Is there any reference to reception or to excommunication? W.D.

A. "Heresy" is used by the apostle for a party of self-will, a faction which severs itself from the assembly. Such is the usage in 1 Corinthians 11: 18, 19: "I hear that there are schisms among you (i.e., divisions within), and I partly believe it. For there must also be heresies (i.e. external division or sects) that the approved may become manifest among you." (See also Galatians 5: 20 and 2 Peter 2: 1). The precise meaning here comes out incontestably. But doctrine (the later ecclesiastical sense of "heresy") does not of necessity lead its advocate to form a party without; but schismatic feeling directly tends to this. A split within ere long issues in a split without; whereas heterodoxy seeks shelter within in order to leaven the lump if possible. So in Titus 3 the apostle directs Titus to have done with a man stamped as heretical after a first and second admonition. He had gone outside and was forming a sect. It was no question therefore of putting him without; for he had gone out himself, and refused admonition, perhaps repeatedly. You cannot put away one who has already gone away, though it may be announced for the profit of all. The word translated "reject" is not to excommunicate, but altogether general, and capable of application to persons inside (as in 1 Timothy 5: 11) no less than to the outside maker of a school or sect; also to fables and foolish questions whatever they might be (1 Timothy 4: 7, 2 Timothy 2: 23). From its primitive meaning of deprecating and making excuse, the word acquires the force of refusing, rejecting, or avoiding. In no case is it applied to putting out, which is the function of the assembly and expressed by a totally different word. Among the Jews "heresy" was used indifferently for the parties of Sadducees, Pharisees, and Nazarenes.

Bible Treasury Volume 20, p. 272. May 1895.

Q. Luke 16: 9. What does it mean? G. de M.

A. The sacrifice of the present in view of the heavenly future; which those make who believe. It is their character and conduct, not of course the hidden spring of faith which leads to such ways and sustains in them. The unjust steward freely gave away his master's goods to gain friends for another day. The Lord praises his wisdom (not of course his dishonesty), as an example to us, who are called by faith to regard the money, etc., men call ours as our Master's, and act as freely as people do with the goods of others, being their stewards now. When the Lord comes, we shall have our due, the glorious inheritance, and be received into everlasting habitations.

Q. John 15: 2, 6. What is the difference? G. de M.

A. The early verse sets forth the Father's removal in judgment of one not bearing fruit. In the latter verse it is the utter ruin of fruitless professors. It is not in this case attributed to the Father's judging according to the work of each (1 Peter 1: 17) but all is external and irreparable. The great white throne disposes of such finally, as men burn dry or rotten wood.

Q. Acts 7: 16. You have recently shown Dean Alford's error (borrowed from rationalists) as to ver. 4; but how is the apparent confusion of ver. 16 to be cleared up? Yet one feels with Stiew that it seems "almost infatuation" to accuse Stephen's wonderful exposition of Israel's history as a "demonstrable error," where scripture so plainly distinguishes the grave of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob from that of Joseph and the rest. A.D.

A. The true solution lies, not in Calvin's idea of "Abraham" as a wrong reading for "Jacob," but in the elliptical compression with which Stephen, like other Jews, referred to the well-known facts. Abraham's grave was at Hebron, bought of Ephron the Hittite; Jacob bought ground at Sychem of the sons of Hamor. In the former notoriously were buried Sarah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But as ancient scripture tells us that Joseph was laid in the second, so Stephen intimates here that his brethren were also. Josephus is opposed to Jewish tradition in fancying that they were buried in Hebron; and Jerome confirms Sychem as their grave, affirming that it was seen as a fact in his day for all twelve. The difficulty is due to bringing both together as Stephen did. Ignorance is rather with those who do not enter into his manner, and so are apt to impute their own blundering and irreverant haste to a discourse of the profoundest character with an astonishing mastery of principles as well as facts throughout scripture. Without speaking of the Holy Spirit (and this of course if admitted incalculably condemns such criticism), it is rash beyond measure to impute to such a man a mistake which a child might detect. The late Archdeacon Lee in his book on Inspiration points out the same system of combining incidents; as for instance, comparing ver. 7 with Genesis 15: 13, 14, and Exodus 13: 12; ver.9; but especially ver. 43 with Amos 5: 27, "Beyond Damascus" clearly referring to the Assyrian deportation of the ten tribes; whereas Stephen combines in his way that of the two tribes to Babylon. This the Dean might have as fairly assailed; but he contents himself with saying that "fulfilment of the prophecy would make it very natural to substiture that name which had become inseparably linked with the captivity." This apology is as unworthy here as his attack there.

Bible Treasury Volume 20, p288. June 1895.

Q. In Luke 3: 38 Adam is called son of God; in Genesis 6: 2 his posterity are called the sons of God. Malachi 2: 10, says, "Have we not all one Father? hath not one God created us?" Paul, in Ephesians 4: 6, says :there is one God and Father of all." Is it therefore lawful to speak of the universal Fatherhood of God? J.H.

A. Undoubtedly, as angels are called sons of God in Genesis 6 and Job, so also it is extended to the human race as distinguished from the beasts that perish. Indeed man distinctively was made in God's image, after His likeness, which is never said of angels. Hence in the third parable of Luke 15 the two are spoken of as sons naturally; and Paul, in preaching to the Athenians, adopts the sentiment that we are His offspring, even the heathen. With this agrees the statement in Ephesians 4: 6: "one God and Father of all." So fat Dr. Crawford was more scripturally correct than the late Dr. Cavendish in their controversy. But this universal Fatherhood of God only makes man's wickedness and unbelief more inexcusable and ruinous. It has to do with nature only, which is now fallen and sinful, and proved to be God's enemy by rejecting His Son, sent to save. Salvation is in no other than Christ Jesus, His only begotten Son, and our Lord. Then only are we who believe His sons by grace.

Bible Treasury Volume 20, p304. July 1895.

Q. Do you consider the assertion that Jude 14, "Behold the Lord cometh" etc., is a quotation from the book of Enoch, is just? J.H.

A. The existing book of Enoch, translated into the Ethiopic tongue, may have had a Hebrew original, as it is a Jewish production. Some contend that it preceded the birth of our Lord. It was probably after Jude gave the words of Enoch by divine inspiration, which also supplied the fact of the contest between Michael and Satan about the body of Moses. It is certain that, as Jude's words (vers. 14, 15) are divine truth, the corresponding language in the Ethiopic is false. For this spurious book makes the Lord to execute judgment on His saints, in direct opposition to His own word in John 5: 24: the prevalent error of Judaism and Christendom.

Q. How do you understand the genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3? J.H.

A. Matthew gives the properly Messianic genealogy from Solomon through our Lord as legal heir of Joseph, for without it promise had failed and He had lacked the legal title. Luke gives His real line as Son of man, and Son of God here below, through Mary, not down from Abraham and David, but up to Adam and God. Mary, as the Talmud allows, was Heli's daughter; "being, as was supposed, son of Joseph," is the true parenthesis, and not part of the genealogical line.

Bible Treasury Volume 20, p. 320. August 1895.

Q. Ephesians 5: 26: what is the nature of the sanctification and cleansing? J.D. (Moneymore)

A. It is stated that Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for it. This He did in perfect love, though nothing was to be seen loveable but hateful and guilty.

Next, it was His for (not redemption only, but) an actual result agreeable to the divine nature; that He might sanctify it, or set it apart to God from all evil, having cleansed (or cleansing) it through the washing of water by (or in) the word. The entire work of sanctification, first and last, in principle and in practice, is here set forth luminously under the well-known figure of the washing of water, but carefully tying it to God's word, not to a sign or ordinace, whatever its place.

The blessed issue is, that He might present to Himself the church glorious, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish. The word employed is not "laver," (which in fact never occurs in the N.T. but often of course in the Greek version of the O.T.), but "bath water," and hence "washing." The absence of the Greek article with the qualifying term ἐν ῥήματι is strictly correct, though English like most other tongues cannot dispense with it, as thereby it bakes the word to characterise the washing. Nor could any instrument but God's word applied by the Spirit effect that purifying process all through.

But it is Christ's love, which accomplishes now the sanctification of the church, as it was before that His love in which He gave Himself for it on the cross. And His love will complete the work when He presents the church all glorious at His coming, the heavenly bride of the Second man, the Last Adam. It is well to note that in this connection "the Lord" is quite out of place in the Received text of ver. 29. It should be "Christ" as the best witnesses testify and the truth itself requires.

Q. Deuteronomy, or Deuternomy, which is correct? and what is the meaning of the word? J.S. (Mount Auburn, Mass., U.S.A.)

A. If intelligent usage be allowed to decide, the former is correct; and etymology also favours the word so formed from the Greek. It means a second edition or repetition of the law, being the title of the fifth book of Moses given by the Septuagint translators. The Jews as usual designate each book by the opening Hebrew words. It may be added that there is no real ground to doubt, save in the unbridled fancy of rationalists, that it was (save the last chapter or at least its last part) written, as it professes to be, by Moses. As to its scope and contents, Deuteronomy presents a practical direction in the spirit of prophecy for life in the land, given from the east of Jordan, and looking onward to the final restoration of Israel after captivity, "the secret things" of grace after total failure under law. The books of the law, as in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers were rather an abstract system of types, only in part reduced to practice, with the facts even selected as types also. Hence in Deuteronomy the typical institution has no practical character as compared with those elsewhere. And, as has been remarked, it is the book, and the only one, which our Lord quoted in reply to Satan's temptation. So also it is the book which the apostle applied to the righteousness of faith in the gospel as contrasted with that of the law. All this, and a great deal more of spiritual interest, contribute to pour scorn on the scorners who vie with one another in striving to make it out a forgery or religious romance composed not earlier than the days of Josiah. Inspiration accounts for its salient properties, as it does for each of the books that preceded, all written by Moses, but in a wisdom of the Spirit beyond his who was the instrument of the Holy Spirit.

Bible Treasury Volume 20, p. 352. April 1895.

Q. Galatians 6: 16. Does this scripture give any sanction to the idea that we, believers from among the Gentiles, are now "the Israel of God"? What is the true force? X.

A. The verse plainly intimates two classes, the general one of the saints who walk as Christians by the rule of the new creation in Christ, and the specified one, not of Israel now no longer for the time God's people, but such of them as were true to the Christ they were baptized unto (where is neither Jew nor Greek, but all are one in Him), who are therefore designated "the Israel of God."

Q. Revelation 5: 10. It is alleged that the Sept. Psalm 46: 8 and Matthew 6: 10, render doubtful the view that the text in the Revelation means reigning over, rather than on the earth. Is it really so? S.

A. The accusative is used for the object where activity was to be expressed. The propriety of this as to the nations is plain. The dative (among other senses) is employed for fixed relationship where it is not condition, occasion, or circumstance. The genitive expresses rather the simple fact. But there is another element in the text, which distinguishes it from Matthew 6: 10, the usage of the preposition with verbs of governing; and the Septuagint abounds with proofs that, as en is used for the locality where the king lived, ἐπὶ is for the sphere of his reign.

Bible Treasury Volume 20, p. 379. December 1895.

Q. What is intended by the different ways in which the likeness of the kingdom of the heavens is spoken of? Y.

A. In Matthew 13: 24, Matthew 18: 2, it is "become like" or "was likened," these being historical (as others are not) likenesses that the kingdom assumed through the rejection of the Lord and His going on high. The rest (Matthew 13: 31, 33, 44, 45, 47, Matthew 20: 1) were merely likenesses of certain special features at particular seasons; as one case differs by a peculiar comparison with the future (Matthew 25: 1).

Q. Could we have a few words of explanation on the names and surnames of "The Twelve"? ENQUIRER.

A. Simon or Symeon (2 Peter 1: 1) had the patronymic of Bar, that is, son of Jona or Jonas, (Matthew 16: 17; John 20: 15-17), and was given by the Lord the name of Kephas (Aramaic) or Petros (Greek) = Stone or Rockman (John 1: 43, confirmed solemnly later in Matthew 16: 18).

Andrew is a Greek name (as Philip also in another case) and seemingly answers to the Hebrew Adam. He was Simon's brother and the means of leading him, afterwards far more famous than himself , to the Lord, as we read in John 1, before their public call (Matthew 4; Luke 5).

John, "the beloved disciple," was in Hebrew Johanan, "the gift of Jehovah."

James is our English form of Jacob, who, like John, was son of Zebedee or Zabdi. They were surnamed by our Lord (Mark 3: 17) Boanerges, that is, sons of thunder.

Philip, of Bethsaida like the foregoing, answers in Greek to the Hebrew name Susi, father of Gaddi (Numbers 13: 11). It means "fond of horses."

Bartholemew is the patronymic, meaning son of Tolmai; his personal name was Nathaniel (gift of God).

Thomas in Hebrew, like Didymus. means "a twin."

Levi and Matthew were both Hebrew names of the same apostle who wrote the first gospel.

Jacob son of Alphaeus or Clopas (Chalpai) is the second apostolic James.

Jude or Judas, Lebbaeus, and Thaddaeus are the three names of the apostle who wrote the so called catholic Epistle (Matthew 10: 3; Mark 3: 18).

Simon was called Zelotes (Luke 6: 15, Acts 1: 13), answering to the Hebrew word translated "Cananean," as it should be, not meaning either of Canaan or of Cana, but "zealot," one of that well-known fierce party of Jews.

Judas finally seems designated "Iscariot," meaning man of Kerioth in the south of Judea, alas! the traitor.

Q. Is the law finally abrogated? Is it correct to say there is no further resumption? Turning to the notes on Hebrews 7: 18, 19, Hebrews 8: 7, 8, 13, I observe you distinctly affirm on Hebrews 8: 13, "The cross annulled it, and Jerusalem was its grave." Do you mean the whole law (ritual and moral) of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, as also of the Psalms? If so, how does this acquiesce with Ecclesiastes 3: 14, "Whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever?" For the law was written by God (Exodus 24: 12, Exodus 31: 18). It might be said, God has the prerogative of so doing, being sovereign. But does this harmonise with his validly declared authority? If the whole law is finally abrogated, what will be the millennial rule? The Psalms, it appears, have not yet received their adequate fulfilment, nor the Prophets either. Thus Ezekiel declares for a modified ritual with an earthly priesthood and a suited temple in the future. Zechariah too informs us of the resumption, especially of the feast of Tabernacles, which had been laid down in Leviticus 23. Isaiah is generally clear that the law will be observed in that day, not only by the people of God in the land, but by the isles waiting for it, and all nations flocking up to the mountain of Jehovah's house in honour of it (Isaiah 2, Isaiah 42, etc.).

On the other hand Jeremiah clearly speak of a new covenant made with both houses of Israel in pointed contrast with the old Mosaic one (Jeremiah 31: 32). This I find so conflicting that I fail to understand how all this agrees, yet I am sure that all is divinely true notwithstanding. And thus I fail to put intelligently together the Lord's priesthoood, heavenly and according to the order of Melchizedek, with the sons of Zadok of Aaron's house who are to exercise their earthly functions that day. Ezekiel 40: 46, Ezekiel 44: 15. If I regard the whole law as abrogated, what do these passages teach? If I hold it to be resumed as there and other scriptures imply, how am I to understand Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 7, Hebrews 8? Still I believe all those scriptures and await explanation. W.E.

A. It greatly helps to see, first, that the heavenly state of things which Christ on high has set up and into which the Christian is introduced, (already in faith, by-and-by in person), calls for that immense and total change which the apostle announces in Hebrews 7: 12-19; secondly, that even for the earth and Israel in the millennial day the presence of the Messiah and the establishment of the new covenant (not as now with us in spirit only) with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah in all its literal force will bring in such a blessed revolution that the prophet justly contrasts it with the Mosaic condition. It will be Jehovah undertaking and thus sure blessing, instead of a test to prove man's weakness and ungodliness. But now, although we died to law even had we been of Benjamin or Judah in dying with Christ, we are entitled to use the law for the conviction of the ungodly who own its authority, as we read in 1 Timothy 1: 8-10.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. N1.

Bible Treasury Volume N1, p. 32. February 1896

Q. As there are three different Greek words in the N.T. translated "net," would it not be well to have the distinction explained? Q.

A.  Ἀμφιβληστρον occurs only in Matthew 4: 18 (implied also in Mark 1: 16, where the most ancient MSS. omit the noun), and means a casting net. It was thrown round the object, whence the term was derived. The more usual word is δίκτυον, but in the plural form in Matthew 4: 20, 21, Mark 1: 18, in the sing. in John 21: 6, 8, 11. It is derived from δικεῖν, to cast. Trawl net has been suggested as appropriate. But the σαγήνη (in Matthew 13: 47 only), from σάττειν to pack or load, was a dragnet or seine, on a larger scale.

Bible Treasury Volume N1, p. 64. April 1896

To Correspondents.

In reply to M.H. (Buffalo, N.Y., U.S.A.) the Ed. B.T. would say, that, besides the interpretation of Matt. 13, he has long seen how the chapter applies historically, like Revelation 2, 3. Only it begins earlier and ends later, being larger also throughout. In this point of view, it is hardly possible to differ in applying the earlier four parables. But all could not be expected to distinguish the application of the treasure to the recovery of individual blessing so widely spread at the Reformation, from that of the one precious pearl when grace in our own day brought out the church's association with Christ, before the final scene at the consummation of the age. It is cordially owned that, in order to enjoy the relation of the Christian and of the church, Christ Himself must be appreciated, incomparably more according to God and the word of His grace than could be where justification was in question. Thus the supposed difference almost vanishes in Him, though the application here sketched seems to adhere more closely to the exact interpretation.

Bible Treasury Volume N1, p. 96. June 1896

Q. 1 Corinthians 11: 20. As it is argued that, in refusing the title of some professing Christians to partake of the Lord's supper, we make it "our own," not His, I wish to know what is His revealed mind. S.

A. All depends on whether the professing Christians are "leavened" or even worse. The New Testament is clear that "leaven" includes both moral corruption (1 Corinthians 5) and doctrinal (Galatians 5), neither of which is compatible with the communion of saints. They are "unleavened" in Christ and are commanded to purge out the old leaven that they may be a new lump in consistency with their standing. So runs His word in the scripture which specially treats of discipline in the assembly. The Galatian evil was yet more dangerous though different. But more hateful to God than either is the case of those who allow such as bring not the doctrine of Christ; and all the worse if they have the reputation of piety. The elect lady and her children (2 John) are charged with no heterodoxy, but are bound not even to receive into the house one who falsified Christ. To salute him knowingly was to partake of his evil deeds. How much more to join with him in the Lord's supper! Such a supper would have become not "their own" merely, but anti-christian. It is precisely because it is the Lord's supper that no one should be welcome there who is known to be deliberately dishonouring the Lord. Doubtless he that does not bring the doctrine of Christ (the truth of His person as come in flesh) is an enemy of the darkest dye; and no principle can be falser or less holy than that piety or orthodoxy gives immunity where that evil is allowed, or fellowship with such an one, no matter what the plea. It would be "our own supper," if the Lord's authority were supplanted by our own will; but if it went so far as to allow any who undermine His personal glory, it becomes their enemy's. It is Christ's dishonour to screen and condone the sins of those that bear His name, and far worse than belonging to a sect, evil as this is.

Bible Treasury Volume N1, p. 144. September 1896

Q. Matthew 11: 12. What does this mean? E.

A. The Baptist was now in prison, and shortly to suffer unto blood. The Christ was more and more despised and rejected of men, especially of man religious after the flesh but not believing God. Hence the path becomes increasingly separate; and faith of the rejected Messiah is more and more in contrast with Jewish order where rights and privileges descend and are perpetuated in a natural way. John the Baptist marks the transition. From his days until now, says our Lord, the kingdom of the heavens is taken by violence, and violent persons seize it. It was no longer a question of swimming with the stream even in Israel and with Messiah present. He was going to act in all-overcoming power another day when He appears in glory (Psalm 110: 2-3). Now the believer must in the energy of faith break with natural ties, and rise above hindrances when least expected and most abundant. The kingdom of the heavens is taken by such force as this: only those that can thus resist seize it. As He says later, "If anyone desireth to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever shall desire to save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall find it." And this He said, when He told the disciples no longer to say to anyone that He was the Messiah (Matthew 16: 20). He was now on the road to Jerusalem to suffer from the religious chiefs and to be killed and raised the third day as Son of Man. Thus was Christianity piercing through the clouds, and leaving Judaism to vanish away.

Bible Treasury Volume N1, p. 160. October 1896.

Q. Do the recorded passovers help us to gather the space of the Lord's ministry on earth? DISCIPLE.

A. In John 2: 13 is the first, which preceded the public ministry of the Lord in Galilee. For even in John 3: 24 John is seen not as yet in prison. In John 4 the Lord is going through Samaria on His way to Galilee which He only reaches at the end of this chapter. Next in Matthew 11 John sends from prison to enquire, and in John 12 the Lord vindicates His disciples for eating of the corn on a sabbath, which was after a new Passover and even the wave-sheaf that followed it. From Luke 6: 1 (which coalesces) it was second-first sabbath, that is, next after the great one (cf. John 19: 31) of that week, the first sabbath when it became lawful after Jehovah had His first-fruits. Again we learn from John 6: 4, which corresponds in time with Matthew 14, or the first miracle of the loaves, that Passover was at hand, that is, the third. The last Passover, or fourth, He came up to keep, and be Himself our Passover in His sacrifice. It is thus rendered certain and evident from scripture, that the public ministry of our Lord lasted less than four years, or at least three years and a half, as it is generally understood, though some men of learning have contended for less or more.

Q. Isaiah 53: 11. What does this mean? Especially by His knowledge? C.P.

A. One important question arises, when it is known that the object of the verb is not "many" as in all known versions, but "the many." If to "the many" belongs the technical sense in which Daniel employs it, the meaning would be the mass of Jews that believe not, contrasted with the remnant (Daniel 9: 27, Daniel 11: 33, 39, Daniel 12: 3). The article is not affixed in Daniel 11: 33, 44, Daniel 12: 4, 10, where it has no such application. So Isaiah 52: 14, 15, and the latter clause of Isaiah 53: 12, while its first clause has the article. Without doubt this makes the interpretation difficult; which some have tried to meet by comparing the Pauline οἱ πολλοὶ  of Romans 5: 19. But as this is due to τοῦ ἑνὸς in the same clause, how can it be imported with any certainty into Isaiah, where there is no such contrast? If then we attach a force in Isaiah similar to the phrase in Daniel, the meaning of the verb would seem necessarily modified. For the unbelieving mass could not really be justified, but "instructed in righteousness" they might be by the Righteous Servant. In this case also "by His knowledge" would have the unforced sense of what He made known by His teaching. And Daniel 12: 3 confirms this sense; for teachers can only instruct "the many" or indeed any in righteousness. They surely can justify none. It is certain that God alone justifies. Confessedly, however, the passage in Isaiah calls for further investigation; as there seems to be a grave difficulty not here raised. Any real help would be welcome.

Bible Treasury Volume N1, p. 192. December 1896

Q. Will you explain the statement that "God could not be to angels what He is to man — grace, patience, mercy, love, as shown to sinners?" O.P.

A. The first and last of these manifestations here named serve to make all clear. "Grace" means favour, and especially to one altogether undeserving through guilt, which is "love as shown to sinners." Patience bears with those whose ways are trying; mercy too compassionates the needy. None of these descriptions can properly apply to the elect angels, who alone of course can be thought of. The Word made flesh, the Son of God, come of woman, explains why it is, and above all when we add His glorifying the Father in life, and glorifying God as God by His death for our sin and our sins.

Q. What means 2 Corinthians 5: 3?

A. A solemn warning that, though the deniers of the resurrection were all wrong, one may have a risen body, but be destitute of Christ, as all in fact will be who are not born of God. All must be clothed, all must rise; but then will be manifest that not to have Christ is to be found naked. The risen body of the wicked will not cover but reveal the unspeakable loss.

Bible Treasury Volume N1, p. 256. April 1897

Q. Genesis 1: 1. "In the beginning." Is it the same word used by our Lord in regard to the devil in John 8: 44? J.C., Clydesvale, Hamilton, N.B.

A. Not so. The phrase with which Genesis opens is the beginning of creation, and hence of time, though not yet in relation to man and his environment as from ver. 3 and onwards. "The days" are accordingly literal, as the context forbids any sense but the historical. Poetry or allegory is out of the question here. It is all a plain and sure statement of fact, where man's ignorance can only form hypotheses, more or less defective and short of the truth. Phraseology however is not everything; for the same phrase occurs in John 1: 1 where it imports a still grander truth, the personal subsistence of the Word, Who was with God and was God, in the depths of eternity. Go back, as one might in the boundless existence of the Godhead, there was no moment when the Word was not God. That this is the meaning is certain from the third verse of this Gospel, where creation is absolutely and exclusively described and attributed to the Word. Consequently John 1: 3 coalesces with Genesis 1: 1, and its verses 1 and 2 precede creation, setting out the co-existence of the Word with God,. while Himself God before He began the mighty work of creation. The same truth appears most precisely in Colossians 1, one grieves to say, enfeebled in the R.V., though they could not destroy it. The enemy shows his malice in detracting from the Deity of the Son all he can as God sustains it sedulously throughout scripture.

But John 8: 44 supposes neither the measureless depths of eternity nor the commencement of creation, when vast periods preceded the time of man's earth. It means in time, though before man was formed. "From the beginning" is pointedly distinct from "in the beginning" either in its highest applications to the being of the Word or in its use to convey the entrance of creative energy. The devil was not always, but an angel that, inflated or lifted up with pride, fell. He had no standing in the truth and became a murderer as well as a liar, its father (cf. 1 Tim. 3). Thenceforward (ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, from a beginning of this dark and baneful kind) he was a murderer. His hatred was against man, and especially in enmity to God against Him Who deigned to become man for God's glory and to deliver man. See also 1 John 3. Clearly it is impossible to make ap arches mean from all eternity, which would deny the devil to be a creature and simply that God made him originally a devil, instead of his being an angel like others that kept not their own original state.

Bible Treasury Volume N1, p. 288. June 1897

Q. Genesis 5: 25. Why did Ham's misconduct entail a curse on a son of his instead on himself? Why was Canaan the youngest of Ham's sons singled out? The servitude of Negroes is notorious, but the popular notion that they are of Canaan unfounded; and it not being so, perhaps of Cush or whoever may have been the forefather of the negroes. E.J.T., Elsternwick, Melbourne.

A. In the government of the world God does not at all confine Himself to the particular person or generation that has been offended. So it was in Jerusalem, and so it will be in Babylon at last; Matthew 23, Revelation 18. Of old we see how the first-born of Egypt was smitten, though Pharaoh and his host were afterwards swallowed up in the Red Sea. It was mercy not to punish Ham in all his descendants, but in Canaan. God is sovereign in judgment as in mercy, and altogether righteous. Possibly, if not probably, Canaan may have played part with Ham in the heartless insult and dishonour done to Noah, not only the head of the rescued family, but governor in chief of the renewed earth. But whether so or not, it was mercy, not to involve all in God's avenging the wrong, but to restrain it within the least bounds. And if God let the blow fall on him that possessed himself of the land promised to Abraham and his seed, and filled it with idolatry and immorality of turpitude not to be named, was it not altogether right that Canaan should be cursed above all, and given up practically to extermination? They were very far from being physically degraded like negroes, or other races such as the aborigines of Australia, but early and highly civilised; which did and may consist with the most shameless sins against God and man.

Bible Treasury Volume N1, p. 304. July 1897

Q. Are "lectures" so-called scriptural? Is it not true that in apostolic days the gifted members spoke in the assembly? S.V.

A. Undoubtedly there was free exercise of gift in the assembly, as is laid down in 1 Cor. 14, based on the great fact and principle developed in chapter 12. But much more appears elsewhere. Take especially Acts 19, where we hear of Paul, first in the synagogue at Ephesus "discoursing" for three months with boldness, and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God; then, when evil speaking ensued, separating the disciples, and carrying on the same work of "discourse," or "lecture" as we call it, day by day in the school of Tyrannus for two years more. This was more than evangelising, and both are quite distinct from action in the assembly, though it may have been in the same meeting-room. But the principle was the different and individual responsibility of trading with the Lord's gift, conferred for the purpose of testimony, both "without," and "within." Scripture is equally plain for the free action of the Spirit in the assembly, and for the individual responsibility of a teacher or a preacher. The danger is of mixing up the two to the enfeebling and falsifying of both. We owe it to the lord to value and leave room for each. In Acts 15 we read of Paul refusing Mark and choosing Silas for united testimony; which could not apply to the assembly. Are not these things for us now?

Bible Treasury Volume N1, p. 319. August 1897

Q. Daniel 8: 14. The meaning of this verse is enquired; and the question is raised if the "2,300 evenings-mornings," apply to the desolation since the Roman destruction of Jerusalem under Titus. F.F.T. (Dublin)

A. It helps to clear the book and its particular visions is we observe that the last Beast in Daniel 7 is the Western Empire; and Revelation 11-13, 17 enables us to say the Roman empire revived but pointedly distinguished from Babylon the Harlot, viewed as a great city as well as the corruptness of Christendom. Her the Beast and the ten horns, his vassal kings, unite to destroy; but they are themselves destroyed by the Lamb when He returns with His glorified saints from heaven (Rev. 17: 14, Rev. 19: 14). No ingenuity can make these revealed facts fit into the Protestant interpretation, as I showed many years ago in reviewing the last edition of Mr. Elliott's Horae Apoc. before he died.

One main defect of that hypothesis is that it neglects the final future crisis for the Jewish people and the land before the Lord appears in glory and judgment. Another is that the proper Christian and church hope is not appreciated by this school, but mixed up with the Jewish. The times and seasons, which wholly pertain to the earthly people, are misapplied to Christians. These are not of the world and are called to be ever expecting the Lord Jesus, to take them to Himself and the Father's house, before the unaccomplished measures of time begin to apply to the Jews and the powers of the world at the end of this age.

This chapter however brings to light a power in the east, not Roman, but from the Seleucid quarter of Alexander's divided empire. And we have to distinguish the general vision of which ver. 14 forms the close from the interpretation which deals with the future catastrophe and goes from ver. 19 to ver. 26. For the interpretations given by scripture add fresh light, and enable us to discriminate the part accomplished in Antiochus Epiphanes from the final enemy of Israel in the N.E. Of him we hear much in Daniel 11, "the king of the north," at the end, who is to be judged no less awfully than the Roman emperor of that day, and his antichristian colleague, the false prophet-king in the land. This N.E. power is the same predicted by "the Assyrian" of Isaiah, Micah and other prophets.

There are no dates attached to Nebuchadnezzar's vision of the four Gentile empires raised up successively on the apostacy of the Jews, and set aside by the kingdom of God figured by the little Stone. But in the corresponding vision of the four Beasts, judged and superseded by the universal kingdom of the Son of man when the saints of the heavenly places appear, and the people of those saints, we have the well-known formula of "a time, times, and half a time," i.e. three years and a half, during which times and laws will be given into the hand of their western enemy. Daniel 8 is occupied with the east, and "the daily" is taken away "by reason of transgression," and the peculiar term occurs of "2,300 evenings-mornings," which I see no reason to doubt was accomplished in Antiochus Epiphanes of whom we hear so much in Daniel 11: 21-32. But the special object is the enemy "at the last end of the indignation." In Daniel 9 we have another sort of computation — by "weeks," or periods of seven years; and there the Roman capture of Jerusalem is plainly set out, though in the general interval without date after the cutting off of the Messiah. But the last week, severed from the chain, awaits its completion in the doings of both the Western emperor and his eastern antagonist at the end of the age. In Daniel 11: 36-39 the Antichrist (who is to reign over the land and to be the object of attack "at the time of the end" to both the king of the south and the king of the north) is seen. And the last chapter gives a variety of dates but all bearing on that future crisis, our Lord in Matthew 24: 15 directing particular attention to verse 11.

Q. Philippians 3: 1, Philippians 4: 4. What ground had the Revisers for putting "farewell" as the marginal equivalent for "rejoice"? A.B.

A. Nothing but pedantry. The verb as a secondary meaning is used for "saluting," and so for "farewell"; but this sense is in narrow contextual bounds, as Matthew 26: 49, Matthew 27: 29, Matthew 28: 9; Mark 15: 18; Luke 1: 28; John 19: 3; Acts 15: 23, Acts 23: 26; James 1: 1, and 2 John 10,11. Everywhere else it means "rejoice," or "be glad," and emphatically so in the Epistle to the Philippians, where it is an evident keynote, as in Philippians 1: 18, Philippians 2: 17, 18, 28, Philippians 3: 1, and Philippians 4: 4, 10. What would be the sense of "Farewell in the Lord alway"? Yet this is long after Philippians 3: 1, where "farewell" would be therefore unnatural. Then we have also to take account of the kindred "joy" (χαρὰ) in the same Epistle, as in Philippians 1: 4, 25, Philippians 2: 2, 29, and Philippians 4: 1, which it is impossible to mistake. But the verb ought not to be confounded as the A.V. does with καυχάομαι, "I boast" as in Romans 5: 2, 11, Philippians 3: 3, James 1: 9, James 4: 16.. It may surprise one that so profound a scholar as the late Bp. Lightfoot should express the opinion on Philippians 3: 1 that the word conveys both meanings here, referring also to Philippians 2: 18, Philippians 4: 4. Spiritual perception is another thing, and indispensable for the right rendering of scripture.

Bible Treasury Volume N1, p. 336. September 1897

Q. That a Christian is bound to abstain from marriage with an unbeliever is self-evident. But if the evil is done, what does scripture lay down as its remedy, or right dealing with it? F.F.

A. The word of the Lord enjoins (Hebrews 13: 4), "Let marriage be honourable in all things, a very different thing from the A.V. which makes it a necessarily dignified status for any and everybody. It is a solemn exhortation that nothing should be done in the relationship inconsistent with its holy and intimate character, as well as implying honour due to the relationship in itself and in every way. For Christians 1 Corinthians 7: 39 guards the limits of "will" with that sole worthy principle, "only in the Lord." The immediate application is to a widow marrying again; but it would be absurd to restrict it to her, or to doubt that it equally applies to any Christian woman or man.

On the other hand the same chapter shows that s brother might have an unbelieving wife, as a sister an unbelieving husband, as is not infrequently the fact now as of old; and it deals with the case with the grace of the gospel in vers. 12, 13. In contrast with the rigour of the law, wherein separation was imperative if a Jew had taken a Gentile wife, "let him," "or her," "not leave;" as the children too were not "unclean," but "holy." Neither laxity nor bondage characterises the gospel. If the unbeliever left, let him (or her): a brother or sister is not under bondage in such things; but God has called us in peace. What did each believer in the case know whether he or she should save the other? Clearly not a word anywhere sanctions contracting mixed marriage; but neither does the word proscribe putting away an offender. It is too often forgotten that godly discipline as revealed in the scriptures covers a great variety of dealing, and that not a little censure due to the Lord's honour should be as the general rule before a case ought to be before the assembly. So, even when that last resort here below is reached, rebuke has its just place no less than excision. It is deplorable when one or two rash men, and mistaken followers, see nothing but the assembly for every fault, and nothing but its extreme action. They are evidently far from spiritual, and in spirit rather Jews than Christians, though even that is better than moral laxity and lawlessness.

Bible Treasury Volume N1, p. 351. October 1897

Q. How is Matthew 1: 16, taken in connection with Luke 3: 23, to be explained?

Matthew says "Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary;" and Luke, "being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, which was of Heli, which was of Matthat," etc. Matthew in ver. 15 had said, "Matthan begat Jacob."

In Luke, I presume, Mary's genealogy is given down to 31, "Nathan (who was) of David," while in Matthew 1: 6 "David the king begat Solomon," and so on down to Joseph. But what explains the apparent discrepancy between Matthew 1: 16 and Luke 3: 23? O.P.

A. The solution of the difficulty turns on the true marking of the parenthesis in Like 3: 23 "(being, as was supposed, son of Joseph)". The Revisers are no more right than was the A.V. in limiting it to "(as was supposed)." Christ's being supposed son of Joseph is thus intimated to be outside the proper genealogical line which is here traced from Heli or Eli, Mary's father, up to Adam and God Himself. Jesus, reputedly son of Joseph, was really of Heli, etc. Even the unbelieving Jews did not question that Mary, the virgin mother of our Lord, was Heli's daughter; for the Talmud speaks of her thus, and as tormented in the unseen world. The fact is that there is a choice of ways which all remove the apparent discrepancy. On these we need not dwell here, but simply state the one which we believe to be the truth.

The internal evidence entirely sustains this view as intended of God. For as υἱός was expressed in the parenthetical clause as the reputed relationship, so by a purposely different construction the real natural succession through Mary is traced from her father up to the father of all (τοῦ  Ἡλὶ, τοῦ Ματθὰτ, κ.τ.λ), a grand fact characteristic of our Evangelist. In Matthew, on the other hand, where it was essential to trace the Messianic title of our Lord legally, we have "Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary." Again both Evangelists are equally careful to repudiate the actual fatherhood of Joseph, and to affirm the divine generation of our Saviour, as well as His eternal being in the Godhead before the Incarnation.

But there is much more in corroboration, which goes along with the special design of each of the two Gospels. For it will be noticed that only Matthew records the apparitions of Jehovah's angel to Joseph (Matthew 1: 20, Matthew 2: 19); whereas in Luke 1: 26-38 the angel Gabriel was sent by God not to Joseph but to Mary, even though Jehovah's angel appeared to Zechariah before (Luke 1: 11), and to the shepherds after (Luke 2: 9), the Child was born, the Son was given. Of course, His birth of Mary was of absolute moment for His person as now Man no less than God forever, and for the infinite work He was about to accomplish. But so far was the legal position of Joseph as His reputed father from being unimportant, that He could not have been indisputably viewed as the promised Son and Heir of David's throne, till Joseph passed away. Hence not a word is said in any of the four Gospels which supposes Joseph alive, when our Lord enters on His manifestation as the Messiah, though (as every believer knows) much more than the Messiah. This also disposes of the notion, cherished by not a few ancients and moderns, that Joseph had a family of sons and daughters, before Mary was betrothed to him. For in that case his eldest would have been legally the heir to David's throne. So completely was the law fulfilled, as well as the Prophets and the Psalms. Scripture cannot be broken.

Q. Does not 1 Corinthians 6: 9 with many like scriptures warrant the inference that Christians who fail in faith or fidelity will be excluded from inheriting the kingdom of God, though saved at the end from the second death? MATHETES.

A. In no way is this true, but wholly opposed to the mind of God in His word, and productive of nothing but confusion like any other serious error. On the face of this text itself, how can any taught of God allow that one born of the Spirit is to be classed upon the ἄδικοι or unrighteous? Compare also the rest of this verse and the following verses, where not failure in a believer is in question, but unqualifiedly wicked characters are denounced, with the very different statement that "such were some of you, but ye were washed, ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." Take one of the strongest apparently for such a construction, Luke 12: 45, 46, "But if that bondman should say in his heart, My lord delayeth to come, and begins," etc. WE may see from the corresponding parable in Matthew 24: 48 that it is no case of a believer excluded but of an "evil" servant, a hypocrite. Nor indeed need we travel beyond the further words of Luke to arrive at the same fact; for his lord is said to cut him in twain and appoint his portion with the faithless (ἀπίστον). Will the Lord so deal with any born of God? It is indeed a far other lot than missing the reign though blessed for eternity, a portion assigned to not a single Christian in a single scripture. That the language of our Lord, and also of the apostle in this Epistle and elsewhere, implies it of professing Christians is true and solemn. "That bondman," in fact, seems expressly intended to warn of this tremendous issue.

But Christians in the genuine sense, as the query supposes, stand on other ground. If they discerned themselves, they should not be judged. If they grow careless in self-judgment, the Lord does not fail to deal with them. Yet when judged in this way, they are chastened by the Lord, that they should not be condemned with the world, as say the scriptures in the text queried. The doctrine behind the query is wholly false and evil.

Bible Treasury Volume N1, p. 368. November 1897

Q. Genesis 1: 1, John 1: 1, 1 John 1: 1, 1 John 2: 7, 13, 14, 1 John 3: 18, etc. What is the difference, if any, between "in the beginning," and "from" it? X.Y.Z.

A. "In the beginning" in Genesis 1: 1 is clearly the first recorded action of God in calling the universe into being, the creation of angels (it would seem from Job 38: 7) being anterior. It was the beginning of time on the largest scale. But in John 1: 1 the phrase goes back into the eternity that preceded, because it expresses the being of the Word Who was God and created all (ver. 3), trace back indefinitely as far as you may.

"From the beginning" is always in time, not before it, to whatever epoch or period, person or thing it may be applied. Take the earliest application, as said of the great angel who fell: "the devil sinneth from the beginning" (1 John 3: 8). It was not even the beginning of his existence as an angel, but only as a fallen one.

For the angels were sinless at first, as Adam was. God never is the author of moral evil.

But the phrase "from the beginning" carries the same time-force as to good. It never means "in the beginning," even though applied to Him Who was the Eternal also. It refers from its own nature to a time relation. So we see in Luke 1: 2, where "those who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word" can only mean from the manifestation of Christ in the public testimony. It is even distinguished from ἄνωθεν in verse 3, by which the evangelist draws the line between many chroniclers from tradition and his own accurate acquaintance with all things "from the outset" or origin. The phrase therefore does not and can not refer to eternity but to what was before its witnesses in time.

So it is in the all-important use of the phrase in 1 John 1: 1, ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς......περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς. "That which was from the beginning....concerning the Word of life." Undoubtedly He who is thus presented was "in the beginning;" and this is fully implied in ver. 2 that follows, as in John 1: 1,2. But here it is the concrete Person of our Lord, truly subsisting here below, heard, seen, contemplated, and even handled by the hands of chosen witnesses. This therefore can express nothing but the Lord's manifestation on earth among men.

1 John 2: 7 is equally conclusive. "An old commandment" which the saints had "from the beginning" cannot refer to the eternal counsels of God as such, but solely what was enjoined by our Lord when with them here below. They certainly did not hear it from eternity, but in time and at that time solely. This accordingly gives the true bearing of vers. 13 and 14, or course also 24, and 1 John 3: 11, 2 John 5, 6. "He that is from the beginning" is the very same person "who was in the beginning," both truths of the highest moment to faith; but they are distinct and in no way to be merged in one another. If I believe in Him that was in the beginning, it is the true faith of His deity, and of His personality as the Word; I am not an Arian or a Sabellian assuredly. But this is not to believe in "Him that was from the beginning," the Word made flesh and tabernacling among us full of grace and truth, Whose glory was contemplated by the apostle John and his fellows, as of an Only-begotten of (or with) a Father. Hence it is the distinctive badge of the father in God's family here below to know "Him that is from the beginning," certainly not alone in His divine personality and Godhead, however indispensable, but to know Him as He was manifested here, unchangingly divine indeed, but in all the wonders of His life among men in the lowliest, holiest, most familiar love and obedience: Christ Himself as He lived, moved, and had His being with the disciples, not only declaring God but showing the Father. To know Him thus it indeed to be a "father."

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. N2.

Bible Treasury Volume N2, p. 15. January 1898.

Q. Revelation 17: 9-11. How are we to understand "the seven heads" and "seven kings?" Is it legitimate to take "the seven heads" as 1, Egypt; 2, Assyria; 3, Babylon; 4, Medo-Persia; 5, Greece; 6, Rome; 7, Israel in its apostate state? And is it correct that "the seven kings" can be, 1, Pharaoh; 2, Sennacherib; 3, Belshazzar; 4, Antiochus Epiphanes; 5, Herod; 6, Nero; 7, Napoleon; 8, anti-Christ? F.R.G.S.

A. One of the most important helps everywhere for right interpretation is a firm adhesion to the context. In the present case the object before us is the Beast or Roman Empire, which the Holy Seer beholds in its last form before it goes into perdition. The seven heads are doubly interpreted. They are seven mountains (or hills), whereon the woman sits (compare ver. 18). Rome is the seat geographically, not Jerusalem, nor the plain of Shinar. But they are seven kings, or differing forms of ruling power. The Beast is thus distinguished. There had been, 1, kings; 2, consuls; 3, dictators; 4, decemvers; 5, military tribunes; who held successively and constitutionally the imperium. And these five were fallen. The sixth was actually then in power — emperors. The seventh had not yet come; and it was to be transient. "And the Beast that was and is not, himself also is an eighth, and is of the seven; and he goeth into perdition." Thus the context fixes the heads, not only in connection with a Roman seat, but to the peculiar and complete changes of its ruling powers, explaining that the last is an eighth, and yet one of the seven. It is the imperial form, which had been wounded to death (Rev. 13: 3), revived by the dragon as the resurrection-head of the empire rising up at the close against the risen Lord of glory. The introduction of other kingdoms or empires, south, north, and east, long before the Roman empire began, is out of the way imaginative; still more so the strangely unconnected episode, as that of the queried list of kings. Even in the heads, as here mistakenly separated from the kings, to make apostate Israel the seventh head of the Roman empire is a singularly wide if not wild conjecture. Hengstenberg followed by the late Dean Vaughan so took six of the heads, but the seventh to be the ten horns in a cluster! a not much happier guess than Israel, though somewhat more homogeneous. The context suffices to correct all such thoughts. The proposal was to explain the seven heads, which we have in vers. 9-11; then the ten horns, which follow in vers. 12-14.

Q. Acts 20: 7-11. Does not this scripture indicate that the remembrance of Christ in His Supper should be kept prominent, and that speaking save in praise, etc., should rather follow? E.P.

A. Certainly the Holy Spirit records apostolic ruling and practice for our guidance, lest we should yield to the habits of Christendom. It was not "preaching" as in the A.V., but a discourse to the saints, prolonged unusually, because the apostle was about to depart on the morrow. Yet here as elsewhere no rigid rule is laid down, and an exception might be due to urgent need of a special kind. "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." But undoubtedly it is well to learn from those given by the grace of Christ to teach us His ways in every assembly. Common sense, excellent for the world, is out of court for the church. We are called to walk by faith, not by sight, and are sanctified to obedience.

Bible Treasury Volume N2, p. 32. February 1898.

Q. Can the little horn of Daniel 7 be the last Roman Emperor? Is he not rather the Jewish Anti-Christ? On the one hand the ten Horns are not the beast, nor is the little Horn which comes up among them, and destroys three of the first Horns. And as the Beast was destroyed because of the great words the Horn spoke, their distinction is clear on the other. Taking the little Horn as the Wilful King, or the Anti-Christ, he is the Beast's minion, and corresponds more with the Second Beast of Revelation 13. He has all cunning (eyes like those of man), pleases the Beast, and represents him, though a distinct personage. (condensed from) L.P.

A. It is quite true that John's Anti-Christ (or wilful king of Daniel 11: 36 et seqq.), being the subordinate of the Beast as to earthly power, is the Second Beast or false prophet, the highest pretender to spiritual eminence and energy, answering to the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2. They are, one no less than the other, worshipped, and they perish together in the lake of fire (Revelation 19). But the Roman empire, or first Beast of Revelation 13, has a chief; and this clearly the little Horn, which came up after the ten, dispossessed three, and became the dominant power, to which the rest gave their kingdom as vassals. Daniel 7 alone gives the historic details. It is the once little Horn become great, whose pride and blasphemies brought judgment on the imperial Beast as a whole.

In the Revelation, which gives character rather than history, it is the Beast that said and did what its last ruler said and did. Compare Daniel 7: 8-11, 20, 21, 24, 25, with Revelation 13: 4-7. This solves the difficulty. The Revelation therefore does not distinguish this last Horn as such like Daniel, but attributes to the Beast in its last form what Daniel predicates historically of the little Horn. So true is this, that Revelation 17: 11 identifies the Beast or Roman empire with the eighth resurrection head, which answers to Daniel's little Horn; and in ver. 12 takes no notice of the then fallen Horns. John speaks of the characteristic ten Horns. There is the clearest guard against confounding him with the second Beast, the lawless king in Judea (Anti-Christ).

There is no doubt that the Roman imperial Horn is said to have "eyes like the eyes of a man"; but this only symbolises his extraordinary intelligence and insight humanly. The second Beast pretends to give breath and speech to the inanimate, as well as to call fire from heaven in the sight of men — the crucial proof of Jehovah as God against Baal in Elijah's day. Again, it is certain that the Roman prince in Daniel 9 causes sacrifice and oblation to cease in the temple; so that his thinking to change times and laws was quite consistent with Daniel 7, instead of bringing the Anti-Christ into what belongs to the Roman power. But as they are confederates, it is easy to identify them mistakenly.

We must also beware of the still more prevalent confusion of the little Horn of Daniel 8 with either the Emperor in Rome or the Anti-Christ in Jerusalem. He is the enemy of both, being "the Assyrian" of the prophets in general, and the "king of the north," whose last doings and end we read of in Daniel 11: 40-45. He is destroyed no less signally than the Beast and the False Prophet soon after their awful catastrophe.

Bible Treasury Volume N2, p. 47. March 1898.

Q. What will be the position of the Continents of America, Australia, etc., with their populations in the coming crisis? Will they be under the Roman Beast?

A. I am not aware of any distinct reference to the continent of America in the scriptures. But in a general way it appears to me that "the waters" on which the great Harlot Babylon sits (as in Revelation 17), include its population on all sides of the world. It was, we do not doubt, peopled not only by migratory hordes of Chinese, etc. across Behring's Sraits, but by Icelanders, Norwegians, etc., who are believed on sufficient grounds to have made their way there little after A.D. 1000, and therefore many centuries before its discovery by Christopher Columbus, who opened it to the enterprise of Europe.

But it seems plain that the American or the Australasian lands and races cannot find themselves under the Roman Beast. For it, as I understand, is exclusively western, and does not comprehend even Greece or Macedonia, still less the properly Medo-Persian or Babylonish empires. Hence in Daniel 2 the gold, the silver, and the brass, are seen at the end when judgment falls, no less than the iron and clay, the symbol of the Roman empire. Compare also Daniel 7: 12. It is an error to make the range of the Beast, and of his Jewish ally, the Anti-Christ, universal. We must leave room for a great adversary in the king of the north or the Assyrian, and for God, the chief of the Russian races, behind that king, and after him.

It may however be well to add that the late Mr. E.B. Elliott (in the Horae Apoc. ii. 73, fifth edition) imagined that there is a more direct allusion to the discovery of America, if not of Australasia, in Revelation 10: 2 (latter clause). He naturally says little, and is somewhat indefinite, but as usual confident. It is the end of footnote,3 though the reference in the General Index might lead one to expect more. "Dr. S. R. Maitland thinks it strange that no notice should have been taken in the Apocalypse of the discovery of America, supposing it a prophecy of the history of Christendom. (Remarks on Christian Guardian, p. 120). If I am correct in my understanding of the vision before us, the supposed omission does not exist." This is all the notice I can find in his four large volumes.

Q. John 14: 2. Does the Lord by the "many mansions" mean equality of reward for His labourers? M.L.

A. It is rather His unjealous love in giving all His own the place of intimate nearness to the Father which He alone was entitled to enjoy as the risen Son of God. On the contrary each will receive his own reward according to his own labour (1 Corinthians 3: 8). In the kingdom, as we are taught in the parable (Luke 19), one is to have authority over ten cities, another over five. But the Father's house rises wholly above such differences, and His children alike share it with Christ. It is the answer, not to their services, but to His redemption, His infinite love and His glory, Who would have told us if it were not so. There was indeed room for all His own. He was far from holding out too sanguine a hope. He would at His coming have them with Himself where He was going.

Bible Treasury Volume N2, p. 63. April 1860.

Q. Hebrews 9: 12. Is it legitimate to infer that this verse speaks of our Lord as entering the holies as a separate spirit before He rose and ascended? Μαθ.

A. Not only is there not a tittle of scriptural evidence pointing in that direction; but other scriptures speak of His entrance, not in that transitional condition, but when become for ever high priest after the order of Melchizedek. Compare especially Hebrews 6: 20. Nor is this all. For the verse itself precludes all but one entrance to this end, though all admit our Lord's presence in the disembodied state in Paradise. But the word here is that "by His own blood He entered once for all into the holies, having found an everlasting redemption." This is simple, plain and decisive.

Q. Romans 16: 17. What sort of offenders is meant by "those causing the divisions and stumbling blocks," whom the apostle called the saints to avoid? Y.T.

A. They were as yet different from the separatists of Titus 3: 10, 11. "Heretic" as in the Auth. V. gives a misleading sense; for in modern usage it means "heterodox." This is not intended, but one forming a part or sect outside, to which schism ever drifts. Therefore in 1 Corinthians 11: 18, 19, the apostle says, "I hear there exist schisms among you, and I in some part believe it. For there must even be sects [heresies] among you, that the approved may become manifest among you." It is not that schisms must lead to heterodoxy, but that, if not judged, parties within (or schisms) naturally land in an outside party or sect. When this happens, disciplinary action is foreclosed. They have gone without. Such are perverted, and sin, being self-condemned to all who know what is due to the Lord, and what the assembly of God is.

But the case in Romans 16 is an earlier stage. It supposes self-confident and restless zeal inside, inconsistent with the teaching already learnt by the saints, and reckless of the pain, shame, evil, and danger created by striving after innovations without spiritual warrant. In accordance with the word is the amplest scope for every kind and measure of true gift; and gift ordinarily is apt to be over-estimated, as we see it was in Corinth and is today. But the self-seeking and self-important are never satisfied with the place of subjection which scripture claims from us in deference to our Lord. Hence the desire for popularity and excitement. "From among you own selves," warned the apostle, "shall rise up men speaking perverted things to draw away the disciples after them." For such men chafe under the protests and reproofs, urged by spiritual experience and insight into scripture, to save them from a course as dishonouring to the Lord as ruinous to themselves and any swayed by them.

Those in our day gathered to the Lord's name have laboured in and according to His word for near seventy years; about the same time it was from Pentecost till the canon of scripture closed and the apostle John died. Gifts various and great abounded then; as by grace in their measure they were not lacking in our day. Yet no man ever rose up so presumptuous as to organise what is called an "all-day-ministry." We have known offenders, some of them men of light and leading, who fell away now and then; but no one so much as proposed what on the face of it is outside the teaching of the apostles and their fellowship.* This was enough for ordinarily faithful men. Even the bold did not dare to canvass, still less to carry out, a device unauthorised by God's word. Our profession was to have left human associations and plans, no matter how many pious persons might sustain them. We took, and are resolved in divine mercy to keep, the only hallowed ground of obedience.

(*Indeed this is strictly what the apostle denounces in Romans 16: 17. It is not open contradiction to what was taught, but over-stepping, or going along side, instead of being governed by it.)

We eschew therefore all definite authority but the written word. "What is the harm?" is the excuse of unbelief and disobedience. An apostle might choose a personal companion in ordinary ministry: so may a wise brother now; but no apostle ever arranged anything even resembling an "all-day-ministry." This settles the matter to faith; and one can but grieve over the want of faith which thought of action so unscriptural, borrowed by rash inexperience from the bustling spirit of the age. Where Christians do not own the Spirit's presence any more than subjection to scripture alone, such methods are natural. But how sad that any who professed to turn their back on such unfaithfulness should do the utmost to foist in among us an unquestionable departure from the word! For it has not the paltry merit of an invention, but is a plain imitation of a novel fashion even in fallen decrepit Christendom. "The time shall be," said the sorrowing apostle in his last Epistle, "when they will not endure sound teaching, but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers according to their lusts, and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables." (2 Timothy 4.)

May grace preserve us from such an issue! If we are to be kept, it is and must be as sanctified by the truth. And sanctification of the Spirit from the starting-point is "unto obedience and the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." What then does the apostle prescribe, when there are those that cause divisions and stumbling-blocks contrary to the teaching we learned? He commands us in the Lord's name to "mark" and "avoid them." It is no question of "division" in the sense of people gone out, but that such innovating work habitually gathers a group of unsuspecting supporters, in opposition to what the mass of saints have ever believed and practised. Were there a scrap of modesty or active grace, the remonstrance of those whom scripture calls "chief men among the brethren" would have peacefully hindered the project; whereas to the self-willed that is only another incentive to go on at all cost. In such a state one's own way is dearer than anything else; and people are not wanting to back it. As the apostle adds, "They that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ but their own belly, and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the guileless."

Tender conscience shows itself in readiness to obey the word of the Lord. Our bounden duty is, not to put such misleaders away, but to keep clear of sanctioning them in any way, till they abandon their wrong course and are content themselves to obey. There is holiness, not hardship, in that. "If any one think to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the assemblies of God." As long as the agitation continues, the wilful who persist ought distinctly to forfeit the confidence of the godly. More is at stake than the disorder of women's independence about a veil, though the apostle ruled this to be intolerable, even if they were prophetesses. Those that serve in the word are surely bound to submit to it themselves. It is no question of liberty to minister, which all own to be of God, but of a new-fangled license to organise the word of others; which is not only unscriptural but trenches on the Lordship of Christ and the ways of the Holy Spirit as revealed by the word.

Bible Treasury Volume N2, p. 79. May 1898.

Q. It is acknowledged that the Lord will reign in Zion (Psalm 2, Psalm 99; Isaiah 2, Isaiah 8, Isaiah 12, Isaiah 24, etc.; Zechariah 2, Zechariah 8, etc.) Yet it is drawn from the N.T. that His or our especial scene of glory will be in heaven. How can this be? R.

A. Few truths are more important, whether one thinks of Christ or of the church. It is a question of the purpose of God, hidden in the ages and dispensations, but now brought to light formally and fully by the apostle Paul. Take Ephesians 1: 9-11 as a grand unfolding of it, where we learn that for the administration of the fulness of the times (or seasons) God will gather together (or head up) in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth; in Him in Whom also we obtained (or were given) inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him Who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will.

This rises incomparably beyond the kingdom in Zion, or the yet larger dominion of the Son of man, both of which will assuredly be accomplished "in that day." It is even beyond all the promises to which the O.T. saints have just claim, and wherein no disappointments shall ever be. But grace gave to the apostle to reveal the divine counsel of setting Christ at the Head of all creation, the Heir as the Creator of all, now His (as the Epistle to the Colossians shows) on the ground of reconciliation. He is thus constituted the glorified Head over all, as we now know by faith. And "that day," which proclaims Messiah's reign over the land of promise with Israel renewed as His people, and all nations and tribes circling round Israel and subject to the Son of man, will make known the still more wondrous glory of our Lord over all things heavenly, angels, principalities, etc., with the church in the same glory His bride as now His body.

When this characteristic truth of the N.T. dawns on the soul, a crowd of scriptures confirm it. Thus in Matthew 6 our Lord taught His disciples to pray for "Thy" (i.e. the Father's) kingdom to come, as well as His will to be done on earth. The Father's kingdom is as distinctly heavenly as the Son of man's is earthly: so Matthew 13: 41-43 clearly proves. The risen saints shine as the sun, which is not earthly, in their Father's kingdom; whereas the Son of man by His angels executes judgment on all offences and unrighteous persons in His kingdom as manifestly on earth. But it will be the day for His exaltation manifested on high as well as here below, being the Son of the Father and set by God over all things heavenly and earthly.

Then John 14 is unmistakable that our special hope of blessedness is not merely reigning with Christ, as all suffering saints shall, but that He is coming to receive us to Himself in the Father's house where He now is. And the great N.T. prophecy shows us (Revelation 21: 9 to the end) the bride the Lamb's wife the centre of heavenly and universal glory; as the O.T. is equally clear that Zion will be for all the peoples of the earth, then owning Israel to be the seed which Jehovah has blessed and set at the hand of all nations under the great King, Himself Jehovah-Messiah.

So Romans 8: 16, 17, designates the Christians as God's children. "And if children, then heirs; heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ." This goes far beyond the earth; as Romans 5: 17 cannot be limited to the millennial reign.

Again, 1 Corinthians 6: 2, 3, teaches that we shall judge the world — nay more, judge angels. And 1 Corinthians 15: 48, 49, distinctly calls us even now "heavenly" in title, after the pattern of the Heavenly One, and points on to our bearing that heavenly image, as we have now borne the image of the earthly (Adam's ).

But instead of gathering up other intimations, look at the glorious type of that day furnished by Genesis 14 where Melchizedek meets Abram victorious over the foe in the hour of their short triumph, and pronounces him blessed of the most High God, possessor of heaven and earth; as he blesses the most High God Who had delivered his enemies into his hand. Christ is even now, as the Epistle to the Hebrews teaches, priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek; but He will exercise its privileges in the blessings of that day of blessing. One might add many a glimpse in the types of Joseph, and of Moses, as well as in that of the sanctuary. But enough is said to show the blank left by looking no higher than the earth for the Lord in that day. If nature abhors a vacuum, the Christian in hope awaits glory in the heavens for Christ and the church, while fully assured that the glory of Jehovah and the knowledge of it shall fill the earth as the waters cover the sea.

Bible Treasury Volume N2, p. 96. June 1898.

Q. Does John 1: 5 refer to the Word when incarnate as in vers. 9, 14? or to His action as light in the ages before? W.S.L.B.

A. I am not disposed to limit verse 5 to the Lord when He became flesh. As He was ever the object of faith for fallen man, so He appeared and spoke in testimony from the earliest days; and this was the action of divine light to faith, while the darkness apprehended it not, but liked better the deceits of the enemy and the spurious devices and imaginations of man far from God. The True Light, in coming into the world, sets every man in the light as never before; so that there was a vast increase of privilege, and hence of responsibility. It could not be otherwise, when such a One became Man and tabernacled here below, full of grace and truth.

Q. Is it true that a servant of the Lord, acting out of his own zeal without God's word, must be left free even of remonstrance beyond private? C.H.R.

A. Nothing can be more opposed to both letter and spirit of scripture. Of all who call on the Lord's name, Christ's true minister is bound to be the most submissive to His word. For with what face could he enjoin the saints to submit to the word, if he himself claimed exemption, instead of being an example in faith, obedience, and humility? All alike are sanctified by the truth, all chosen in sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience, on the pattern of our Master, in its perfection. "If any one think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write to you are the commandment of the Lord. But if any one is ignorant, let him be ignorant." (1 Corinthians 14: 37, 38). Condemnation more cutting cannot be of those who pleaded their little gifts for setting up personal independency or some new thing.

No doubt, we are not bound to be hirelings of denominations, and should not seek to please men, as is done by adopting human methods. If the church is one, it does not admit of men's ways (1 Corinthians 4: 16, 17; 1 Corinthians 7: 17; 1 Corinthians 11: 1, 2). We have to persevere in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, remembering that ministry means not mastery but service, the service of Christ, and of every one for His sake. But, even the greatest gift and highest office, if it went wrong, was liable not only to private remonstrance but to public rebuke. So we find Peter solemnly blamed before all for what many, and very probably the majority, must have thought the venial change of ceasing to eat with the Gentiles. To Paul it was dissembling, and an offence against the truth of the gospel.

Who of us ever heard so egregious and unfounded an assumption since the days of 1845? Then a like piece of ministerial irresponsibility was sought to be based on the metaphor of a shepherd. His place was to judge the sheep, not they him!

Bible Treasury Volume N2, p. 96. June 1898.

Q. How are we to regard such scriptures as Jeremiah 51: 39, 57, Revelation 14: 10, 11? J.L.H.

A. The "perpetual sleep" is through man's day with which the O.T. was conversant. The Chaldean Babylon should never wake. And so it has been. Revelation 14: 10, 11 pierces more deeply as divine judgment on individual worshippers of God's enemy, and "for ever" has the unlimited force of the N.T. Christ has brought to light, not only life and incorruption, but the second death and everlasting judgment. "Seventy years" in no way measure Babylon's doom, but the chastening of the land and people of Judæa; and the rejection of the Messiah has again sealed their desolations till the day of Jehovah brings them deliverance.

Q. 1 Corinthians 15: 52. What is the connection, if any, between the last trumpet here, and the last of the seven in Revelation 11? M.A.

A. The figure of the trumpet sounding, and of the final one, is common to both; but the connection of each is wholly different. In Revelation 11 it is the culmination of God's loud warnings of judgment, after both Judaism and Christendom had run their sad, sinful, and apostate course. The day of Jehovah follows. In 1 Corinthians 15 it is the close of the Christian testimony in the triumph announced by that figure when the risen Lord not only raises the dead saints but changes the living at His coming. "The last trump" seems to be drawn from what all in that day knew so familiarly, the final signal when, after preparatory tokens to guide, the last sound was given for a Roman legion to quit their old encampment and march.

Q. What is the difference between ἂνευ and χοωῖς, as both mean "without"? D.

A. The first expresses privation or non-existence; the second only separation or apartness. Thus on the one hand Matthew 10 29 denies the exclusion or non-existence of their Father's care in the least thing; 1 Peter 3: 1 shows how unbelieving husbands may be won absolutely without the word by the pious conduct of saintly wives; and 1 Peter 4: 9 would have hospitality quite without a murmur. On the other hand Matthew 13: 34 and Mark 4: 34 only assert that apart from parables He spake nothing then. So Matthew 14: 21 and Matthew 15: 38 may not deny the presence of women and children, as ἂνευ would, but do not count them. In John 1: 3, John 15: 5, χωρὶς alone suits: apart from Him did not anything come into being; apart from Him the disciples can produce no fruit. So Romans 3: 21 does not negative the existence or importance of law, but shows that God's righteousness is now manifested apart from law. In Romans 4: 6 ἂνευ (privation) of works would never do, but χωρὶς apart from them.

Q. What is the Lord's way of bringing the dead saints in company with the living ones into the kingdom at His coming? A.W.

A. The answer is given expressly in 1 Thessalonians 4: 13-17. It was raised by the death of some believers at Thessalonica to the astonishment of their brethren. So full of immediate expectation were they as to be stumbled by the event. They had exceeded the error of those in Jerusalem who wrongly inferred that John was not to die, but to be found alive when the Lord came. The Thessalonians still more extravagantly assumed that no Christian could die before it. But neither the Lord in the Gospels nor the Holy Spirit when come gave any warrant for it. Again, the martyrdom of Stephen and James (son of Zebedee) was so publicly known, to speak of nothing else, as to prove its fallacy by the simple facts. Nor can we doubt that many had already fallen asleep both in Judæa and among the nations.

The apostle here therefore explains how the Lord will act at His coming. So far from unavailing sorrow and unintelligent disappointment, they should rejoice that God will bring with Jesus those put to sleep by Him. This will be for introducing the kingdom: but how? Are not the living to precede those that sleep? Certainly not. For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with an assembling shout, with archangel's voice, and with the trump of God; and instead of being anticipated, still less of losing their place in the kingdom, "the dead in Christ shall rise first, then we the living that survive shall be caught up together with them in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord." He comes for the saints, dead and living, to be thenceforward for ever with Him; so that, when the moment arrives to come in His kingdom and in the execution of the judgment that precedes its establishment in peace, they all follow Him out of heaven, and are manifested with Him in glory. Compare 1 Corinthians 15: 23, 51, 52; Colossians 3: 4; 2 Thessalonians 2: 1; Jude 1: 4; Revelation 17: 14; Revelation 19: 14.

Q. What do you gather from Jude 9? J.D.P.

A. We know from Daniel 12 that to Michael the archangel is confided by God the chief place of guardianship over Israel. He it is who "at the time of the end," when the final collision of the powers rages in and around Jerusalem, shall stand up for the children of Daniel's people. It was no new interest of his. Jude was inspired to recall the thrilling fact of the unseen world, that even so early as Moses' death there was a contention between him and the devil about the dead body. Doubtless the adversary's aim as ever was to deceive and destroy thereby; and it may be by setting up for adoration that relic of him whom when living he stirred them up to disobey, oppose, and revile. Even Michael railed not against Satan but said, Jehovah rebuke thee. Compare Zechariah 3. It is for the vilest to revile those whom God honours in any way. Jude helps to fill in the sketch drawn in Deuteronomy 34: 6.

Bible Treasury Volume N2, p. 127 August 1898.

Q. Ephesians 4: 8. What means "He led captivity captive"? Did the Lord go anywhere but to Paradise after dying? Does Luke 16: 23 mean, after death, a risen state?

A. Christ in ascending led captive the evil powers which held man captive previously. It had nothing to do with the O.T. saints or any others. The Lord after death went to Paradise where His Father received His Spirit. It was in Hades, not yet Gehenna, that the rich man lifted up his eyes, being in torments. The express object of the parable is to show the great and immediate change in the unseen state for the believer, no matter how at ease here. Resurrection or final judgment is not in question. The converted robber on dying joined the Lord in Paradise. Abraham's bosom, the blessed expression before, was not suitable for Him and His now, though both speak of bliss in heaven; and Paradise still remains for the risen and glorified by-and-by (Revelation 2: 7).

Q. Hebrews 2: 17, Hebrews 8: 4, Hebrews 9: 12. How are these texts to be applied and held consistently with Leviticus 16 to which allusion is made? S.B.

A. The first text refers to the exceptional action of Aaron as representing first his own house, next the people, on Atonement-day. The second presents the normal place of Christ's priesthood on high. The third speaks of Christ's entrance there once for all, not by His personal perfection which would have been for Himself alone, but by His own blood in infinite efficacy, having found an eternal redemption. Leviticus 16 figures this and more even to the restoration of Israel by-and-by as a shadow, not the very image which the N.T. alone gives. Nor indeed does the Epistle disclose the union of the body with the Head; but it fully reveals that entrance of the Lord into heaven once for all, due alike to His person and His work.

Q. Hebrews 10: 29. (1) Those persons guilty of renouncing Christ's sacrifice, and objects of divine judgment to the last degree, in what way can it be said that such were sanctified by the blood of the covenant? Also (2) 1 Peter 4: 17, what is meant by the time is come when judgment must begin at the house of God, and the end of those that obey not the gospel of God? R.M.

A. (1) None can be compared for guilt with apostates; and apostates from the gospel are immeasurably worse than from the law. These are the persons in view here. If they now abandoned the infinite sacrifice of the Saviour which they hitherto had confessed, there was no other that could avail for their sins. None had real and everlasting efficacy but that one; and those who gave it up, after owning it, were absolutely resourceless. Only divine judgment awaited them which must be their perdition. Their guilt was despite of grace, and of the Holy Spirit its witness and power. Of course in their case it had been mere profession, and the sanctification but outward in separating them from their Jewish fellows who made the law (that is, their own righteousness under it) their sole dependence before God. They never possessed living faith in Christ; "they only received the knowledge of the truth," of which flesh is quite capable. And what flesh takes up it can as easily give up under trials, which only by grace lead the believer to purge himself practically as well as into a holy deepening acquaintance with God. "For the just shall live by faith," besides receiving remission of sins by Christ's blood.

So (2) the apostle Peter refers to the broad general principle of God, and particularly to Ezekiel 9: 6. His house is the special sphere of His moral government; and if departure and disorder be allowed there, there His judgment must begin though it will extend to all mankind and the whole earth. If His people dishonour Him, they must bear the righteous consequences, while grace knows how to save those who are His. Compare 1 Corinthians 11: 32. Yet the difficulty of the salvation here spoken of is great, considering their own utter weakness, the many trials in a world of sin, and the exceeding danger from a subtle and sleepless foe. Only God's power and faithfulness could bring His own through the wilderness. Now if this be so with the righteous one who calls on Him as Father and has Him guarding by His power (1 Peter 1: 5), if he is saved with a difficulty insuperable save to God; how will it fare with the impious and sinful man? The warning is solemn, the argument plain and forcible, the condition inevitable. We may assuredly apply, as a general maxim, what our Lord said to His amazed disciples of the particular peril for a rich man and his salvation: "With men this is impossible, but with god all things are possible." It is by grace only that any sinful souls are saved, through faith; and this not of themselves, but the gift of God; not of works, lest any one should boast.

Bible Treasury Volume N2, p. 144. September 1898.

Q. Psalm 111: 9. What is the strict meaning of the word here translated "reverend?" Does it bear on the official title taken by so-called Christian ministers? J.S., M.D.

A. As the word in question simply means "fearful," "dreadful," "terrible," and is so translated elsewhere in the O.T., it will be obvious that it applies to God as manifesting His ways of old, not at all to its modern usage. There is no real ground therefore for charging the clerical class or its supporters with profane application of Jehovah's title, as is sometimes done. For they give or take the title in the quite different sense of respect paid to a consecrated class. As a matter of fact "reverend" seems a prefix of courtesy in use rather late, not legal or canonical. Its assumption was thus open to the officials of all denominations, without definite right or sanction. Hence as some pious dissenting chiefs despised what the more vulgar seized with eagerness, so the established clergy began sixty years ago to fall back on the more legal style of "clerk," or their distinct ecclesiastical status of vicar, rector, etc., as the case might be. The question was raised in the Courts of Law, and decided in favour of a dissenting tombstone inscription, in which a widow claimed it for her deceased husband. It was proved, it seems, that ancient usage gave "reverend" as a title to lawyers! before it was also accorded to men of ghostly pretensions; so that any exclusive application was invalid. But all such contention was clearly of the world. Therein titles of earthly and present honour have their place. But Christians are not of this world, as Christ is not. God set in the church as He chose; but apostles, prophets, teachers, etc., were not recognizable in the world. And the Lord had solemnly warned His disciples on this head. See Matthew 23: 8-12, Mark 10: 42-45, Luke 22: 24-27. When the cross lost its power both in truth and in practice, flesh asserted itself unblushingly, and the offices of His servants in the church were turned into badges of rank in the world: a chaos which reigns everywhere really, but more or less conspicuously, to this day. Hence the haughtiest offender, even when flaunting his peacock feathers, proclaims himself "servus servorum Dei." Who can wonder that, when carnal vanity and worldly pride (arrogating the right to beat or anathematise fellow-servants) took the place of love and lowliness, hypocrisy and hatred came in like a flood over Christendom! Nor is there real escape from the evil save in unfeigned self-judgment by Christ's word, and cleaving with full purpose of heart to Christ's name, not as Saviour and Lord only, but as centre and Head.

Q. Philippians 3: 11. What is its bearing? M.A.

A. The verse is not intended to raise the least doubt or uncertainty in the believer's mind, but to convey the deep blessedness of that glorious goal, the "out-resurrection" from the dead, as the apostle puts it here only. So incomparable was it in his eyes that, in the view grace gave him of it, he welcomed the fellowship of Christ's sufferings, being conformed to His death (as indeed he was to be literally), if in any way to arrive at that wondrous result of Christ's resurrection. He minded no labours nor pains nor shame meanwhile to win and know Christ thus. He would not have his own righteousness if he could, which is of law — nothing but what is by faith of Christ, the righteousness that is of God conditioned by faith: all of His grace, and in His righteousness, and according to Christ both along the way and at the end in glory.

Bible Treasury Volume N2, p. 160. October 1898.

Q. 1 Timothy 4: 14. How do you explain this? D.S.T.

A. That the apostle was God's channel in conferring a special gift of grace on Timothy for his work, as we know was done generally on saints not before landed on Christian ground (Acts 19: 1-7), is plain and sure. There were prophecies preceding about Timothy, as a prophet or prophets designated Barnabas and Saul at Antioch. Only in the latter case no gift was conveyed. The laying on of hands by their fellow-labourers was no more than the sign of commendation to God's grace for the work given them to do (Acts 13: 2-4, Acts 14: 26), and was repeated (as we learn from Acts 15: 40). Thus to Timothy a spiritual gift was imparted by the imposition of Paul's hands (2 Timothy 1: 6), with the accompaniment of the elders (1 Timothy 4: 14) who were incapable of conferring the Spirit in any way, but joined by the apostle in that act by way of fellowship. There is no question of "a gift" in Acts 13. Those called in this case had a higher place and a greater gift (see Acts 14: 4) than the prophets and teachers, whom the Spirit directed to set them apart for His special mission.

Bible Treasury Volume N2, p. 175. November 1898.

Q. 2 Samuel 24: 13 and 1 Chronicles 21: 12. Dr. Temple lately said on a public occasion that he had no doubt there were inaccuracies in the O.T., though the writers told the truth as far as they knew it! Still more recently he owned the statement, and referred to the verses above as an instance. Is it mistranslation, or what? W.C.

A. The superficial looseness and irreverent unbelief of the rationalists is too plain; but there is really a choice of explanations in meeting objections of this kind. 1. Numbers are apt to be mistaken in transcription; but this is the inaccuracy of copyists, not of scripture. In this case the Sept. (far the most ancient of versions) gives three years in 2 Samuel as in 2 Chronicles. 2. Difference of design explains away many an apparent discrepancy, the one statement being as tru as the other, but not the same. Thus in the earlier book Jehovah is said to have moved David, whereas in the later Satan is the mover: very different aspects, but equally certain, and neither open to just exception. So we see difference in the sum given by Joab to David; in the first 800,000 of Israel and 500,000 of Judah; in the second 1,100,000 and 470,000 respectively. But the lesser number of Israel we find qualified as "valiant men," as those of Judah were given in a round number. Again, in 2 Samuel David bought "the threshing-floor and the oxen" for 50 shekels of silver; yet in 1 Chronicles he gave to Ornan for "the place " 600 shekels of gold. It was not the mere floor for the altar site, but the whole of mount Moriah for the house of Jehovah Elohim as well as for that altar. — It may be noticed too that details of interest are added in each of the accounts, but omitted in the other; and the language, not more notable for similar shades than for dissimilar, is equally striking. Nevertheless who doubts the later writer was familiar with the earlier writing? The one was no less inspired than the other. Had it been a human arrangement, the irresistible impulse would have been to make the two identical. But knowing them both to be inspired of God, neither priest, nor people, nor prophets, nor scribes, dared to lay a sacrilegious hand on either. Assured that Jehovah was the author through the instruments He chose, they left it to faith to receive if they could not explain all the difficulties, and to rationalists to call them "inaccuracies."

Q. 1 Corinthians 7: 23, Galatians 1: 10. What is organisation in divine things such as ministry?

A. It is arranging the ministry of the word in ways of men without God's will. As the Lord from on high gave the gifts, He controls livingly by His word. His servants are not left to their own discretion, but subject to His direction in scriptures open to all saints. Not only is there doctrine as to its source, character, and nature, but inspired history, that those who walk by faith might have an adequate unvarying standard from God. Well may we cherish the full liberty of the Spirit there laid down; and we cannot depart from the word for the fancied improvements of the age without presumption and error. How far are we from making it good as we ought, even in these islands small as they are, and with so crowded a population according to that holy precedent! Innovation is fatal; for, however pleasing to the superficial, it can only precipitate declension. One can understand per-fervid and erratic ways in those filled with zeal over perishing souls. But those who undertake to instruct the many and needy professors of Christ in Christendom ought assuredly to be patterns of obedience. With what face can they urge the word on others, if they do without it themselves? Do we believe in the sufficiency as well as in the authority of scripture? Is it rich enough in profit, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly fitted unto every good work? Can we add anything of value in God's eyes?

At the meetings called Conferences, prayer and praise, open assemblies, and testimony have scriptural warrant and just proportion. For the christian public a discourse or two at most would convey ample material for profit. But where quantity, not quality, of speech to professing Christians has its monopoly, how sad the principle! and what may not be the issue?

Bible Treasury Volume N2, p. 208. January 1899.

Q. 1 Corinthians 9: 27: is it "a castaway," or only set aside as a servant? B.A.

A. The apostle means, that if a man failed to buffet his body and lead it captive (i.e. gave it licence to sin without conscience) no matter how he preached to others, he should himself be rejected or reprobate. God is not mocked. This was not his own case, though he puts it hypothetically of himself in order to give it the greater emphasis, as he was in the habit of doing. Without holiness no one shall see the Lord.

Q. Leviticus 23: 26-32. Is there any ground why the day of atonement should be interpreted of the judgment seat of Christ? J.S.

A. None whatever. Such an application is wholly incongruous with the Feasts of Jehovah, nor does the order of time favour it save superficially.

For as the earlier series was fulfilled in Christ sacrificed, our passover, with its accompanying feast of unleavened bread, and in the wave-sheaf, with the wave-loaves, there is ver. 22 following up all this, and hinting not only at that harvest which will clear the wheat for the heavenly garner, but at the righteous remnant left here below in the end of the age.

Then is given the later series beginning with the trumpets as a divine summons to awake God's ancient people, the atonement-day as the application of Christ's work in a way (as we know) even more applicable to them than to us by the scapegoat, and last the tabernacles, though there be the eighth day to connect the earthly with the heavenly at the end.

Here all flows on with the simplicity of truth, and in twofold order manifestly required and appropriate; whereas the interpolation of Christ's judgment-seat confuses, dislocates, and destroys what is most distinctive. Atonement-Day is in no way met by our being manifested to God and receiving accordingly. Nor will there be a day of affliction for the glorified in heaven, any more than a call to do no manner of work on pain of destruction. Both statutes are quite in harmony with Israel when they realise the Messiah's death for their sins.

Bible Treasury Volume N2, p. 240. February 1899.

Q. Where in the Psalms or Prophets is justified the belief that there will be conversions in the Millennial age? J.C.J. (U.S.A.)

A. Almost everywhere that we find the work of divine goodness contemplated. Take Psalm 2: 12: "Kiss the Son, lest he be angry . . . Blessed are all they that put their trust in him." All conversions past, present or future, are in this way and no other. They alone are the righteous who fear God then as now. The gospel, which actually goes out in indiscriminate grace, the apostle vindicates to the Jewish objector in Romans 9, Romans 10, by testimonies from the Law, Psalms and Prophets which anticipate that day. It will be the harvest. We are but a sort of first-fruits, though called to "some better thing," as Hebrews 11: 40 speaks, as compared even with "the elders." But the ingathering great as to extent awaits that day. All must bow to the Lord, "King over all the earth," as well as "Head over all things;" but all are not converted even then, as Isaiah 65 shows, and on a large scale Revelation 20: 7-10. They will previously have rendered but a feigned obedience. Compare Psalm 18: 44.

Bible Treasury Volume N2, p. 256. April 1899.

Q. Is it true that Hebrews 4: 14, Hebrews 9: 11, 12 speak of Christ's entrance into heaven when He died, not on His ascension? R.T.

A. It is pure assumption, in order to scrape an appearance of evidence for the strange and unsound doctrine of propitiation made by Christ, not through the blood of His cross, but by His subsequent action as a separate spirit in heaven, by an unintelligent misuse of the types. Hence the pretence that Hebrews 4: 14 and Hebrews 9: 11, 12 refer to His entrance on death as priest! whereas other passages in the Epistle speak of His entrance on ascension as Man! Whosoever is bold enough to draw such a line is on every principle of truth bound to prove his assertion. Those who deny it, as almost if not all believers hitherto, stand on the common character thus far of Hebrews 1: 3, Hebrews 6: 20, Hebrews 8: 1, Hebrews 9: 24, Hebrews 10: 12, with the two texts in question. No one denies the Lord's presence in Paradise immediately after death; no sober Christian has ever confounded this with His entrance after ascension on priestly function. Indeed one of the two texts maintains beyond cavil Christ's entrance once for all into the sanctuary, having obtained eternal redemption. This is the sole entrance which the Epistle contemplates or allows: if any one disputes this, let him try to give an adequate proof. Dean Alford's argument for simultaneity here is at issue with the doctrine of the Epistle. Indeed, ingenious as he was, he is unreliable often for orthodoxy. And as to Greek, think of a scholar coupling ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπε and similar cases with εἰσῆλθεν ἐφάπαξ . . . , αἰ. λ. εὑάμενος! The rendering of the A. and R. Vv., Green, Davidson, etc., is alone tenable: so the Vulgate, etc.

Q. Is it according to the scriptures for the bread at the Lord's table to be broken before giving thanks? or the wine to be poured out after giving thanks? AN ENQUIRER.

A. The Lord blessed, or gave thanks, before breaking the bread or any distribution of either this or the wine took place. Unity is thus better expressed than after breaking in pieces or pouring into two our more cups. It is not that the memorial is really impaired; but there is wisdom here as everywhere in subjection to scripture. Some talk of thanking for empty plates or cups; but the loaf is there, and so is the cup (as the vessel is called that contains the wine). Emptiness does not apply, whatever the order. The subsequent division is a mere matter of convenience, and unnecessary save where numbers call for it.

Bible Treasury Volume N2, p. 272/303. May 1899.

Q. Is the sabbath part of the law to which the Christian (Romans 7: 4-6, Galatians 2: 19) died with Christ? or does Genesis 2: 3 make it still binding as being before the law and even sin? R.C.

A. Undoubtedly the Christian is declared to have died to the law as well as to sin; and to both without qualification. Grace and new creation have taken us out of Adam's relationship. we are in Christ risen and in heaven, and are told expressly in Colossians 2 that none should judge us in eating or in drinking, or in respect of a feast-day, or a new-moon, or sabbaths. Having died with Christ, we are not, as men living in the world, to subject ourselves to ordinances. This does not hinder but help our enjoying the first day of the week, "the Lord's day" or resurrection, not as in bondage but in liberty, not only for the remembrance of Christ in worship, but for edification also, as well as in the outgoing of heart with the gospel to the lost and burdened. Hence we see how the Lord pointedly wrought His works of mercy on the Sabbath, breaking through the formality of the self-righteous Pharisee; while the devotedness, to which the resurrection of Christ gave so mighty an impulse, deeply offended the rationalism of the easy-going Sadducee. We may notice too how the N.T., while showing our precious place as associated with Christ expressed by the first day (wholly distinct from the sabbath) carefully avoids any reference for it to the law, or even to a fresh commandment. For we are not under law but under grace. Such is Christianity as a whole and essentially. The Lord's day falls under that principle.

Bible Treasury Volume N2, p. 287. June 1899.

Q. 1 Corinthians 14: 29. Does the restriction to "two or three" apply at present and always? Does it bear on what is commonly called an "open meeting"? H.G.L.

A. It is precisely then that this apostolic direction does apply, that is, when saints come together in assembly character (ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ). This is supposed throughout 1 Corinthians 14. See vers. 4, 5, 12, 19, 23, 26, 30, 34. It does not of course relate to a preaching, or a discourse to the disciples such as Paul gave day by day in the school of Tyrannus. It is the divine regulation of the assembly as such, where the Lord acts by the Spirit working in His sovereign grace. If any one speak there, it is as God's mouthpiece, or oracles. It is not enough that it be true, but, as Peter means by that phrase (1 Peter 4: 11), what God would have spoken then and there, the truth intended by Him for the occasion. This would be impossible but by His Spirit. Yet inasmuch as His Spirit is now given, as for every other holy purpose, so for this specifically in the assembly, we are entitled to act on it, to look for it, and to repudiate any other speaking otherwise. "prophesying" in 1 Corinthians 14 is just the word which answers to that phrase in 1 Peter 4: 11. If we believe God as to meeting "in assembly," we have the important word from the Lord that even prophesying is not to be overdone. "Two or three" is the limit. There might be not one, or only one, to speak so; "two or three" are allowed, but no more. For others to speak after "two or three" is such human licence as the apostle was correcting in the Corinthians church. Too much is injurious, and neither edifying nor orderly. We cannot speak rightly save in obedience. What the apostle wrote, he wrote for all saints as well as those addressed; and it is for us to recognise it as the Lord's commandment. Let all things be done in comeliness and order. Eagerness to speak, when the Lord gives no warrant but rather prohibition, is disobedience instead of pleasing Him. But man's spirit is as ready to invent rules arbitrarily as to neglect the rules laid down in the word.

Q. Revelation 12. Is the man-child caught up to God and His throne yet future? If so, how do we account for no mention of death and resurrection? C.R.

A. From Revelation 11: 19 is a fresh start in the book, as the seventh trumpet in a general way brings us down to the end. This closes the first volume of the Revelation. The second, beginning with that verse which should introduce Revelation 12, tells us, not of "a door opened in heaven," but of "the temple of God that is in heaven opened." God's ark was seen now, the ark of His covenant, though there followed, not only lightnings and voices and thunders, but an earthquake and great hail also. Then were seen signs in heaven: the mother, not the bride, (with supreme government, reflected authority subordinate, and full power in man) yet in travail; and the dragon, wielding the power of the Roman empire, and seeking to devour her child destined to rule all the nations with a rod of iron. But the vision omits that work which is the basis of redemption and divine right, and at once shows us Him caught up on high, whilst the woman flees into the wilderness for 1,260 days. It is a mystical presentation of Christ with Whom the church is hidden, as in O.T. figures, caught up to heaven, without date, save that the woman's flight into the wilderness is measures out, during which she is protected but has in no way the glory and power on the earth that is to be her portion. But heaven meanwhile is cleared of the great enemy and his angels; which is plainly future, and cannot be till after the rapture of the saints on high. The accuser of the brethren is not yet expelled. For the N.T. recognises that our wrestling is against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenlies. But Satan and his emissaries shall surely be cast down, never more to regain access there as now; and the contest for the earth is decided in due time, when He whose right it is shall unite heaven and earth and all things under His sway. Thus the ascension of Christ is mystically identified with that of the heavenly saints; just as what is said of Messiah in Isaiah 50 is applied to Christians in the latter verses of Romans 8. Still more easily is this understood in the symbols of a prophetic book like the Revelation. The signs being seen in heaven does not mean that the object in view is heavenly for the woman any more than for the countless crowd of Gentiles in Revelation 7. The mother is as clearly the earthly people, as the heavenly bride is the church.

Q. Genesis 4: 23, 24: what do we learn from these verses?

A. As Cain appears to be no obscure type of the unbelieving Jews who rose up against and slew Him Who deigned to be born of that people, and have since been left wandering over the face of the earth; so Lamech appears, in this song to his two wives, to represent the Jew in the latter day confessing his blood-guiltiness, yet looking to be avenged most amply at the end. Thus we know from the prophets it will be with Israel, when a land is brought forth in one day, and a nation is bought at once. For as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her sons. Then shall the people, once so guilty yet kept, and henceforth truly penitent at the feet of Messiah, sing, O Jehovah, Thy mercy is for ever.

Q. Hebrews 4: 14, Hebrews 9: 11, 12?

A. It ought to be added to the remarks in page 256, that those who do not distinguish between Christ as Man and as priest, but on the contrary lay the utmost stress on His priestly entrance as a separate spirit, to effect propitiation, quite fail to give the scriptural evidence such a theory demands. The statements of the Epistle to the Hebrews ignore any entrance in that character, save "once for all"; and this beyond fair question was when He ascended on high. They are accordingly not entitled to the distinction supposed in that answer to the query; for their theory supposes His priestly character in the separate state as well as when He ascended, and a (if not, the) most important exercise of the office before the ascension.

Bible Treasury Volume N2, p. 302. July 1899.

Q. 1 John 2: 2. Was Christ a propitiation "for the sins of the whole world?" Does John 1: 29 teach this? Does 1 Peter 2: 24 apply alike to all, believers and unbelievers? W.R.W.

A. It cannot be urged too plainly or often that "the sins of" is an interpolation, not only uncalled for, but an addition which goes beyond the truth and is therefore false, as all exaggerations must be. "For our sins" is in pointed distinction. "For the whole world" is ample ground of encouragement for preaching the gospel to those who are still in unbelief, without warranting the dangerous delusion that the sins of the whole world are gone. This would naturally lead to telling every body that he is forgiven, in open opposition to the general warning of scripture to all the unconverted. Hence it is not just to confound this last member of the sentence with 1 Peter 2: 24, which rather coalesces with Christ's being a propitiation for our sins. He was our substitute; when men believe the gospel, we and they can say this of them. But He is a ransom for all, as He is a propitiation for the whole world. John 1: 29 goes on to the complete taking away (not "bearing our sins") of the sin of the world, as will be manifested in the new heavens and new earth, like Hebrews 9: 26. The sacrifice is already offered and accepted; but all its results are not yet come and enjoyed. It will be applied to the millennial age, and completely in the eternal day. To say that judging "according to works" does not mean "sins" is mere quibbling. The "works" of the unbelievers, of the wicked, are nothing but "sins"; for which, when raised, they will have their part in the lake of fire and brimstone, the second death.

Q. 1 Thessalonians 5: 23: how do you explain sanctification here? M.

A. It is sanctification in practice, which all Christians admit and urge. The apostle prays that "the God of peace might sanctify them wholly"; and, not content with this general desire, "that their spirit and soul and body might preserved entire, blamelessly, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." The whole man is comprehended, in virtue of the reconciling work on the cross; which awaits redemption in the full sense (Romans 8: 23) at Christ's coming. It is the believing man inwardly and outwardly, the mind of flesh or old man already condemned, and all the rest, inner and outer, animated and directed by the indwelling Spirit of God. The higher faculty of man, his spirit, is named first, and the external instrument, his body, last; the soul, if we distinguish the words, is the seat of individuality, the "I" which uses both. It is a heathen notion, though favoured by many moderns, to place the "I" in the spirit; but scripture is distinctly adverse, and the error involves many serious consequences. As to this, Dr. Delitzsch's book is unreliable, though learned and lively.

Q. 1 Peter 1: 2: what is meant by sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience?

A. It is sanctification in principle, a truth of deep importance, ignored everywhere in Christendom, by Protestants as well as Romanists, by Calvinists no less than Arminians. For by it is meant true living separation to God from the starting-point of faith, when one is "born of water and Spirit," in a new nature. This cries, as Saul of Tarsus did when converted, Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do? It is therefore as we see here, "unto obedience"; not only so but to Christ's obedience, not as a Jew under law, but as a child obeying its Father under grace, even though the sprinkling of the blood or justification had yet to be learnt, however soon it may follow. Hence we read in 1 Corinthians 6: 11 "washed, sanctified, justified": the order of which is inexplicable to such as overlook the absolute setting apart, or personal sanctification, of believers from their first breath of new life as "born of God." The washing looks at our previous uncleanness, the sanctification at our separation to God, the justification at our resting on Christ's work of redemption, as the other two precede and go together.

If any one wishes to see the havoc done to scripture by a pious and learned man, though confounding these two sense of sanctification, both equally true and essential to Christian intelligence, let him consider Th. de Bèze's version of 1 Peter 1 and the notes in any of his five folio editions of the Greek Testament; in which he makes κατὰ = ex! ἐν = ad! and εἰς = per! It is a total and inexcusable falsification through prejudice. Verse 15 and 16 of the same chapter do exhort to actual day by day holiness or sanctification in practice. Popery and Puseyism confound justification with practical sanctification to the loss of the truth as to both. The great value of the truth, so generally found wanting, can hardly be exaggerated, Romish theology being utter confusion and that of the Puritan partial and onesided. Scripture alone is the truth which co-ordinates, and is worthy of all trust.

Again, the Authorised and the Revised Versions are fairly correct: elect "according to." But "by" is better than "through"; and "in" is equivalent to "by," as it here can only mean "by virtue, or in the power, of." And both agree in rendering "unto" obedience, which is alone right or possible on any sound principle. We are called to obey, as Christ obeyed, filially, and not in the bondage of the law like Israel; whilst instead of having the blood of victims as its sanction threatening death on failure, we have the sprinkling of His blood cleansing us from all sin.

Bible Treasury Volume N2, p. 320. August 1899.

Q. Mark 9: 50. Has "salt" any meaning beyond preservative purity? M.

A. Genesis 19: 26 is clearly not the consecrating principle but judicial infliction. For Lot's wife disobeying at such a time became an abiding monument of divine judgment. So too, if Israel rebelled and fell under the curse, Jehovah declared that their whole ground should be brimstone and salt, like the overthrow of Sodom (Deuteronomy 29: 23). The N.T. adds the awful figure of salt losing its savour, and hence, as proper neither for land nor for dung, to be cast out. Grace does effect not only love but separateness to God in the believer. Easy-going unbelief destroys all savour in those that bear the Lord's name without self-judgment. What must the end of this be? Not only unrighteousness but apostasy.

Q. 1 Timothy 4: 10. does this apostolic sentence countenance universal redemption? L.C.H.

A. In no way. The reference is, not to Christ's work, but to God's faithful care of His creatures, His children especially, in providence day by day. Where is the propriety of reading the salvation of men's souls in the terms of the verse? where, the consistency with other scriptures, which declare that only those who believe shall be saved, and that the mass, being inpenitent and unbelieving, must perish? "For unto this we labour and suffer reproach [or, strive], because we have our hope set on a living God, who is preserver of all men, specially of faithful ones." It is God as appealed to in Job 7: 20, and even more widely in Psalm 36: 6. Compare Judges 3: 9, Nehemiah 9: 7, Obadiah 20. There is no mention or thought of Christ's death even in the way of purchase, still less of redemption. It is a living God as Saviour in present labours and trials; and this goodness of His is real toward every child of man, especially toward believers. Apply it to the salvation of the soul, and the comfort evaporates; for all are thus thrown into confusion and uncertainty. If those who are Christ's be only in degree more saved than such as reject Him and perish, theirs would be indeed a little and sorry salvation to the denial of life eternal and everlasting redemption. Any application of the kind would dishonour Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as it contradicts the scriptures. Indeed it would be nonsense to speak of saving the souls of all men, especially of the faithful. The fact is, the apostle treats of a wholly different subject: the sure ground of confiding in a living God for the path here below. As in wisdom He made all, so does He care for all compassionately, even in a sinful and ruined world, especially for such as look up to Him in the faith which strengthens them to labour and suffer with joyfulness.

Bible Treasury Volume N2, p. 335. September 1899.

Q. Ephesians 4: 8. What is meant by "captivity led captive?" Can it imply (as some besides Romanists, Lutherans, etc. think) the O.T. taken then on high? Does Luke 16 bear on it? H.G.L.

A. The expression first occurs in Judges 5: 12, where it means that Barak was called to lead captive those who had haughtily oppressed Israel. So also in Psalm 68: 18 the risen and ascended Lord is celebrated in terms drawn from warfare as victorious over the mightiest powers of evil. There is no sound reason to doubt that in the Epistle the sense is the same, applied yet more loftily but within His mind Who ever looked on to Christ. Some have gone so far as to suppose an active force in the word αἰχμαλωσία. But there is no need to go beyond the ordinary usage, and the Hebraistic emphasis. That they had been captors before being thus emphatically led captive is no doubt true; but it is not expressed in the phrase itself, which simply but intensely expresses the completeness with which they were vanquished. Colossians 2: 15 describes the same victory over him that had the power of death and his angels in a manner suited to that great Epistle. Their might is annulled in the cross, which seemed Christ's defeat but is the ground of His triumph. This was indeed a captivity led captive. And He who received gifts in man (or in that capacity) gave gifts to men.

It would be altogether harsh to imagine any reference to the saints before Christ. There ought to be proof from other scriptures that they were alluded to as at that time within the cortège of the Saviour's triumph. Certainly neither 1 Peter 3: 19 nor 1 Peter 4: 6 has the smallest bearing on it.

Nor does Ephesians 4: 9 give countenance to any descent of the Lord to carry on high the departed saints. Granted, that the verse does not express His descent as the Son from heaven to become man; but it goes no farther than His descent when a man on earth to the grave. He tasted death, truly died, and was buried. Jehovah would not leave His soul in Sheol or Hades, nor suffer His pious One to see corruption. He that descended so low ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things. But Ephesians 6: 12 does present the solemn truth of spiritual powers of evil in the heavenlies, with whom, instead of being yet expelled, we have now to contend in energy of the Holy Spirit. Through these world-rulers of this darkness the Lord did pass victorious in His ascent through the heavens to the throne of God. Possibly the marginal alternative of "a multitude of captives" captivates persons of an imaginative turn of mind, who are under the delusion that such alternatives are more faithful than the text. Here it appears that it is not mere "multitude" which is the point, but the completeness of His victory over the enemy. Yet in any case there was a multitude.

Is it a plausible interpretation that the Holy Spirit would apply a figure from vanquished foes to the O.T. saints of God? And this, not referring to their evil condition when living in sins, but when turned to God from idols, or from iniquities off any and every kind, and even after they had departed from this life? Would it not be a strangely violent and ungenial account to describe them at the Saviour's ascension as "captives"? On the other hand, it is not only intelligible, but unforced and accurate, to speak of the spiritual hosts of wickedness as a "captivity" which Christ then "led captive." Him alone it became, and He alone was capable of it.

Luke 16: 9 shows us everlasting habitations awaiting those who sacrifice the present in view of the heavenly future; as the story of the rich man and Lazarus (19, etc.) assures of the blessedness that follows on the death of the righteous, and the terrible lot after decease of the selfish man. It is not here after resurrection, but after death.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. N3.

Bible Treasury Volume N3, p. 16. January 1900.

Q. — Matt. 24: 40, 41; Luke 17: 31, 35: "taken" and "left," for what? A.W.

A. — "Taken" for judgment by the coming King; "left" for blessing in the kingdom. If the Lord had been here speaking of the church or Christian, the taking would have naturally pointed to being caught up to heaven. But the context proves decisively in both Gospels that He speaks of Jews in that future day of His appearing after the heavenly saints have been translated and appear with Him in glory.

Q. — Matt. 26: 26, 27; Mark 14: 22, 23; Luke 22: 19, 20. Is it not clear that thanks should be given separately for the bread and the cup? and that reverence is due by doing so at the table? T. M.

A. — Though spirit is far beyond letter, it is sad to allow a slipshod way with the Lord's Supper. Even the Lord Himself, as all three Synoptic Gospels show, teaches by His action what is comely on our part. Nothing can justify irreverence or self-will. We have only to follow Him. As He took bread and gave thanks before breaking it, so He did with the cup. Why should any one depart from His example? Is it not habit, or carelessness?

Q. — 2 Cor. 3: 1. Commendatory letters, from whom? Z .

A. — From such as are known to have the assembly's confidence. If others took on them to write, what weight could they have? If a man wrote of contention or faction, the letter would represent his own bad state. — We have the Spirit of God to guide by the word; but all is vain if we be unspiritual habitually, or carried away by prejudice or prepossession at any particular time.

To doctrine, as to discipline, the same principle applies. If a saint were of single eye, the whole body would be full of light. And all things when convicted by the light are manifested. The errors of a Christ born at a distance from God, of uncertainty as to possessed and known life eternal, and of a fabulous propitiation in heaven, distinct from Christ's expiation on the cross, are lies of the enemy; and "no lie is of the truth." Nor will faithful men tolerate any of them, or whittle them down, or pretend that the light does not manifest them. It is grievous to know that any and all of these heterodoxies have excusers, who are more guilty end dangerous by their wicked sophistry than the misled. In such questions, it is "the eye" that is wanted, not "the light," for this is quite clear,

Q. — 2 Cor. 12: 16. What weans, "Being crafty I caught you with guile"? R. M.

A. — It is the low insult which deceitful workers insinuated among the Corinthian saints, to defame the apostle and exalt themselves. They dared to say that, if he did not burden them directly, he all the more craftily reaped what he could through Titus and others. None fall into such depths of baseness as Christian professors alienated and self-seeking. In short then, it is the language, not of the apostle, but of his adversaries, whom he exposes for our admonition; and he calls such words of his speaking "folly," because it was not about Christ but himself, to which their iniquity compelled him.

Q. — 1 Peter 3: 21. What is really meant here? R. M.

A. — Christian baptism sets forth, not new birth, but salvation by the work of Christ. We are, as another apostle says, buried therein to His death; the virtue of which was proved by His resurrection. This a good Conscience requests and receives. But it is carefully said, to avoid superstitious perversion, "not the putting away the filth of the flesh," which was all that water could do, but what a good conscience as to God asks for, salvation by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. For He was given up for our sins and was raised again for our justification. Thus have we acceptance in Him.

Bible Treasury Volume N3, p. 31. February 1900.

Q. — Lev. 16 etc. Does the Hebrew distinguish "atonement" and "propitiation"? Are there two different words? What distinction does the chapter present? It is known that ἱλασμὸς in the N.T. is translated "propitiation," and in the Septuagint answers to "atonement."

A. — The Hebrew word Kaphar (for the question) means to atone, or make atonement. So it is regularly; and Deut. 32: 43, Isa. 47: 11, Ezek. 16: 63, Ezek. 43: 20, Ezek. 45: 15, 17, 20, are the same in substance, though the effect in some cases is meant, as pacified, purged, forgiven, merciful, etc. "Propitiate" would be just as good a rendering as "atone"; and no other word regularly expresses either but the one. There is however a real distinction definitely drawn in the chapter, not between atonement and propitiation, but between propitiation and substitution typified in Jehovah's lot and the scapegoat. The error which has so often been exposed in these pages is limiting propitiation exclusively to the use made of the blood by Aaron in the sanctuary. That theory necessarily involves the frightful error of denying that the offering of the slain victim is any part of the propitiation for our sins. What a slight on Christ's sufferings! For this monstrous theory is that propitiation was made "in heaven, and after death," thus nullifying for ever that great work of God by Christ's blood and death on the cross, and making it altogether dependent on another work "after death and in heaven," instead of the type met before God in heaven by what Christ suffered on earth. "You hath He reconciled in the body of His flesh (not when He was out of His body) through death" (not after death and in heaven). Assuredly to be "reconciled" is grounded on propitiation, and presupposes it; but the truth is that Christ fully reconciled us in the body of His flesh through death. The ghostly work after death and in heaven is a ghastly fable, and calls for abhorrence.

Q. — Rom. 1: 2-4, Rom. 16: 26, 26. Why is it that in the first of the scriptures we read "by His prophets in holy scriptures," and in the second, "by prophetic scriptures"? The distinction is slurred over and lost in the Auth. Version as well as the Revised: how do you account for the difference between them, which is so plain in the Greek? AN OLD DISCIPLE.

A. — The key is given, as generally, by the context. God's gospel, or glad tidings, He had promised before; this was therefore through His prophets in holy scriptures. It centres in His Son, come of David's seed according to flesh, marked out Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by resurrection. While Jesus Christ our Lord then fulfilled the promises, He brought in deliverance from sin and therefore from death by power according to the Spirit of holiness, as even the O. T. prophets had foreshown. So far says Rom. 1: 2-4. But 16: 25, 26 goes much higher. For therein the apostle, without opening out the mystery or secret kept silent eternally as it had been, here tells the saints in Rome it was now manifested and by prophetic scriptures made known unto all the nations for faith-obedience, not by man's wit or imagination but according to command of the eternal God. The development of this hidden secret was mainly given to the Ephesian and the Colossian saints; but Paul's gospel as he calls it, yea the preaching of Jesus Christ in general to establish the saints in the faith, was in accord with it. Here therefore we necessarily pass beyond all the O. T. revelation, and are told, not of "the scriptures of the prophets" which is an incorrect rendering and a false sense, but of "prophetic scriptures." These are in fact definitely distinguished from even all the prophets of the Old Testament, and refer solely to scriptures of the N.T. which reveal the secret of Christ Head over all things to the church which is His body. Never does the O.T. make this known, as the apostle declares here and elsewhere. Now it is revealed, and by prophetic scriptures (that is, the epistles, etc., of the N.T, generally) made known, not to Israel as the O.T. was, but expressly unto all the nations.

Q. — Deut. 32: 8, 43, Ps. 97 (or — Ps. 6), Heb. 1: 6. Are not "angels" in the Sept. V. of the first scripture text, and can this stand? Is it not so in the Psalm, cited in the N.T.? How are we to understand all this? H.

A. — The Epistle to the Hebrews quotes verbally from the Greek Version of Deut. 32: 43, at least in the Vatican copy. The same truth is revealed in Ps. 96: 7 (- Ps. 7: 7) substantially but as a direct address. There is therefore no ground for doubt that "angels" are meant and commanded to pay supreme honour to the Son as the risen and glorified Man, but none the less a divine person. Indeed if He were not so, worthiness as man and conferred dignity could not warrant the homage God claims from the highest creatures of heaven to His Son. "Gods (Elohim)" we find often applied to those who represent God as in government, or who are commissioned to announce and execute His will; as the Lord makes plain to the reader of John 10: 34, 35. Thus there is no real difficulty. Idols must pass away and the demons behind them be punished and put down. In that day all must bow in honour of Him Who appears to reign, Who is not more truly the Anointed (or Christ) of God than He is God Himself, and Jehovah. Whatever place He takes in humiliation or in glorious administration to the glory of God, and for the blessing of creation, He is in personal title and divine nature as truly Supreme as the Father or the Holy Spirit. To think otherwise is to disown His true Deity.

Bible Treasury Volume N3, p. 47. March 1900.

Q. — 2 Kings 22, 2 Chr. 34. How are we to reconcile the cleansing in the 12th year and in the 18th year? H.

A. — Both are true; and both speak of the cleansing which in Josiah's eighteenth year followed the discovery of the book of the law in the house of Jehovah. But 2 Chr. alone adds the account of his earlier seeking after God ten years before, in the eighth year of his reign and the twelfth beginning to purge.

Q. — 1 Chr. 21: 6. What explains the apparent discrepancy between this and 1 Chr. 27: 24? H.

A. — There is no discrepancy. One text says, that Joab did not count among those that were counted Levi and Benjamin; the other adds the particular, that though he began to number, he finished not, and divine displeasure fell for it upon Israel; and the number was not put in the account of the chronicles of King David. All is harmonious; but the second is a fuller explanation.

Q. — Does Psalm 91: 11, quoted by Satan, refer at all to the Lord? or are there not three parties implied in it? W.

A. — The godly one that relies on Jehovah in ver. 2, Who will surely deliver Messiah as in vers. 3-13, and is answered in vers. 11-16 by Jehovah.

Q. — Luke 15: 18, 21. Why "heaven"? It is well known that the Chinese identify God and heaven, and worship heaven as a true deity? H.

A. — Heaven being Jehovah's throne, as earth His footstool, we can understand readily how that highest region of divine glory is associated with every thought of purity, love, and worship. But there is no identification with God. On the contrary, after naming heaven as the unsullied seat of His honour, in contrast with this wholly defiled earth of man's will and sin and lusts, the prodigal distinguishes "thee," "Father." Compare 2 Chron. 32: 20, Dan. 4: 26, Matt. 21: 25 and Mark 11: 30, 31, Luke 20: 4, 5, John 3: 27, etc.

Q. — Acts 15: 20, 29. Are not "strangled" and "blood" separate prohibitions? and both distinct from "pollutions of idols"? But why is "fornication" joined with things so different? W.

A. — Meyer's view that the phrase, "the pollutions," refers to the four particulars which follow seems to me untenable. The reason on which he argues (the absence of ἀπὸ before τ. π. has no force); for ἀπὸ is unnecessary any where after ἀπέχεσθαι, and is a doubtful insertion where some ancient MSS. give it. But there ought to be no question that "blood" means what is drawn out expressly from the animal for culinary use, and thus manifestly distinct from "strangled" where the purpose is to keep in the blood from flowing. Both are forbidden; for God demands that man shall by abstaining own that life belongs to Him. If any be so self-willed as to plead that they do not see or understand, let them own their ignorance and obey. It is not a Jewish or Mosaic statute only, but for man since Noah and the deluge (Gen. 9: 4). "Things offered to idols," though classed here like "fornication," with the other two, as things which the heathen counted indifferent, are forbidden as evils unworthy of Christians (one might add, of men) apart from the law, which the Pharisaic party in the church strove in vain to impose on Gentile believers. But the decrees in no way meant to weaken the immorality of fornication, any more than the insult or indifference to the one true God in eating knowingly of pollutions of idols. The apostles were content here to determine, that none of these things is an open question to Gentile converts, but that, if they abstain from all these necessary things, they will do well.

Q. — Gal. 3: 20: what is meant by "the mediator is not of one, but God is one"? D.

A. — It is the principle of the law on the one hand, and of promise on the other; which the apostle contrasts, in order to deliver the Galatians or any other souls from the dangerous error of mingling them together, as unbelief is prone to do. The legal mediator is intended, Moses, not Christ; and that office implies two parties: God demanding right, and sinful man wholly unable to render it. The law therefore cannot but be for sinners a ministry of death and condemnation, as we are told in 2 Cor. 3. It is wholly different with promise; for this rests on the sole and unfailing fidelity of God Who cannot lie. As God is the only party to promise in His sovereign and unconditional grace, all He promises comes to fruition. "God is one"; whereas under law man, being under obligation to perform and failing through sin, all his hopes thus come to nothing. God on the contrary accomplishes all in and by Christ, and hence to faith. And as in Him is the Yea, so through Him also is the Amen (2 Cor. 1).

Q. — Gal. 5: 17, 25. Is "deliverance" all? Are we not after that to walk in the Spirit? W.

A. — Assuredly: to question it would be antinomianism, or systematic unholiness. We are called to walk in the Spirit by the faith of Christ, in confidence of His care, in habitual self-judgment, and in obedience of the word.

Q. — Have we any scriptural example for calling days of the week after the heathen usage? E.

A. — The only N. T. change from the Jewish "first of the week" is the Lord's day in Rev. 1: 10. There is no example, we may presume, of the Gentile Sunday, Monday, etc. How could there be? "Easter" in Acts 12: 4 should be "the Passover."

Bible Treasury Volume N3, p. 64. April 1900.

Q. — Ex. 12: 28, 29. Was the anointing, consecrating and sanctifying of Aaron and his sons, to minister in the priest's office, typical of anything that had to take place before our Lord entered upon His priestly work?

(1). If so, of what does the oil speak?

(2). Of what was the killing of the ram of consecration a type?

(3). Had what they typified to be fulfilled before our Lord became High Priest? J. S.

A. — If the querist were to read what has already appeared in the "B,T." (New Series), ii. 290, 306, 324, 338, 354, 370 (1899), as well as the papers regularly following in 1900, he would find much more ample discussion than in a brief answer now. But the Epistle to the Hebrews is the inspired warrant for regarding the Aaronic priesthood as typical of our Lord's exercise of office in heaven, and of those who are His as His house on earth. At the same time contrast is pointed out as clearly as analogy. So it must be with One Who is Son of God and Son of man in a sense and personal dignity beyond all others, as Heb. 1, 2 were meant to show as a starting-point. Hence also Ps. 110 is introduced as early as Heb. 5: to indicate that, if the exercise be yet Aaronic (within the veil, on the ground of a completed atonement by blood), its "order" is according to Melchizedek (everlasting and intransmissible, not successional like Aaron's).

But the sanctifying, anointing, and consecrating typified what was found in our Lord or accomplished by Him in order to His priestly function.

1. The oil here as elsewhere speaks of the unction from the Holy One, the Spirit given to Him before, to us since, redemption.

2. The slaying of the ram of consecration, like every other sacrifice, typified Christ's death, each in its own special point of view, but all fulfilled in that wondrous fact.

3. They were fulfilled here below, though the value was recognised instantly in heaven and for ever, before our Lord was addressed by God as High Priest, or entered on His heavenly office in due form and glory.

Q. — Matt. 13: 30, 1 Cor. 5: 13, 2 Tim. 2: 21. How do these scriptures hang together? B. A.

A. — The first speaks of evil professors of the Lord, who are not our objects of extermination, but living in the field of the world till judgment falls at the end of the age. The second commands the wicked man to be at once put out of the church. The third provides for the day when the professing church sanctions vessels to dishonour, from which the faithful soul is bound to purge himself. Thus only can he be a vessel to honour, sanctified and meet for the master's use, prepared unto every good work.

Bible Treasury Volume N3, p. 95. June 1900.

Q. — 1. How are we to understand "Zion" as compared with "Jerusalem"? "the daughter," and "the daughters," of Zion? 4

Q. — 2. Col. 2: 20; 1 Peter 2: 13: pray explain.

A. — 1. Zion was literally the south-eastern height called David's city, as Moriah was the north-eastern one on which Jehovah's house was built. But Zion (Isaiah 1: 27) is often employed figuratively by the prophets and synonymously with Jerusalem as, a whole. "Daughter of Zion" (as in Isaiah 1: 9) is a poetic expression for the inhabitants of the Jewish capital, and so for the people in general. "Daughters of Zion" (as in Isaiah 3: 16) would represent rather its female inhabitants. But we may add that it is nothing but ignorance to assume that Zion anywhere means the church of God even metaphorically. In Heb. 12: 22, 23 it is no doubt contrasted with Sinai (18, etc.), that is, the mount of royal grace, with that of legal responsibility; but it is distinguished alike from the scene of glory on high, a living God's city, heavenly Jerusalem, and yet more from the church or "assembly of first-born ones enrolled in the heavens." Nor is there solid ground to doubt that, as Rev. 7: 2-8 points to a sealed number out of Israel's tribes, to be secured from providential judgment in a future day, so does Rev. 14: 1-5 to a still more honoured complement of godly Jews, associated with the earth-rejected Messiah and blessed in that day. In both chapters, whether Israel or Jews properly, they are shown separately from the Gentiles, and grace will not forget them in the tremendous crisis at the end of the age. The heavenly redeemed are then and even before this seen symbolised by the crowned elders, who will have been with the Lord on high, and therefore manifestly distinct from any of them.

A. — 2. The two are wholly distinct in their objects and aim; and hence there is no discrepancy possible.

Col. 2: 20 asks, If ye died with Christ from the elements of the world, why as alive in the world do ye subject yourselves to ordinances? The apostle gives a specimen of these ordinances in the three prohibitions which follow, Handle not, nor taste, nor touch. This was Jewish legalism over again, consistent with a people in the flesh like Israel, or as he here says "living in the world," but quite incompatible with the spiritual condition of the Christian as one who died with Christ: a privilege acknowledged and signified even in baptism. To revive such ordinances was not only carnal, but a contradiction of their position as having died with Christ.

In 1 Peter 2: 13 we have nothing to do with these δόγματα of earthly religion, which Col. 2 declares to have been nailed to the cross and taken out of the way. The apostle of the circumcision urges on the believing remnant, that their behaviour be seemly among the Gentiles, and in subjection to every human creation or institution for the Lord's sake. This he explains as civil government: "whether to king, as supreme; or to rulers, as being sent through him for vengeance on evil-doers and praise of well-doers." Christian Jews must not be refractory like their unbelieving brethren.

Q. — How are we to reconcile the Sept. version of Ex. 30: 13, 15 with the Greek of Matt. 17: 24? The latter seems double the former. X.

A. — It is an interesting result and evidence of the version being made in Alexandria, where the drachm had just twice the value of the Greek or Attic drachm. Hence half the former was the equivalent of the latter, which is intended in the Gospel, answering to the Hebrew half-shekel. Theophylact, Abp. of Bulgaria in the latter part of the 11th century, seems to have been ignorant that the stater, or shekel, found in the fish's mouth, was the tetradrachm of later Greek writers, as distinguished from a gold coin and a heavier silver one earlier known, both so-called. He says that some thought it to be a precious stone found in Syria. Singularly enough, Clem. Alex. and Origen, Augustine and Jerome, are all wrong in confounding the ransom tax with a civil due. But Hilary and Chrysostom were right; not so the Jesuit C. à Lapide, or the Lutheran J. G. Wolff, and down to Wieseler, though the Jesuit Maldonat, and J. Albert Bengel, with Hammond, and J. Lightfoot etc., had long pointed out the truth.

Bible Treasury Volume N3, p. 112. July 1900.

Q. — Heb. 12: 1: how seeing, or surrounding? M.

A. — We are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, not spectators of us, but giving testimony in faith; but the call is to look away from all else to Jesus, the leader and completer of faith. Neither sentiment nor superstition can do anything here but hinder our running the race well; and this can only be with endurance rather than energy.

Bible Treasury Volume N3, p. 158. August 1900.

Q. — (1). Isa. 53: 8. What is meant by "Who shall declare his generation?" H. D.

(2). Isa. 53: 9. How are we to understand "His grave with the wicked and with the rich in His death?" R.M.

A. — (1). It appears to be as contrary to general usage as to the particular context, that we should here conceive "posterity" (even though of course in a spiritual sense) The meaning is rather His contemporaries. How blind they were, not only to His glory, but to the wondrous work His humiliation was about to achieve by His atoning death on the cross! They in their murderous hatred were but hurrying on that which would give effect, in the grace of God, to taking away the transgression of His people.

(2). The next verse refers, not only to the grave which was appointed to one reckoned with lawless men, but to that honour which God took care should notwithstanding be paid in His burial. As is well known, "the wicked" is plural, whereas "rich" is singular. The simple facts are thus the best comment on the prediction. Man proposed, but God disposed, Who alone could and did set it out long before. Men assigned Him in his thought a grave with the wicked, but He was in fact according to His purpose with a rich man in His death.

Q. — What is the real bearing of Jer. 31: 22? Bp. Pearson treats it as the prophet's prediction of the Incarnation, as you will know, declaring this interpretation "ancient, literal, and clear." "Ancient" it may be, both for Rabbis and Fathers; but is it either literal or clear? Is it the truth intended? E.

A. — The context clearly looks on to the gathering of all the families of Israel, not to a mere remnant of Jews provisionally (in a day when Jehovah will be their God) and they His people. He that scattered Israel will gather him and keep him as a flock; when priests and people shall be satisfied with His goodness (vers. 1-14). Rachel's tears are to be no more; her children instead of perishing shall come to their own border. Ephraim turns and repents; and Jehovah says He will surely have mercy on him (15-20). Then, as filling up the beautiful picture of Israel's return, we hear the call to act up waymarks and signposts, yea to set their heart toward the highway, once of sorrow, now of joy; for Jehovah bids the virgin of Israel, forgiving all past delinquency, to "turn again to these thy cities." "How long wilt thou wander about, thou backsliding daughter?" What has one word of all this to do with the miraculous conception, all-important as it is in Isa. 7: 14? "For Jehovah hath created a new thing in the earth; a woman shall encompass a man" (22). No matter what their weakness, they need not fear the strong, but should go round about him. The word here used is never employed to express any such idea as is assumed, but is suitable for a phrase that imports one out of weakness made strong. And this is confirmed by all that follows to the end of the chapter. Even Calvin, unintelligent as he was in prophetic truth, understood the verse correctly. The Incarnation rests on grounds so plain and solid as to need no forced construction. For a female compassing a mighty one has nothing in common with giving birth, but rather to freedom and exemption from his power, however weak in herself. Usage quite agrees with the force of the words. Where is the phrase applied to gestation? Scripture speaks similarly where any strikingly divine intervention wholly distinct appears; as, for instance, of the earth opening its mouth to swallow the apostate rebels, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Num. 16: 30). The phrase employed therefore embraces a far wider range than the Incarnation, to which the terms of a woman compassing a man are in themselves wholly alien.

Q. — Matt. 13: 5, 6. Can a believer lose life eternal? R.C.

A. — It would not be life eternal if it could be lost. Animal life can perish; but even the soul is immortal for man, being inbreathed by Jehovah-God (Gen. 2), How much less can that life perish, which the believer hath (not merely shall have) in Christ, the Son of God! What then means the withering away of what sprang up on the stony places? Our Lord explains in vers. 20, 21. There is more than one way of ruin for mere professors of His name: 1st. Satan hindering the entrance of the word, as in ver. 19; 2nd. as in vers. 20, 21 the flesh receiving the word hastily without conscience before God, and therefore quickly giving up under pressure; and 3rd. as in ver. 22, the anxiety of this age and the deceitfulness of wealth choking all fruit, the necessary issue of life. It is the world. He who hears in faith is no longer Satan's prey and does bear fruit, though even so the flesh and the world may hinder the hundredfold which ought to be.

Q. — Matt. 13: 25. What is the true force of the word (ζιζάνια) translated "tares" in the A, & R. Versions? Is there any ground for the strange notion, among many of old to our day, that the noxious weed intended is degenerate wheat? QUERIST.

A. — The word beyond doubt means "darnel," which is in Latin "lolium," or "l. temulentum" because of its deleterious properties. The "tare" or vetch is in Latin "vicia," and, far from being a noxious weed, a leguminous grain wholesome in itself and useful to the agriculturist in spring and winter for feeding his cattle. There is no more ground in natural science to confound tares with darnel than there is in philology. The things are as distinct as the terms. Nor is there the smallest evidence, since man began to observe, that wheat ever degenerated into either. It is a mere and baseless fancy. Yet so farmers talked and fathers wrote, to say nothing of natural philosophers like Pliny of old, and grave divines, as Dr. J. Lightfoot down to Abp. Trench, who goes so far as to treat as a Manichean error that wheat and tares (or rather darnel) are different in kind, and their spiritual counterparts incapable of passing from the one into the other! As his assumption is not the fact in natural history, so it is a mistake doctrinally to deduce from our Lord's words that the sons of the kingdom and those of the evil one are interchangeable. They are viewed as the results of the respective sowings. It is still more palpably the error of ancients and moderns to overlook our Lord's interpretation of "the field" as "the world." To regard it as "the church" opens the door to confusion and evil without end, as every Christian ought to see.

Q. — Matt. 17: 10. What mean "their angels?" R.M.

A. — Not the spirits, but the angelic representatives, of the little ones. Compare what is said of Peter in Acts 12: 15. It is well however to abide within the limits of what is revealed without prying beyond. See Col. 2

Q. — Matt. 18: 5; Matt. 19: 13-15. Is it a little one only, or a believing one, or both? R.M.

A. — The Lord at the beginning of the chapter corrects the ambition of the disciples by the figure of a little child as far as possible from any such thought. But it is certain from ver. 6 that He goes forward to the "little ones that believe on Me." But it seems worthy of Him before closing the subject to give us comfort in a more distinct way than elsewhere respecting "little ones" like the one that He called and set in the midst of them. How many die at an early age? Do they perish? We are not left to spiritual instinct, or to reasoning from general principles. Nor is it the unbelieving and unspiritual plea that they are "innocent." They do belong to the fallen race, for whose sake the good Shepherd came and died: "even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish." Are we not entitled to look beyond those that believe to "these little ones" for assurance that, if called before believing could be, they are not to perish? Compare also chap. 19: 13-15.

Q. — (1). Mark 1: 23, Luke 4: 33-36. The late Dr. Trench, Abp. of Dublin, in his well-known Notes on the Miracles of our Lord (p. 233, seventh ed. 1862), speaks of the healing of this demoniac as "the second miracle" of the kind which the evangelists record at any length. Is this correct?

(2). He connects in p. 234 "the Holy One of God" in the accounts of this miracle with Ps. 16: 10, as "the first appearance of this phrase." Is it really so?

(3). Dean Alford in the fifth edition of his Greek Testament, i. 313, says that this demoniac's healing in the synagogue at Capernaum was "not immediately after the preceding. The calling of the apostles, the Sermon on the Mount, the healing of the, leper, and of the centurion's servant, precede the following miracle." Is this the fact? or ignorance of the chronology?  QUERIST.

A. — (1). The Abp. cannot have carefully examined the relative order of the events in the Gospels; else he must have known that the cure of the demoniac at Capernaum was the first case of detailed account, and long before that related in Matt. 8: 28-36. Mark and Luke are explicit that the cure in the synagogue at Capernaum was on the same sabbath when he healed Simon's mother-in-law, soon after the four apostles were called as Mark proves, whereas only Luke reserves that call for fuller development in the miraculous draught which so powerfully acted on Peter's soul (Luke 5: 1-11). But both conclusively show that the cure of legion (Matthew telling us of two demoniacs) was after the day when the parables of the kingdom were delivered (Matt. 13), and the storm on the lake when the Lord rebuked the winds and the raging water.

(2). Dr. Trench is not less mistaken as to the phrase, "Holy One of God." "Holy" here answers to ἅγιος, whereas the corresponding Greek in the Sept. rendering of the Psalm (and quite accurately) is ὅσιος. The former means strictly holy, as separate from evil; and this the angel announced even of the Lord's humanity, in a way never said of any other born of woman, nor yet of Adam unfallen. Compare also 1 John 2: 20. The latter is often in the Sept. said of Christ as the "pious" or "gracious" One, which comes practically to the sense of "holy" as said of man, and "merciful" of God. This is the word that occurs in Ps. 16 as quoted in Acts 13: 35, as also in Heb. 7: 26. Ps. 89 is very instructive, in that we have the former said of the Holy One of Israel, our King, in ver. 18; whereas He is said to speak in vision of His Holy or gracious One in ver. 19, the One in Whom His loving-kindnesses or mercies centred.

(3). From what has been already remarked on Dr. T., it will be plain how far from all intelligence of the structure of the Gospels, and of Matthew's in particular, was Dean Alford. For there is no ground to doubt that the healing of the demoniac at Capernaum is the first recorded miracle of our Lord after calling the four apostles, that the leper was healed not long after, and considerably before what is called the Sermon on the Mount, and that the centurion's servant was not healed till after it, as is shown in Luke 6, 7 beyond cavil. Matthew was led to displace the events in order to group together a divine dispensational picture; Luke brings to-ether events for the moral purpose which reigns in his account. Mark had no such reason to depart from the sequence of fact. Failure in apprehending the truth of things has wrought serious mischief in immature harmonies of the Gospels, and still worse in those whose lack of insight emboldened them to tax inspired men with discrepancies and errors.

Bible Treasury Volume N3, p. 175. November 1900.

Q. — Matt. 28: 1, Mark 16: 2, Luke 24: 1, John 20: 1: please explain. M.

A. — The first text speaks, not of the resurrection day, but of the sabbath which preceded, though late on that day, the dusk of evening when the next day was to begin according to Jewish reckoning. With ver. 2 commences a distinct paragraph referring to that first day. When the Sabbath was past, as we bear in the second (ver. 1), the women named bought the spices to embalm; but on coming to the sepulchre very early next morning, they learnt that the Lord was risen; and so speaks the third text. The fourth tells us of the two separate visits of Mary of Magdala, when she saw the stone taken away, and subsequently when He first appeared to her, as also Mark 16: 9 declares.

Q. — Luke 1: 1-4. Are those verses equally inspired as the rest of the Gospel? or only a preface of the writer's? M.

A. — They are a striking evidence and instance of what characterises Luke, in the combination of man's motives and affections and aims with the inspiring Spirit's power and design. It is only unbelief which tries to sunder what God has united. No doubt then a preface is peculiar to the third Gospel; but so it ought to be, if this Gospel have for its speciality, as it clearly has, to present the Lord Jesus, while truly God, in all the reality of that holy human nature, of which He deigned in grace to us and for God's glory to partake. The converse we see in the prediction of Caiaphas (John 11: 49-53). There in divine sovereignty the Holy Spirit gave him to prophesy the death of the Saviour in terms which none the less betrayed the selfish and unprincipled wickedness of the high priest. Here we see the piety, faith, love, and conscientious care of the writer, who was none the less empowered by the Spirit to give us the truth of Christ without error according to the divine purpose in view.

Q. — 1 Tim. 3: 16. May I ask why the cross is not included in this summary view of Christ? and why His being received up in glory is put last? A DISCIPLE.

A. — The reason, as I believe, why the cross does not appear is because Christ's death of rejection and in atonement was fully revealed in the O.T., as Ps. 22, Isa. 53 and Zech. 13 serve to prove. Sacrifice in general pointed to His death for our sins. Here it is "the mystery" or secret of piety which is presented, (i.e. not so revealed in the O.T.). Next, it would seem that the last clause is taken out of its historical place, in order that the blessed object of Christian dependence in faith should there stand in the more marked contrast with the falling away of some in later times, giving heed as they did to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons by the hypocrisy of legend-mongers branded in their own conscience, forbidding to marry and bidding to abstain from God-given meats. Such a system was a mere fleshly religion in open contempt of the ascended Christ. These were the victims that fell away, through seducing spirits etc., behind the hypocritical legend-mongers, who were their instruments. Christ in glory was nothing to them. Their confidence was in self-devised ordinances instigated by demons. Christ's being received up in glory" is an essential and characteristic truth of Christianity.

Q. — Heb. 2: 17, 8: 4. As a matter of interest, not of authority, can you cite the judgment of the late J.N.D. on these scriptures so strangely misused of late? O. D.

A. — His uniform doctrine, as far as I know, was that the work of propitiation was on the cross when lifted up, before He entered on His proper priestly office in heaven, an exceptional work in being representative for atonement as the foundation of all, Take, out of many proofs, the following from Notes and Comments, 2: 17, "But then the High Priest represented the people as such, and in this character, when He has personally, not as priest, offered Himself to God. He acknowledges the people's sins — He becomes that Khat'tath, but in conscious confession first, not in judicial suffering that follows. But the sins are laid on Him — the Lord has laid them on Him; and He, willingly bearing them, confesses them in perfectness before God for reconciliation being made. This the High Priest does as representing the people, but it is not high-priestly in the proper sense, though the High Priest's service — the priest's was with the blood; but then the sacrifice was finished. Had the High Priest not done this, there could have been no priestly service at all; even this was not done on earth, but as lifted up from it. Earth was connected with flesh (there was no reconciliation for it), and as long as Christ was alive upon it, He presented Himself to men in the flesh. When that is done with, He begins His lonely work where none could enter while it was going on — and as representing the people, He makes reconciliation. Hence no priesthood in any sense was exercised on earth; for the reconciliation work, in which the High Priest was engaged, was as lifted up from it, and, though not in heaven, no longer on earth."

Q. — What is the precise difference between κρίνειν, ἀνακρίνειν, διακρίνειν, ἐγκρίνειν, κατακρίνειν, and συγκρίνειν in N.T. usage? E.

A. — The meaning of the first or simple form is "to judge," ἀνακρίσις being the technical word for the previous enquiry or preliminary investigation. Compare 1 Cor. 2: 15, 1 Cor. 4: 3-5, 1 Cor. 9: 3, 1 Cor. 10: 25, 27, in the Greek, as well as Acts 25: 26 (noun). But διακρίνειν is "to discern," right in 1 Cor. 11: 29 but wrong in 31; as the simple form means not "damnation" but "judgment" and even as contrasted with that. Again συγκρίνειν is in plain contradistinction to ἀνακρίνειν in 1 Cor. 2, and means the communicating or authoritative explaining of spiritual things in spiritual words, not sifting or examining them. In John 5: 22-29 the confusion of the A.V. is extreme and seriously misleading. The right word is "judge" or "judgment" throughout, not "condemnation" as in 24, nor "damnation" as in 29; for our Lord is contrasting "life" with "judgment," though the issue in this case be the same. In 1 Cor. 11 the "judging" is present, in the sense of temporal only, in contrast with final and everlasting condemnation (κατακρ.). Compounded with ἀπὰ the verb means "to answer," as it should be in 2 Cor. 1: 9, not "sentence," as we may add.

Bible Treasury Volume N3, p. 192. December 1900.

Q. — Acts 19: 15. Dr. J. B. Lightfoot in his Fresh Revision of the N.T. iv. §3 (p. 60) speaks of "the distinction which is effected by the insertion of the article before the one name and the omission before the other," etc. But this is not the fact, though he cites the Greek expressly, and wrongly, just before. He was eminently learned, and usually most accurate. How can we account for the statement? R.

A. — It is a striking proof that good Homer sometimes nods. Not only no known MS. bears him out, but the supposed omission would be in this case impossible Greek. The repeated article is even more requisite than the separate verbs, γ. I know or acknowledge, ἐπ. I am acquainted with. It is to be presumed that in a later edition so glaring and of course unwitting a mistake must have been corrected; I have only the first before me.

Bible Treasury Volume N3, p. 208. January 1901.

Q. — Eph. 4: 4; Matt. 18: 20. Do we meet as Christians on the ground of the one body, or as gathered to the Lord's name? What about 1 Cor. 12, 14? J.C.L.

A. — I see no right reason to regard any one of these and other like scriptures exclusively. None can be forgotten or overlooked without loss. The others treat of the essential and abiding truth of God's assembly; whereas the word in Matt. 18: 20 supplies the resource given by the Lord to assure of His presence, if we are gathered to His name as the centre, in times however difficult or disastrous. Those so gathered in faith of His presence may not be intelligent as to the church's privileges or the Spirit's action therein; but they could not be thus gathered truly, if they resisted the truth by indifference or by independency. They might need and would welcome instruction in the truth, so clearly revealed and deeply concerning God's honour and their own obedience; but they could not, if dependent on the Lord, oppose God's will, and they would humble themselves and correct their fault, if they mistook through haste, influence, or error of any kind. Departure from the unity of the Spirit is fatal; and refusal of just discipline is rebellion against the Lord.

Q. — Has the valley of Elah, where Goliath fell, been yet identified, or Ephes-dammim, or Socho, or Jarmuth? DISC.

A. — It would appear that what is now called the Wady es-Sumt answers to the first famous spot; that Damun may be Ephes-dammim; that Socho in this neighbourhood is now called Shuweikeh, as is also the other Socho in the mountain district of Judah (Joshua 15: 48), and that the Yarmuck of our day corresponds with Jarmuth of old.

Bible Treasury Volume N3, p. 224. February 1901.

Q. — Matt. 6, Luke 11: I believe in the verbal inspiration of Scripture; but how are we to explain the differences, e.g., in the Lord's prayer? Why are there such distinct reports of what the Lord uttered? Or were there two occasions with a form not identical? PERPLEXED.

A. — God's inspiration, so far from binding the Evangelists to an identical re-echo of our Lord's words, shows the power of the Spirit in discourse or fact reported, so as to carry out His special design in each Gospel. A simple reproduction of our Lord's words in all the four might have been done by mechanical skill; but the Holy Spirit inspired each to give us all according to divine design respectively. It was God's editing with specific purpose, which man, however pious, never could have achieved but by His energy, yet in the style of each. There is a new reissue of a pamphlet on this prayer, which goes fully and minutely into these differences, and can be had of the Publisher.

Bible Treasury Volume N3, p. 255. April 1901.

Q. — Ps. 78: 67, 68. Please explain the "why." W.H.G.

A. — God is sovereign, or He abdicates Godhead. One of the twelve tribes must of necessity take precedence; and He chose Judah. If any creature is entitled to ask "why," surely it is a very plain answer that His Son deigned to be born of that tribe. But it is well to be content with God's wise, good, and holy will, if we could give no reason.

Q. — Rom. 8 etc. Is it possible for a believer to rest on Christ's work without having God's Spirit dwelling in him? W.S.

A. — Certainly not. But many did and do believe on Christ without at first resting on His work. It is hasty and wrong to assume that such have the Holy Spirit given to them, though born of the Spirit. See the case of Cornelius in Acts 10. He was a converted man of marked piety, which is not nor can be without believing on Jesus; but he did not appropriate the saving power of His work, till God sent the warrant, henceforth as open to the Gentile as to the Jew, in the gospel preached by Peter as by others since. Many fail to see this, and suffer through the error in various ways. The truth is quite plain.

Q. — 1 Cor. 5: 13. Is the public mention of one gone out from the assembly the same as putting out, as some fancy? E.

A. — Certainly not. It is a mistake in any case; in some it would be a gross wrong. The assembly cannot without absurdity put out one who has already gone out. Sometimes the going out is an act of mere ignorance; as for instance when one, used to a sermon every Sunday morning, grows weary of worship in spirit and truth, and pines for a discourse to relieve him of the distaste he feels for the Spirit's liberty of action in the assembly. How cruel and unjust to stigmatise the weak one, unspiritual though he may be, as a wicked person"!

Wholly different is he who goes out because of necessary discipline, and yields to his self-will in abandoning the assembly which till then he had owned to be of God. He is, what the apostle denounces as, "an heretical man," not necessarily heterodox, but factious to the last degree, whom (for he was outside) Titus was to have done with after a first and second admonition. If he were a brother of intelligence and experience, the sin is greatly aggravated; for it is rebellion against the Lord's authority in His house, were they but two or three gathered to His name. If the fact be known even in a very general way, it is a sin for any professing to keep the unity of the Spirit to receive such. If warned by competent witnesses, it is worse still. Can a meeting claim licence to abandon the unity of the Spirit and turn independent for a season to gratify feeling? Even if it were only a person standing aside and under investigation, no meeting is free to receive: how much less if one had gone wilfully outside, even if he had not joined a party in opposition! To receive in such circumstances is a violation of unity and order, of love and righteousness. Nor is it conceivable that any would agree to so deplorable an act of independency, save under the influence of partiality quite unworthy of holy brethren, to say nothing of His name that is slighted and of His word that has not been kept. We are bound if on scriptural ground to walk together in fellowship. An offender cannot be out and in at the same time, save to the Lord's dishonour. One "outside" is outside everywhere, save to people of loose principles. We are bound to walk as one.

Q. — Rev. 1: 15, Rev. 3: 18 Why should πεπυρωμένος be translated "burning" in the first text, and "refined" in the second? Other versions, down to the most recent, vary the rendering in the two places, so that there most likely is a modifying cause which forbids the same force to be given to the word in both cases. May we have this cause explained, unless we can get a rendering that suits the Greek word in both texts? M.

A. — The contextual aim differs like the phrase, though the same remarkable word reappears. But in chap. 1: 15 it is part of the Lord's judicial attributes, not only "eyes as a flame of fire," but "feet like brilliant brass (or copper), as though they glowed in a furnace," penetrative and firm unsparingness to the last degree in judgment of responsible man. They were as though red-hot in a furnace. In chap. 3: 18 the scope is wholly different; for there the Lord counsels the angel of the church in Laodicea to abandon his self-satisfaction in their empty riches and acquisitions, and to buy of Him what is alone genuine wealth before God, "gold tried by fire," His own righteousness to suit His nature and presence; as also the white garments figure the practical righteousnesses which become the saint. The justified must be righteous. But so distinct is the connection that it is extremely difficult to suggest one English counterpart to both. For it is ἐν καμίνῳ in the one text, and ἐκ πυρὸς in the other. This modifies the rendering of πεπυρωμένος. It is true that copper or brass, as in the altar of Burnt-offering, also represents divine righteousness; yet this, not as meeting God's nature on high, but rather as dealing with man's responsibility on earth. "Fired" as in a furnace or out of fire is literal, but would be somewhat harsh.

Bible Treasury Volume N3, p. 272. May 1901.

Q. — Acts 2: 42. Are we still responsible to persevere in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in the breaking of the bread and the prayers"? How sadly loose the enclosed tract! LONDON.

A. — Assuredly. The Lord's name was the central object which by the Spirit gathered saints into unity, and became the standard to judge what was inconsistent in doctrine and ways. So the apostles taught; as the saints were called to walk in their fellowship. The breaking of the bread expressed it openly; and the prayers sought grace of the Lord in vigilance against everything that imperilled what was due to Him. Schisms wrought at Corinth from an early day; dissensions or disputes at Rome later. Alas! those internal workings of the flesh portended the "sects," or outside factions, which the apostle told the Corinthians must also be where a contentious or an otherwise carnal will was unjudged (1 Cor. 11: 18, 19, Gal. 5: 20). To Titus (Titus 3: 10) he gave authoritative instructions how to deal with the independency which refused to keep the unity of the Spirit: "after a first and second admonition have done with" such. There was no sense in putting out one who in self-sufficient insubjection had gone out: "such a one is perverted, and sinneth, being self-condemned."

There were of old persons among us who, never having adequately felt the ruin-state of the church, endeavoured (perhaps unwittingly) to imitate the apostles in setting up elders, and in restoring the church. But this was rejected strongly by those who upheld the unity of the Spirit, as incumbent on the "two or three" wherever gathered to the Lord's name in as thorough subjection to the word as when all stood in unbroken order and peace. It is false that any visible body was, or was sought to be, formed by learning better the duties of fellowship; or that acting together as "one" in a town, which scripture requires, led to manifest central authorities, which it rather helped to counteract, and is therefore distasteful to aspirants. Hence the effort of adversaries to brand the revealed truth or acting on it with the very evils which are their own.

Think too of the decency for one justly excluded from fellowship writing on "Fellowship"" and abusing persons, names, and their words to support the grievous laxity which they always abhorred! Truly "the unjust knoweth no shame." The tract is indeed deceitful claptrap, as opposed to truth as to holiness.

Q. — Heb. 11: 29, 30. Please explain why there is no mention of the Jordan.

A. — The Epistle characteristically dwells on the actual walk through the desert (and so the tabernacle) rather than the land (save in prospect). Hence we have the Red Sea crossed, not the Jordan which would suit the line of truth in the Epistle to the Ephesians.

Bible Treasury Volume N3, p. 288. June 1901.

Eph. 4: 5. Unity it; in this verse distinguished from that in ver. 4, as the unity of the Christian profession, not that which is necessarily vital and everlasting. It is excellent in itself; but those who have the external privileges might not personally be born of God. The unity of ver. 6 first goes out universally on the one hand, and embraces at the end of it what is intrinsic and divine in the deepest way.

Rom. 9: 21, and 2 Tim. 2: 20. Vessels to dishonour are the reprobate in both scriptures. But in Romans it is in the general sphere of the wicked; in 2 Timothy, in the narrower one of those who, while nominally Christians, have no conscience toward God, and defile or destroy His house; whom God will destroy.

Bible Treasury Volume N3, p. 304. July 1901.

Q. — Lev. 16: 10. No one can be surprised at the uncertainty of such as trust either the ancient fathers or the modern Germans. But one does wonder at the dilemma of the late Archdeacon Hardwick in "Christ and other Masters" (Procter's Ed. 1874, p. 504): "How ... could the goat as mentioned in ver. 10 be sent to or for Azazel, if Azazel were the goat itself?" Pray explain this. X.

A. — The answer is simple enough. Azazel does not mean the goat simply, but the goat of dismissal. It is all a mistake that the phrase leads directly to the notion of either a person or a place. As the first goat was that on which Jehovah's lot fell for sacrifice, the second was allotted to signify in a striking light the people's sins sent away into oblivion. The foundation was laid in the goat sacrificed to Jehovah. The goat on which the lot fell for Azazel (i.e. for this specific sign of dismissal) was set alive before Jehovah, to make atonement with or on it (i.e. in conjunction with the one slain), to send it away as Azazel into the wilderness, or as said in ver. 22 to a land apart. This was the place; and it is wholly unfounded to conceive Satan or a demon, or any other being. Jehovah forbade every thing of the sort in the next chapter (Lev. 17: 7), and is as far as possible from sanctioning such wicked folly here or anywhere else. It is sad to think of a pious man like Hengstenberg carried away by a notion so gratuitous, to say nothing of its impiety. The true and only sense is as evident as it is satisfactory adding substitution to propitiation, and thus completing atonement, as far as the type could.

Bible Treasury Volume N3, p. 320. August 1901.

Q. — Heb. 11: 28, 29. Why is it said that Moses kept the passover through faith, and that the Israelites passed through the Red Sea by faith? Was Moses the only one who had faith as to the Passover? and had all the people faith who crossed the Red Sea? Compare for them Heb. 3: 16-19. H.

A. — Moses not only kept* but instituted the passover according to Jehovah's word: it was the sole occasion when the sprinkling of the blood took place. And this was really if secretly the basis of Israel's deliverance that followed through the Red Sea as by dry land. But it would be too much to assume that any as yet understood the antitype in Christ's blood, death, and resurrection for those that believe. Yet the people as well as Moses did believe that God would according to His word screen and deliver, however sadly the mass fell in the wilderness by unbelief. It may be noticed that the last word of ver. 28 prepares the way for the general form of ver. 29. The experiment made by the Egyptians was wholly their own doing without reference to God's word, and so without faith; just as men perish now, even in Christendom.

*The perfect of abiding result is used here as in vers. 3, 17, whereas the aorist is elsewhere, expressive of the fact simply.

Bible Treasury Volume N3, p. 336. September 1901.

Q. — The Epistle to the Hebrews, who wrote it? Learned men contend for Apollos, Barnabas, Silas, Titus or Luke. Is there any real ground to doubt the prevalent belief that it was the apostle Paul? Z.

A. — The difference of style has been pleaded, the absence of Paul's name, and the circumcision addressed in it, all proved by the nature of its contents. But there is nothing in any or all these circumstances to weaken the claim of the apostle. That it expounds the law more fully than does any other of his Epistles, that he withholds his name and title purposely, the one as writing outside his allotted sphere of the Gentiles, and the other as presenting the Lord Jesus in the light of the apostle of the Christian confession, may satisfactorily account for its peculiarities. Here he is the inspired interpreter of the O.T. rather than unveiling the mysteries of the N.T.

But it is certain from 2 Peter 3: 15, that Paul wrote an Epistle to the Jewish believers as Peter addressed both his Epistles to the same. This is here distinguished from "all" the rest of his Epistles, as written to Jewish Christians, according to the wisdom given to him, and speaking of the grand scenes which await the coming and the day of the Lord, as Peter was then treating of these things in his way as directed of the Holy Spirit. In them were some things hard to understand which the untaught and ill-established wrest, as also the other scriptures (for it too was scripture), to their own destruction. That such an Epistle of Paul's should be lost would be a harsh and intolerable supposition; but if so, it must be the so called Epistle to the Hebrews. It is in fact the only Epistle attested as Paul's definitely by another inspired writer of the N.T. Yet this is the one which more than any other has been denied to the great apostle. What a proof of men's trusting in their own wisdom, and of their blindness to divine authority!

Q. — John 14: 1. Why "believe also on Me"? Were they not already believers? A DISCIPLE.

A. — It is the change from Jewish faith to Christian. Henceforward it was to be no longer a present and visible Messiah, but the Lord invisibly known in heaven. As they believed in God without seeing Him, they were now to believe in their Master on high, when they ceased to behold Him here below.

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. N4.

Bible Treasury Volume N 4, p. 16. January 1902.

Q. — Genesis 19: 14-16. Is it correct, as often assumed, that Lot had only two daughters of sorrowful memory? A DISCIPLE

A. — It would seem that besides the two maiden daughters in his house Lot had others with his sons-in-law outside, whom he sought in vain to save from the doomed city. In the "Introductory Lectures on the Pentateuch" this oversight is said to have been made. That the confusion has been often made by excellent men is of no weight against the simple force of the word.

Q. — Exodus 14: 15. Is there substantial ground for doubting that the Pharaoh of Exodus, Menephthah, perished with his host in the Red Sea? I am aware that Sir G. Wilkinson (Ancient Egypt, 1: 54) so thought, and that the Rev. Proffessor Rawlinson follows him (Hist. of Anc. Eg., 2:336) A DISCIPLE

A. — We are not limited to the writings of Moses. The Psalms are no less divinely inspired. If the language is only general in Exodus, Psalms 136: 15 is explicit, that Jehovah "overthrew Pharaoh and his host into the Red Sea".

Bible Treasury Volume N 4, p. 32. February 1902.

Q. & A. — Genesis 19: 8, 12, 14. An American friend writes wondering at the oversight in Lectures on the Pentateuch (76) where Lot's daughters are spoken of as brought out without "their unbelieving husbands." It is clearly new to him that there is any question possible. But it is a fact that very competent persons agree with the Vulgate that the two daughters were only espoused and still under their father's house, not yet taken to their future homes. Hence the Hebrew well bears the marginal reading of the Revisers, "were to marry" in verse 14; for it is literally "the takers of." The A.V. agrees with the Sept. If these would be right, it would of course imply other

married daughters who perished in the judgment that befell Sodom. Bp. Christ. Wordsworth accepts the Latin version unhestatingly. But enough is said to show the question.

Bible Treasury Volume N 4, p. 48. March 1902.

Q. — Genesis 12:1. The A.V. renders this, "Now the Lord had said to Abram," etc.; the R.V. has "Now the Lord said," etc. The difference involved is great. Which is correct? A DISCIPLE.

A. — No doubt if we merely look at the Hebrew, there is room for discussion, for its tenses were modified by the context; and in fact versions ancient and modern differ. But happily for all who are humble enough to value a divinely furnished aid, we have Stephen in Acts 7: 2, 3 making it certain that the appearing of Jehovah, when the call was given in the words cited, was not in Haran but in Mesopotamia. Here the call came, which was only partially verified in Abram while Terah lived; for the latter was quite content to dwell in Haran. But after his death the power of Jehovah's call revived in Abram's heart. "So Abram departed as the LORD had spoken unto him." "And they went forth to go into the Land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came." The spiritual mind will feel that the difference between the A.V. and the R.V. is that between truth and error; and that the error is due to confidence in the bare view of the letter, which slights not only what the letter implies but the invaluable help of the inspired N.T. interpretation. But this is decisive for believers, while it furnishes fresh fuel for sceptical criticism.

Bible Treasury Volume N 4, p. 62. April 1902.

Q. — Matthew 25: 1-13. Since believers are the bride, whom do the five wise virgins represent? They went in to the marriage feast as guests only. When the bridegroom came, was he not taking her to his home at the end of the feast given at her father's house? S. de G.

A. — The Lord in this parable presents not the church as such in its unity, but Christians as an aggregate going out to meet Him in figure; and hence He depicts them as the nuptial cortège. "The bride" would not have answered His purpose at all, but the maidens, foolish and prudent, so as to be emblematic of professors through Christendom's state and at His advent. The possession of the Holy Spirit is the crucial test. All had gone asleep; but at midnight grace sent forth an awakening cry, which wrought, even on the foolish, to arise and trim their lamps. But when the Bridegroom came, only those ready could enter in; for they alone had the unction from the Holy One which could fit any to have their portion with Him. The object here was not to fix attention on the bride, but on the individual responsibility of the Christian to await Christ's coming duly. Mere profession gives no title to go in with Him to the feast. There must be oil in their vessels; and the foolish active as they were ("earnest" as men say), had none. The bride is nowhere in this scene.

Q. — Why in the February B.T. the censure on saying "the old man is gone in the death of Christ?"

A. — Because of so speaking as to ignore the flesh still in us. This is a very real danger, because it oversteps the truth; especially as most confound "the old man" and "the flesh." And we know that, however delivered and blessed the saints may be here, the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh (Galatians 5: 17). The more precious the truth (and it is precious to know that our old man has been crucified with Christ, that the body of sin might be annulled), the more important not to go beyond the word. "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves." The terms "gone," "removed," etc., are liable to convey what is unscriptural and misleading, and in particular where no careful guard accompanies the term. "They that are of Christ Jesus crucified in the flesh with its passions and its lusts."

Q. — Acts 26: 22, 23. This text is urged to set aside the apostle's distinct assertion of a mystery hidden from the ages, and not in other generations made known to the sons of men, as it hath now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets (clearly and exclusively those of the N.T. so called, Ephesians 2: 20). Kindly explain: on the face of it such an allegation arrays one scripture against another, which must be of the enemy. What then did the apostle mean before Agrippa? Surely not to contradict what he wrote to the Ephesians saints?

A. — The context of each proves that both declarations are perfectly true, and therefore in divine harmony. For in the Acts he defends his public testimony in preaching the gospel and the kingdom of God, both of which rested on the basis of Christ's death and resurrection, and, as he said, of the righteousness of God now manifested, "witnessed by the law and the prophets" (Romans3:21). But to the Ephesian and the Colossian saints the time was come to open out the mystery of Christ in His exaltation to the heavenlies, God summing up the created universe, all things in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth; and the saints, now called (Jewish and Gentile naturally), united to this heavenly head as His one body. As he tell us in 1 Corinthians 2: 6-10, he did not preach this wondrous truth to the Jews any more than Gentiles, nor even to immature saints. God's hidden wisdom in a mystery he spoke only to the perfect or full-grown, which was then and is now far from being true of all believers. Hence, as the Jews arraigned for him in his public appeals to themselves or to others, the passage in Acts in no way clashes with what he avowedly taught only to full-grown saints, of which they knew nothing and to which the apostle made no reference. The inference confidently drawn to deny that he had taught the new revelation characteristic of the N.T., is entirely at fault, and betrays fundamental ignorance of what every full-grown Christian ought humbly to learn.

Q. — Will the temple described by Ezekiel have a veil? W.P.

A. — It was a slip in the January B.T., p.11, to say so. The future temple will have double-leaved doors, instead of a screen and a veil then renewed. Yet the sons of Israel and even the prince have no entry into the house — only the priests. There is no question of going within. Still the differences are marked and instructive. There will then be no evening lamp; for Jehovah their light is for ever risen upon Zion, No candlestick is needed more, but the altar within is Jehovah's table; and no high-priest ministers. There is no Pentecost more; for it is already consummated in the church. There it; no feast of trumpets; for the people have been already summoned and gathered:; and there is no atonement-day longer; for the work was done, and they had truly afflicted their souls when they looked to Him whom they pierced. The Red Heifer disappears. But the Passover abides the memorial of redemption, and the Tabernacles will mark their place and blessing. The altar of holocausts has an absolutely central place, though of course outside the sanctuary; for seven days atonement is made for it; and on the eighth onward the priests offer Israel's burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. Sabbaths and new moons are still celebrated as witnesses of rest come, and Israel's regaining their place. No table with the twelve loaves is seen, for Israel were themselves before Him; no candlestick, for the True Light was seen. In the Holiest is no sign, no ark needed: Jehovah fills it alone. Outside is no laver to cleanse for entry; but from within the sanctuary issues a river, not merely to gladden the city of God, but to go without, dividing when there to east and west with life-giving fertilizing power, expressly naming the cast or Dead Sea, and the west or Mediterranean, but not yet absolute blessing; for an exception is kept up in the marshes given to salt. Still the city's name is Jehovah- Shammah, Jehovah there; yet the millennium is not eternity.

Q. — If gathered to the Lord's name, on what principle in the present disorder and ruin of God's house should we receive a Christian from a denomination or sect though he were desirous of abiding there? R.M.

A. — The principle is, "as Christ also received us, to the glory of God." If there be a known cause of sin and shame, we ought to refuse: not so did Christ receive us. Even when we had much to learn of the truth in detail, (50, 60 or more years ago), a firm stand was made by faithful men against such as trifled with fundamental truth. I remember in those days a fervent Wesleyan, who had learnt "the blessed hope" and was morally driven out of that society by their opposition to that truth; yet was he rejected in his wish for communion in the Lord's supper, because he denied the personality of the Holy Spirit, too common even then. But it is of comparatively late years that the fatal tidal wave of heterodoxy has been overflowing Christendom, as to Christ's person on both sides, everlasting punishment of the lost, and God's inspiration of scripture. This actual and growing condition compels all who fear God to reject such as either hold these grievous errors or, what is if possible worse, make light of these evils and insist on their title to go on where these destructive lies are taught. No matter what they plead, they disqualify themselves for true communion of saints, if they also claim indifference practically to such God-dishonouring errors. It is awful to think that some who were at least associated long with men faithful to Christ are now looser than the loose. For they faithlessly swamp the truth and holiness of God to receive Christians so called, no matter how defiled now. All of these may not be equally bold and careless; but there is no path so dangerous as, under heat for some and opposition to others, departing from known and cherished truth, and slighting those servants of God to whom they owe no small debt of love. Ere long, if grace do not deliver, they will hate their testimony more and more, and the light in them will become darkness; and then how great the darkness!

Where it is a known saint in an orthodox though sectarian position, yet in no way exercised about it, it appears to me still our privilege as of old to receive such an one in the Lord's name, who desires to remember Him with us in the breaking of bread. But he needs adequate testimony and comes under discipline like others. Of course bargaining on either side would be intolerable. How many simple ones of spiritual feeling, though far from intelligent, having once enjoyed His presence thus, have enquired and learnt His will, and never returned to man's devices! The easygoing are such as retrograde, and so do the stiff and narrow; when they come to see that Christ is not therein, reaction may ensue.

Bible Treasury Volume N4, p. 80. May 1902.

Q. How are we to understand Sheol in the O.T. as in Jonah 2: 2? also Numbers 16: 33? If a place of punishment, how is it in Psalm 16: 10? EARNEST INQUIRER.

A. There is vagueness as to the unseen in the O.T. The gospel only has brought to light life and incorruption. But we never do find Sheol or Hades associated with joy or blessing like Abraham's bosom or paradise. Consistently therewith Psalm 16: 10 teaches that Jehovah would not leave Messiah's soul unto Hades, any more than His body to see corruption. To leave in seems the force of neither Hebrew nor Greek in the correct text; and early superstition made much of the error, revived widely in our day. The Revisers are right in Psalm 16: 10, wrong in Acts 2: 27, 31.

Q. Do Luke 14: 17, Romans 10: 9 and 2 Corinthians 5: 20 refer to the gospel? Do saints need to be reconciled to God? and what is the bearing of Matthew 18: 20? J.H.K.

A. The three texts cited together are unequivocally the glad tidings for those not yet saved, though no doubt in inspired writings addressed to saints. For they need a standard that the message of grace be kept intact and unclogged. The notion that saints, and especially of the church of God, require to be reconciled is an outrage against the truth, and a virtual denial of the gospel. Whoever teaches thus is an impostor. As to the last text, the Lord puts His presence in the midst of those gathered unto His name as the general principle, whether for discipline in ver. 17, binding or loosing in 18, prayer in 19; and in 20 it might be for any legitimate purpose wider still, even if there were but two or three gathered to the only true and gracious centre.

Q. What is the difference between ἀΐδιος (in Romans 1: 20 and Jude 6) and αἰώνιος, the much more frequent word for "eternal"? The learned authorities seem to have nothing to say. B.

A. Though both are derived from ἀεὶ (the latter strengthened, as the Stagirite tells us, by the participle of being, ὢν), the usage of the N.T. helps us to discern. These are the only two inspired occurrences of the former; and they are external, as compared with the deeper associations of the latter. The passage in Romans does not rise above what the natural mind might and ought to know, His invisible things apprehended through the things that are made, both His everlasting power and divinity (not His Godhead properly, which dwelt and dwells in Christ), so as to make them inexcusable if they turn to idols. The second of the two words is applied to the eternal God who reveals Himself in Christ and through the gospel as well as the church, as e.g. in the same epistle, Romans 16: 26. But again the "everlasting chains," in which He has kept and keeps the apostate angels under gloomy darkness, points to the judicial action of His power, not to His nature or His gracious counsels which befit or require the other word.

Bible Treasury Volume N4, p. 94. June 1902.

Q. Matthew 18: 20. It has been recently stated that men like Mr. J.N. Darby sought to help out their interpretation [of this scripture] "by a quite unwarrantable change in the translation of the words εἰς τὸ ἐμὸν ὂνομα, which they rendered unto my name, and took to import a gathering to Christ's Name as a rallying point." Is there any doubt of the right version? or any warrant for so evil an imputation? Μαθητής.

A. None whatever for either: no true scholar could have weighed the usage and given such an opinion. The evidence is decisively for the change. The aim of opposing it is to set aside the ecclesiastical character of the context, on which the Lord has impressed it so indelibly, that almost all the jarring parties of Christendom recognise that character, though they naturally overlook a word which none of them heeds, and which does mean a living and exclusive centre. Its denial is a very bold exegetical error; for any serious inspection of the Lord's words suffices to prove that the case adduced had passed out of individual dealing to "the church" or assembly (not the synagogue). Then the Lord (18) strengthens this with His solemn averment of heaven's sanction of their binding and loosing (not the keys), and His gracious assurance of His Father's answer to the united petition of even two. Then He closes with the general principle for the worst of times (20) that He is in the midst, where two or three are gathered unto His name. The last promise is an invaluable guard against party work, as well as unbelief and the world. It speaks little to hearts which never had, or have lost, faith in His word or presence.

As to usage, the case in question quite differs from ἐπὶ τῳ ὀν. in ver. 5, where His name is made the motive, condition, or ground for receiving a little child, and εἰς would have been out of place. It is therefore strictly "on," not "in"; and so in Acts 2: 38 Peter bade repentant Jews be baptized, each of them on (ἐπὶ) the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins; and they should receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. If they had repented, they were already born of the Spirit, as where real is invariably the case. Compare Matthew 24; 5, Mark 9: 37: 39, Mark 12 :6, 9. In Luke 1: 5, 9 it shades into "after." In Acts 10: 48 the same Peter commanded the Gentile believers to be baptized in (ἐν) the Lord's name. See Mark 16: 17; Luke 10: 17; John 5: 43 etc. It would have been just as possible and true to have said "on"; but it is not the same thought or expression as in virtue (or, in the power) of His name. In Acts 11: 16 Peter speaks of the Holy Spirit's baptism, contrasted with John's as ἐν Πν. ἁγ. in the Holy spirit, where ἐπὶ, on, would have failed, for ἐν means in the power of the Spirit Himself. In Acts 19: 5 as in Acts 8: 16 the object proposed in baptism occurs, and here it is neither "in" nor "on," but "unto," εἰς. The Revisers correct the faulty "in" of the A.V. but say "into" which is refuted by their own rendering of 1 Corinthians 10: 2 (where "into" would be improper), and by the A.V. of Acts 19: 3. The Greek admits of either "unto," or "into" according to context, which here requires the former. Water baptism does not imply more than "to" or "unto." It is profession only; and the very aim of the apostle in 1 Corinthians 10 is to insist that it might be without life. So in our Lord's commission in Matthew 28: 19 it is baptism "to" or "unto" the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. It was baptism with water, and could not itself carry deeper. But the baptism of the spirit has quite a different power, and effects incorporation, not "unto" merely as profession, but "into" one body, Christ's body. Dean Alford gave up "in" but argued for "into" invalidly, his views being uncertain here as to often.

In Matthew 10: 41, 42 we have indeed the peculiar phrase of receiving a prophet; a righteous man, and a disciple, "unto" (εἰς) each's respective name, or as such. Here it is perhaps hard to avoid in English saying "in the prophet's name"; but it really means as aforesaid, and not what would have been imported by ἐν, in the power or authority of each, as in Christ's name or even without any preposition as in Matthew 7: 22. But Meyer thinks that here "by" Thy name is preferable; and this may well be the just sense of a Greek phrase which differs from the rest, the instrumental dative.

Again, such forms as ἕνεκεν τοῦ or διὰ τὸ (or, ὑπὲρ τοῦ) ὀν. are indisputably "for thy Name's sake," so that we need not say more.

In the A.V., etc. Philippians 2: 10 is, as we all know, rendered "at" the name of Jesus, a rendering on which a well known and pervading practice of superstition was founded. The Revisers here say "in" (ἐν). If right, it means as usual in virtue of His name all creatures shall bow.

In 1 Corinthians 5: 4-13 where putting out for wickedness is laid down peremptorily and perspiciously, it is in (ἐν) the Lord's name that the assembled saints were charged to act. It was ordered of God that the written word should enjoin excommunication, when no apostle was actually there, nor apostolic delegate like Titus, and no elders had yet been appointed. This abides as the inalienable duty, as does the divine warrant for the assembly's act, whenever the sorrowful need calls for this last resort. The Corinthians saints were light in various ways and had shirked or ignored what was due to the Lord, not even mourning that one so guilty should be taken away from them. The apostle insisted on purging the leaven out, in accordance with the sacrifice of Christ our passover; and the Spirit took care that as Christendom would show special disregard of this Epistle, it should be more impressively addressed than in any other, not to that assembly only, but coupling with it "all that call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, both theirs and ours." Slight is therefore verily inexcusable.

As a matter of fact too, it was not till long after the Christians referred to had gathered, not as belonging to denominations, but simply as members of Christ, recognising the one body and Spirit according to the word, that the precise force of the Lord's word in Matthew 18: 20 struck any. Believing in the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit since Pentecost, they had learnt the immense value of every inspired word. Tradition had no place in their eyes. Since they accepted every scripture as God-breathed and profitable, they sought entire subjection to it as a living word, while declining either to claim more than they had or to substitute human devices in lieu of what they had not. Any scholar who looks into the text in question must allow that, unless there were an obstacle from our idiom, in this particular case, "unto" must be the exact force; for "into" would be absurd, and ἐν properly, not εἰς, means "in". But, far from a difficulty, the context here favours nothing so much as the proper import of εἰς, gathered "unto" My Name as the central presence on which they all depend and confide.

It was thus and only then perceived to be a confirmation of their position, already founded on the revealed principles of God's assembly, modified as this must be by the ruin not less carefully foreshown in the later Epistles and the Revelation, of which we are bound to take account, if we avoid that assumption which is so unworthy of Christ and so unbecoming in all that are His. How blessed to know that Christ remains as ever the centre for even two or three gathered to His Name!

But it was received as certain truth, on the evidence of scripture better understood and independently of any ground other than the precise and full meaning of our Saviour's words. Just so for many other truths of moment we have learnt since: we acted on the little that we first knew to be from God and of God; for we need the Spirit as well as the word. "To him that hath shall be given; but from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away from him." Nothing more perilous to man, nothing more dishonouring to God, than to give up what we once confessed and enjoyed as divine. Who can tell where departure once begun may end?

Q. Mark gives for the Crucifixion the 3rd, 6th and 9th hours of the Jewish day (our 9, 12, and 3); but how then are we to understand the sixth hour in John 19: 14, and John 4: 6, etc.? T.H.L.

A. Clearly in the same way throughout his Gospel, which looks on Jewish things as closed. Hence in John 1: 39 the tenth hour would mean from the same hour of the morning as we count. In John 4: 6 it was the usual time for women to draw water, as the seventh hour (52) would be the same time as with us of the preceding evening or possibly morning. So in John 18: 28 it was early morn when the mockery of our Lord's trial went on; and no reason forbids Pilate's judging at our 6 a.m. (John 19: 14). The actual crucifixion began, after all mockeries and preparations were done (including perhaps the trial of the two robbers) at the 3rd Jewish hour, as Mark (Mark 15: 25) alone specifies, i.e. our 9 o'clock a.m. of Friday; the supernatural darkness at the 6th Jewish hour, at our 12 or noon; and the Lord died at the 9th Jewish hour and time, or our 3 p.m.

Pliny (H. Nat. ii. 77), Plut. (Quaest. Rom. 84), A. Gell. (Noct. Att. iii. 2), Censor (dde Die Nat. xxiii.), and Macrob. (Saturn i. 3) clearly prove that the Romans computed the civil day as we do from midnight, and as John did. So Dr. Townson argues for a similar reckoning in Asia Minor. Revelation 1: 10 shows a kindred departure from Jewish phraseology.

Bible Treasury Volume N4, p. 110. July 1902.

Q. Luke 23: 43. In "Things to Come" for May, which I send, you will find a very dangerous paper on this text, practically undoing, as far as it goes, its testimony to Christ's work. If the robber's spirit did not go that day to Paradise, where did it go? The error opens the door to Purgatory or anything but the truth. O.P.

A. It is a bold man who ventures to set aside on this text, not only the Authorised and Revised Versions, but every translation, ancient or modern, hitherto regarded as reliable; and for this to set aside the conviction of the great mass of the godly orthodox, not only in other churches so-called, but in his own English Establishment. For it is mere claptrap and party spirit to attack in particular those he calls Plymouth Brethren, because the O.B. Witness rejected his own "strange doctrine." His notion is that Paradise "is never used in any other sense than that of an earthly place of bounty and delight." Never but an earthly place! and this in full view of Revelation 21, Revelation 22! And he dares to say that for "the intermediate state," and Paradise as a part of it, "they have not a shred of scripture warrant! nothing but a mixture of Heathen and Jewish Tradition handed down and further corrupted by Pagans and Papists!"

Let us weigh his two arguments. 1. If the Lord had intended to separate "today" from the introductory clause, either the particle ὃτι would have been prefixed, as in Mark 14 :30, or the passage would have been differently constructed, as in Luke 11: 21, 22; Luke 14: 9. But this is decisively overthrown by the fact that, with the formula of our verse, in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke there is nearly an equal number where ὃτι is omitted as inserted, various readings causing a slight uncertainty. In that of John who uses the twofold "verily," the ὃτι occurs for about half the cases which omit it. Clearly therefore there is no such rule as is alleged, and the deduction as to its absence in Luke 23 is unfounded. There is a similar usage in Hebrew and our own tongue, where "that" is often dropped, instead of being formally expressed.

2. Thirty-eight examples are pointed out in the book of Deuteronomy to justify taking "today" with "Verily I say unto thee." Now not one of these has the smallest analogy with our verse. They are all due to the exceptional nature of Moses' pathetic charge "this day," and of Israel about to cross the Jordan which was forbidden him. What has that to do with the case before us? The resemblance is only in the word, not the least in the sense or context. It is not "a common Hebrew idiom used to emphasize and mark the solemnity of what was said," etc. It is the peculiarity of Deuteronomy and owing to the then circumstances. On the contrary the Lord is replying to the earnest prayer of the robber, then repentant and believing: Remember me, when Thou comest in Thy kingdom. The testimony of His enemies in derision had through our Lord's words and bearing penetrated; but he knew that he would have to wait for the coming in His kingdom. The whole force of the answer of grace and truth is that "Today thou shalt be with Me in Paradise"; and putting "today" in the first place gave it marked emphasis. What case in Deuteronomy ever approaches even a parallel? To talk of such dictionary or concordance work as this settling the question is more than ordinary illusion.

The aim of the enemy is to defraud the departing saint of his joy in looking for immediate blessedness into heavenly blessing with Christ, as the fruit of redemption. The very gospel of God is thus enfeebled and darkened. Meetness for sharing the portion of the saints in light is what the Father confers on his children, delivered from the authority of darkness, and peace made through the blood of Christ's cross. The worshippers, once purged, have no more conscience of sins. The basis of holiness too is shaken, and the growth of saints hindered. The poor robber's spirit went just as the martyred Stephen's: Christ's blood has the same perfect value for all that are His. Both slept to be with Christ. Lord Jesus, receive my spirit, cried the servant, as the Master said, Father, into Thy hands I commend my Spirit.

So Philippians 1: 23 lays down departure and being with Christ as being very much better than remaining here, even though exulting with joy unspeakable and full of glory. It is not of God to let the hope of glory lessen this, because it would dishonour Christ and his work. If we fall asleep, we go to be with Christ; and where is He? He is not only in heaven but in its brightest part. As Adam's Paradise was the brightest spot on earth, so this so-called Paradise; it is the Father's house in John 14. They are both figures, but figures of divine truth. To literalise either is folly. It is the blessed scene on high where God in love glorified His son on accomplishing His work on the cross; and there the saints are with Him, they, it is true, waiting for the redemption of their bodies when He comes. But no joy or glory on earth will equal that which they will there have, then in their best form of being with Him, that they may behold His glory, entirely above the world, as He was loved by the father before it was founded. This is far above the kingdom which the world will see "in that day."

2 Corinthians 5 tells us no less clearly of the condition of the Christian's soul after his death. "Now he that wrought us for this very thing (i.e., to be swallowed up of life) [is] God who gave us the earnest of the spirit. Therefore being always of good courage, and knowing that, while at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord (for we walk by faith, not by sight), we are indeed of good courage, and well-pleased to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord." This is not as Jews or Tradition-mongers conceived. But it is "the intermediate state," the state between death and resurrection. It is a human term like the Trinity, and the thing in both cases, if not the word, is a clear truth of God. How unwise and unworthy to cavil at the expression! Why should any object, unless the sleep of souls or some worse error be held which jars with the truth? But if they live to God, after death and before resurrection, what is this but "the intermediate state" which the paper treats with unbelief and contempt. Is there a single sound Anglican who excuses him?

Then comes 2 Corinthians 12 which explodes his delusion as to Paradise. For the apostle in verse 2 alludes to his rapture to "third heaven," before he speaks of Paradise (ver. 4). Surely this is a supplied help to bind them together. It is no question, as he absurdly supposes, of "Paul caught away to that blessed time when this earth restored shall become again the paradise of God" (a sentence bristling with evident error), but of Paul caught up to third heaven and Paradise then. There Christ's Spirit went after death; there is He glorified now; there go spirits of departed saints, as the robber's did, and Stephen's, and whither we go if we depart this life.

But Revelation 2: 7 completes our knowledge; for there shall we when glorified eat of the tree of life in the Paradise of God. The lost paradise of man is not restored. Grace always gives a better thing than what was lost; and the new and heavenly scene of glory is rightly distinguished as the Paradise of God. Rightly is its future aspect symbolised in Revelation 21: 9  -  Revelation 22: 5. Think of imagining that the holy Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, is the earthly capital of Israel! Righteousness reigns in the Jewish city; and the nation and kingdom that will not serve it, as Isaiah 60 tells us, shall perish. But the heavenly city will be characterised by grace; and if the unfailing fruits of the tree of life in figure refresh the glorified, its leaves are for the healing, not wasting, of the nations. For that day will look on all things put under Christ's headship, the glorified on high and reigning with Christ, Israel and the nations on the earth reigned over and blessed under the King of kings and Lord of lords, when we shall reign with Him. It is the father's kingdom for all above; and the Son of man's kingdom for the long rebellious earth, cleared by judgments, before righteousness reigns here below, when His will is done on earth as in heaven.

Alas! the writer so profoundly judaizes that he denies the heavenly Paradise of God as a falsehood, and will have it as the restoration of the paradise of Genesis 2 on earth. It is to renounce the Christian hope and to mistake the Jewish one; for the words restrain glory to their land and holy mountain, instead of the vague dream of "this earth" becoming again the Paradise of God. It was never so.

The still worse improprieties near the beginning and at the end we can leave in silence and shame.

Q. 1 Corinthians 9: 27. Is there any sufficient reason to lower the last clause, as Calvin does, by excluding the issue of ruin before God, and looking rather at failure in the fruit of service among men? In other words, does the apostle mean, not a "castaway" or reprobate, but merely disapproved for his work and disappointed of a special prize? Q.

A. There ought to be no doubt that in the text, as in the context, the most searching and solemn warning is intended. Very great levity at that time prevailed in the Corinthian assembly: parties attaching themselves to favourite teachers, just as outside to the rival schools of philosophy; indifference to gross wickedness in their midst; keenness for their alleged rights carried into worldly law-courts; boasting of liberty in partaking of food which had been offered to idols; women forward in speaking; men turning the assembly into licence for their speech; and questions raised, not only as to the marriage time but such a truth as the resurrection of the body. they too were unspiritual to feel the dishonour done to the Lord by all this laxity. Hence it is that the apostle insists, not on preaching only but on our living to God soberly, justly, and piously as he enjoins in writing later to Titus. To make it the more impressive, without being personal he applies the case to himself. "I therefore thus run, as not uncertainly; I so combat as not beating the air. But I buffet my body, and lead it captive, lest having preached to others I should be myself reprobate." It is not service or fruit failing, but himself rejected by God. The use of the word is the same as in 2 Corinthians 13: 5-7. It has no other sense in the N.T. Even if softened down to disapproved, it means everywhere the total and final the disapprobation of God. It is really lack of faith, fearing to face the plain and certain truth that an unholy liver, no matter how he preaches or what the resulting fruit, will assuredly be lost. Paul was as decided for devotedness of life as for sovereign grace in justifying the ungodly. Nor is there a greater danger for man and dishonour for God than to be zealous in preaching and loose in practice. This he follows up for Christians (not preachers only) in 1 Corinthians 10 where he adduces the ruin of multitudes in Israel, as a warning to presumptuous professors of Christianity.

Q. 1 John 5: 16, 17. Does this refer to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, as in Matthew 12: 31,32, Mark 3: 29, Luke 12: 10? Or does the apostle speak of sin incurring the chastening of death without going farther? Q.

A. Here is what he lays down: — "If anyone see his brother sinning a sin not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for those that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: not about that do i say that he should make request. Every unrighteousness is sin; and there is a sin not unto death."

The apostle had just spoken of the boldness or confidence to which grace entitles the children of god who walk in obedience and dependence on Him, as having life eternal in His Son. It is so real and great that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us; and if we know that He hears us whatever we ask, we know that we have the petitions which we have asked of Him. Nor is it only in what concerns ourselves. His love would have us divinely interested in our brethren as His children, and cherishing like confidence in Him touching them. But there is a caution. He carries on a holy discipline; and where a lack in self-judgment is, He may not only send sickness but death as a chastening. We read in 1 Corinthians 11: 29-32 the plain fact, and the principle. Many at Corinth were falling asleep, because they did not judge their deplorable ways. This was a sin unto death in ever so many cases. Where the Lord is thus dealing, it would be lack of communion with Him to pray that such souls should live. When so judged, says the apostle Paul, we are chastened, or disciplined, by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world (which of course would be everlasting perdition). It is therefore as far as can be from the unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It is the Lord's dealing with a soul guilty of what He cannot allow to go on, and therefore calls him away, but with mercy assured, although there be withal chastening righteousness. It is a sin unto death; and we bow to God, instead of interceding. It does not seem some peculiarly heinous sin which brings destruction from God, but a sin of such special dishonour in its circumstances that He thus visits it. Such seems to have been the lying of Ananias and Sapphira in a day of great grace.

Bible Treasury Volume N4, p. 127. August 1902.

Q. Romans 16: 25-27. Does this mean that the "mystery" in question had been already revealed in the prophets of the O.T. though only now understood? or that it was absolutely "hid in God" (Ephesians 3: 9), not in the scriptures? It is all-important to have the truth clear. INQUIRER.

A. There is no question of various readings for the critic, or of disputed grammar for the scholar. All are agreed on the text and the construction. Faith, with an eye single to Christ, and self-will judged before God, alone can decide what the apostle intended. It is clear that the apostle does not mean to unfold the "mystery" here, but looks only to an only wise God to establish the saints according to his gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ according to revelation of a mystery, as to which silence had been kept in everlasting times. But now it was manifested, and by prophetic scriptures made known according, to the eternal God's command, for obedience of faith unto all the Gentiles. It was written in due time by the apostle.

To gather the true sense, we have to take heed to a quite new phrase, never employed when "the prophets" are certainly referred to. Next, he declares that "a mystery had been kept in silence," σεσιγημένου. How can this last term bear the interpretation that it had been of old expressed in what God wrote through the prophets? If it had been then revealed in the scriptures, silence had not been kept about it, or as the A.V. has it "kept secret," which is substantially right. God had never as yet spoken or written it into man. So, as the query points out, the apostle affirms in Ephesians 3 that it had been hidden in God, in evident contrast with being of old revealed revealed in His word. Hence the stress laid, both to the Romans, to the Ephesians, and to the Colossians, that it was NOW made manifest to His saints. Indeed Ephesians 3 adds that through the church (which was part of it) was now made known to the principalities, etc. in the heavenlies the manifold wisdom of God.

There is therefore an insuperable contradiction in applying "prophetic scriptures" to the O.T. prophets; none at all in understanding it of such scriptures as the apostles and prophets were now to write. For they are the joint foundation; not prophets of the O.T. and apostles of the N.T., but "the apostles and prophets" of the N.T. On these are built those Jewish and Gentile saints who are brought into a union where their differences were abolished, as they were both reconciled to God in one body through the cross. This was a new thing counselled by God before the world's foundation; wrought by Christ, Who died, rose and ascended; and brought home by the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven, quite incompatible with all known relations in the O.T. times.

Accordingly there is no article with "prophetic scriptures," as would be correct if "the prophets" had been meant, whereas the anarthrous form was requisite, if new scriptures were intended, written by those who had prophetic gift, whether by apostles who had that gift also or my such as Mark and Luke who were prophets inspired to write though not apostles.

Deuteronomy 29: 29 is an interesting oracle and may help: "The secret things belong to Jehovah our God; but the things that are revealed belong to us and our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." This was a great privilege and duty for the sons of Israel. The downfall of the favoured Jews that returned from Babylon when they rejected their own Messiah gave occasion, in the interval before their restoration, for God to exalt the Lord Jesus in glory on high as Head over all things heavenly and earthly to the church, which is His body. It is a "secret" or "mystery," and a great one, now only possible, and a fact divulged through "prophetic writings" to the divine glory for the edifying of the church as we find elsewhere; only now made known in accord with the eternal God's command for faith-obedience unto all the nations.

What can be more according to Paul's gospel, which treats alike the Jews and the Gentiles in sin and in salvation, than that fulness of grace which now unites the believers from both in the same known nearness to the God and Father of our Lord Who made both one? It is a unity which will not be in the millennial earth, any more than revealed by the O.T. prophets, blessedly associated as the nations will be with the then unjealous Israel, in marked contrast with the ages and generations which preceded the cross. Hence the apostle speaks of himself emphatically (Colossians 1; 26), as minister according to the stewardship given to him for such Gentiles, "to fill up the word of God." This hidden mystery fills the blank left for it in God's wisdom unto the display (not of law but) of sovereign grace on earth, and for heavenly glory for ever. A new revelation was hence necessary; yet it only enhances the Christian's value for the O.T., whilst itself has its own distinctive character of the profoundest worth and interest. And great is the loss of all who fail to learn of God a truth most sanctifying. The unbelief that refuses the evidence which the word affords tends ever to earthly-mindedness and judaising, as we see not only in Christendom generally but in many dear Christians, who least suspect it of themselves.

In 2 Peter 1 we read of τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον, the prophetic word, the known body of predictive truth, confirmed by the vision of God's kingdom beheld on the holy mount of transfiguration. And the fact that both προφητεία and γραφῆς are anarthrous is strictly necessary in order to exclude every part of prophecy in God's word from being its own solution. The article with either would have been anomalous. Peter was guided perfectly, even in this, by the Holy Spirit. Every part of that word forms part of the great scheme for revealing Christ's future glory, which the Holy Spirit carries out in men speaking from God as He alone was able to make good.

Bible Treasury Volume N4, p. 143. September 1902.

Q. Daniel 9: 27. Is it true that the translation of the heavenly saints to the mansions on high synchronises with the arrival of Daniel's last week? or does it suppose a partial restoration of Jews in unbelief, the acceptance of antichrist as king, a rebuilt temple, and re-established sacrifices? How then, since none of these has taken place or can occur in the next 24 hours, can it be taught that if the rapture were to be today, the man of sin would reign to-morrow? And if the Lord may come any hour, and the church be removed at the beginning of the tribulation seven years long, how can this be in view of the four events already mentioned? O.

A. There have been and are men of marked spiritual intelligence who look for (not the last week but) its latter half. I see no sufficient reason for just seven years, still less the half. The seven Seals of Revelation 6 have no apparent connection with Daniel's last week. Their nature, especially of the first four, seems to imply a considerable time for each to stamp its own space with the predicted character; and all the more because it is a general sort, instead of anything more definite and extraordinary in divine providence. So does the persecution of the fifth Seal; and surely also the immense catastrophe to befall high and low in the sixth. We may see some traces coming into evidence of the West and East for the latter day in the later Trumpets; but we do not hear of the Beast till the parenthesis before the last or Seventh in Revelation 11. Does not all this indicate a longer lapse of time than enquirers generally conceive? Is there not implied a series of judgments before the last week begins? There is no solid ground in scripture for conceiving that, when the rapture to heaven takes place, the Roman prince of the future forthwith confirms a covenant with the unbelieving mass of the Jews as to their reconstituted worship and temple service. The week remains to be fulfilled; yet there is nothing but assumption or theory for closing up all so sharply. Enough has been said to show that scripture involves preparatory circumstances of great moment, which leave ample sphere for a considerable settlement of unbelieving Jews in the land, and for all the other connected events. Indeed there is nothing to hinder much while the Bridegroom tarries. But scripture is clear that His coming to receive His own for heaven is wholly independent of any such changes on earth. Therefore does it remain the same for us now as for the saints in apostolic days: so that the one hope might have its heavenly power, and all have the blessing of waiting for Him in wholly separateness and bridal affection, sure that He is coming, with nothing to enfeeble our constant expectancy. Thus it is of all moment to keep the lamp of prophecy as distinct as the written word makes it from the Christian hope, and to know that this is heavenly and rests on Christ's love and truth, and never there mixed up with the earthly things which prophecy unveils. Even now it is our privilege to have day dawning and Christ as daystar arising in our hearts, whilst we look for its actual fruition at His coming. Nor is there a greater hindrance to the power of the truth in our souls, our communion, our walk, and service, and worship, than confounding our proper hope with prophecy, as is done in the query here answered.

Bible Treasury Volume N4, p. 160. October 1902.

Q. 2 Timothy 4: 1. What is the true text and the right version of this solemn scripture? The explanation even of the wisest seems unsatisfactory in consequence.

ENQUIRER.

A. Almost all agree that the οὖν ἐγὼ ("I therefore") of the Text. Rec. is uncalled for accretion, and "the Lord" too before "Jesus Christ" or rather Christ Jesus. The present κρίνειν expresses the long continuity of the judgment, instead of the brief act on the great white throne to which κρῖναι would tend confine the process. But the great defect is not only the allowance of κατὰ "at" (E K L P, 37, 47, and the Syrr.), but the failure to take the accusatives with καὶ repeated as the direct and simple object of the verb. The older Latin copies have no "per," but say loosely "adventum" for ἐπιφάνειαν. "I testify earnestly, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus that is about to judge living and dead, both his appearing and his kingdom." It is a fresh charge in which the apostle urges this twofold, however closely connected, object of the special ground of responsibility for Christian walk and service. Then will shine forth not only the Lord but those that are His, each in the position awarded by the righteous Judge according to the things done in (or, through) the body (2 Corinthians 5: 10). It is not simply His coming, His παρουσία, to receive us to Himself for the Father's house, which is sovereign grace, but when He appraises the fruit of each one's reward according to his own labour (1 Corinthians 3: 8). This the apostle earnestly testified, that Timothy too might believe and act on it in preaching urgently with every duty of ministry, looking for the glorious result, as one who also loved Christ's appearing when righteousness shall reign and therefore His Kingdom. But the grace which gives us Christ now in all its fulness and will receive us to Himself (not heaven only but the deepest joy and bliss with Him) for the Father's house is far more, and the means too of bracing and strengthening us to fulfill our part in responsibility. Such grace gives us to enter into His will and interests both intelligently and with devoted affection; so that, instead of shirking present duty and suffering for Him and the truth, we love His appearing and His reign when Satan will be powerless, evil put down everywhere both at once and infallibly, and the Lord exalted over all the earth and the heavens. Then indeed will "Thy (the Father's) Kingdom" have come; and His will be done too, not only on high, but on the earth even as in heaven. Everybody is familiar with the words: how few seem to enter into their blessed force! Yet men boast of theology, colleges, school-boards, Sunday schools, societies and sermons without end. Is not the reality humbling? The words are plain.

Bible Treasury Volume N4, p. 190. December 1902.

Q. — 2 Chron. 21: 2. In this verse Jehoshaphat is called King of Israel, not King of Judah as in 2 Chron. 18: 3. Why is this? Is it in praise or blame he is thus called King of Israel? W.R.K.

A. — It is clear that historically Jehoshaphat was King of Judah; and this was necessarily stated in the second passage and throughout the chapter where he is shown in guilty alliance with the then King of Israel. But he was a man of faith and ought to have kept clear of so compromising an association. Even after Jehovah's great intervention against the vast gathering of Moab and Ammon, Jehoshaphat joined with the wicked King of Israel, Ahaziah, and had his fleet broken, and so the joint design came to nought. Was not the name "King of Israel," attached to Jehoshaphat to mark that he ought to have stood as de jure sovereign, while owning de facto the chastening which broke up their unity? We see how Hezekiah and Josiah (2 Chron. 30: 1, 2 Chron. 34: 33, 2 Chron. 35: 3) went out in heart to fraternise with the godly in Israel. How much more had Jehoshaphat wrought for Jehovah's glory, if he had in his life kept aloof as "King of Israel," the title given to him after death? How sad his son Jehoram's course in every point of view! The remarkable scripture in Isa. 48: 1 may be compared in some respects: "Hear ye this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah," etc.

Q. — Ezek. 43: 15. According to the margin two very different and highly significant words are translated "altar": Harel, mount of God, and Ariel, lion of God. Is the A.V. correct? And if so, what spiritual meaning underlies those singular words? W.E.K.

A. — It may be well to notice first that the regular word for altar is neither of these terms, but Mizbeach, derived from the verb zebach, to slay, especially as a sacrifice. Hence this is the word in verses 13, 18, 22, 27. The words questioned are figurative. The former, Harel, designates the upper altar, naturally flowing from its etymology; the latter, though capable of meaning "lion of God," rather signifies "hearth of God," in this scripture, the whole upper surface of the altar. But "Ariel" in Isa. 29: 1, as applied to Jerusalem, makes good sense as "lion of God," though some prefer there as here "hearth of God."

Q. — Matt. 12: 31, 32. Is there any difference between blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and speaking against Him? ONE.

A. — The same thing in substance is meant, the first stating its evil character with energy, the second widening its extent. It signifies imputing to Satan that power of God which the Holy Ghost exercised then and afterward; and it bespeaks deep and settled hatred of God. ,Souls that give themselves up to such malice against the worker of all good are beyond pardon. Forgiveness is for those who repent and believe the gospel.

Q. — Is preaching the gospel of the grace of God with the head covered (1 Cor. 11: 4) scriptural? YOUNG DISCIPLE.

A. — The question of covering the head is raised in the early verses of 1 Cor. 11, because certain sisters at Corinth had forgotten or never known the due place of men and women in divine things. It is a reproof of the Christian females who were disorderly. For if in salvation and relationship to God by grace there can be no difference, there is in His service. Woman's head was to be covered, man's not. Every man praying or prophesying with aught on his head (i.e. covered) dishonours his head; as did every woman uncovered in such exercises. It is the order of power; and God will have this divinely constituted propriety in such as fear Him and know His grace. If she will not be covered, let her also be shorn, is the apostle's taunt. But this says nothing about preaching the gospel, though it is well that man should ever speak reverently and act after a comely sort even in evangelising, instead of yielding to nature, or cultivating popularity in a worldly way. In the assembly, where God's presence is manifested and enjoyed specially, still more should flesh be disallowed. Woman were there to be silent (1 Cor. 14). For, says the apostle, it is not permitted to speak, even could they prophesy like Philip's daughters, but in their father's house it seems, and with due subjection.

Q. — 1 Cor. 15: 3, 4. Did the apostle preach to the Corinthians, while unsaved, that Christ died for their sins? How are we to use these words? E. M.

A. — On the contrary it is evident that the apostle thus writes to the Corinthians, after they believed the gospel and were baptised. Never is language so precise applied to unbelievers. Those who so preach assume what is false: namely, that all are saved, but that it after all avails only for such as believe. But this is to trifle with both God and man. For it is absolutely true that, till they believe, all are alike sons of disobedience, and children of wrath. So the apostle classes himself with the most privileged of mankind, yet declares that "we also all once had our conversation in the lusts of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and the thoughts, and were by nature children of wrath even as the rest." All were alike dead in their offences and their sins. But God being rich in mercy, because of His great love wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in our offences, quickened us together with the Christ. It is contradictory, unsound, and evil to claim for the elect that they were not dead but alive as compared with the rest of men, and that faith only manifested their previous life. The idea is only another form of the error as to life. "For by grace are ye saved — have been and are — through faith ; and that not of yourselves; it is God's gift and not of works, lest any man should boast." Grace did not need to be said "not of ourselves," for grace means God's unmerited favour to us. But faith might be, as it has often been, argued to be of ourselves, because it is a subjective work of the Spirit in the heart. Therefore the apostle carefully declares that this thing faith, is not of us, but God's gift, that he might counteract and preclude that proneness which is in man to boast of something in himself.

We are therefore to use the words of the apostle to the Corinthians, as he wrote them, when they bore the name of the Lord. Nothing more simple or natural than that he should say that he delivered to them first, what he also had received, that Christ died for them according to the scriptures; and that He was buried; that He was raised the third day according to the scriptures; and that He appeared variously after that. But he had already stated what was meant to warn their light minds, that the gospel which he announced, which they too received and in which also they were standing, by which also they were being saved, involved their also holding fast the word he preached to them. Caution in other forms and to a similar effect he repeatedly gave them in this Epistle. It was necessary for those who were tampering with evil and danger. It is wholesome for every soul who confesses Christ, and not least for those who are impatient with such grave admonition, as if it weakened sovereign grace; whereas all flows from it and is levelled at the presumption and self-confident laxity of professing Christians.

Q. —  Col. 1: 23: "the gospel, which was preached to every creature which is under heaven." What is the meaning? Does "every creature" include North American Indians and South Sea Islanders? P.H.D.

A. — The universality of its witness is meant in the then known world, "in all creation that is under heaven." Compare ver. 6 for its fruit-bearing and growth, as also Mark 16: 15 for the Lord's commission. The word 'creation" is not that used for each individual creature, but for creation in an abstract way; and this is confirmed in Col. 1: 23 by the absence of the article, so that there is no assertion of the Red Indian or of the South Sea Islander. Yet had it been proclaimed as a fact then, as Christ's bondmen had gone forth and preached everywhere in all the world as then known. So Mark 16: 20 testifies.

Q. — Heb. 9: 12. Can it be that this warrants, as I have heard it said, that Christ's blood is literally presented in heaven, and would be seen by us when with Him in glory? F.C.G.

A. — The notion, utterly baseless and revolting, shows the danger of speculation by going beyond the N.T. and literalising the O.T. shadow. It should be met with, not discussion but rebuke.

Bible Treasury Volume N4, p. 240. March 1903.

Q. — 1. Matt. 10: 23, etc. The mission of the Twelve to Israel in Matt. 10 is generally inferred, from verse 23, to be now in suspense, and resumed (of course per alios) before the Lord's appearing. How is this reconcileable with the total absence of the Father's name in the Revelation? We see the name of the Father plainly revealed in the Lord's ministry to Israel, and conspicuous in the commission of the Twelve in this chapter. See verses 20, 29.

2. Does the gospel of the Kingdom ("this gospel"), to be preached to all the nations under Matt. 24: 14, coalesce with the mission to all nations under Matt 28: 19 (the latter carrying the full revelation of the Trinity)?

3. Why is the mission of the Seventy (Luke 10) omitted from Matthew? What is its special significance as distinct from that of the Twelve? E.J.T.

A.  - 1. It may be observed that from ver. 16 our Lord goes forward from this primary Jewish mission while He was there to the time when the Spirit should be given and their Father consequently known. Then again ver. 23 passes over to the still future days when there will be the resumption of the mission in the land. Hence it seems that there is no sufficient ground to infer that "your Father" as in ver. 29 applies to the future messengers. Nor on the other hand can we speak of His Father's name being absolutely absent, when we had such words as meet our eyes in Rev, 14: 1. But it is nowhere implied that the Apocalyptic saints know the Father for themselves, as even the babes of the family do now.

2. 1 do not think that the future mission of converted: Jews to preach the gospel of the Kingdom for a witness to all the nations can be said to coalesce with Matt. 28: 19, because there is baptism to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit enjoined on those who bowed in the latter case. This is the special revelation of God proper to Christianity, and goes far beyond the preaching just before the end.

3. The mission of the Twelve was before the Transfiguration which brought out His rejection, death, and heavenly glory as risen. That of the Seventy followed as an extraordinary call of grace, and therefore in full keeping with the design and character of Luke's Gospel as compared with Matthew and Mark. But we need not suppose that these things and others were yet understood. In the latter case, so urgent was it, they were to salute no one on the way; and the rejection of them was to reject both Himself and Him who sent Jesus.

Bible Treasury Volume N4, p. 271. June 1903.

Q. — Ps. 120: 5. Have you any light on the peoples so remarkably associated with Israel in the latter day? The commentators seem perplexed by these names, and without anything of moment to suggest. W.

A. — It may be fairly asked if the construction of "sojourn" does not point to "with" Meshech, rather than "in" (as Ps. 5: 5 (4); as also the preposition "with" is really meant, and not "in," the tents of Kedar. Hence it is not dwelling among these enemies that is intended, but their hostile proximity to the sons of Israel in their land. The difficulty supposed from the one belonging to the far north, the Muscovites once inhabiting the country near the Euxine, but afterwards with others migrating to the land of Magog or Russia, and the other to the north-west of Arabia in the south, is exactly what gives point to the plaint. The Psalm refers to the last part of the latter day crisis, when Gog (as in Ezek. 38, 39) comes up to crush the restored people dwelling in their unwalled villages. Little does the great and last north-eastern chief of Rosh (the Russians), Meshech (the Muscovites), and Tubal (the Tobolskians), know that Jehovah-Jesus is their King, and that he with his vast hordes, not only of Gomer and Togarmah, etc., in the north, but down to Persia, Cush, and Phut, and as here Kedar in the south, only come up to be punished for their unbelieving greed and presumption, that Jehovah may make Himself known in the eyes of many nations, at the beginning of His glorious Kingdom for a thousand years, It is of interest, one may add, that the Assyrian inscriptions connect two of the three, Mushai and Tuplai; as Herodotus much later the Moschi with the Tibarini. In the Byzantine historians, οἱ Ῥὼς is used for the Russians, the very name by which the Septuagint long before rendered the Hebrew Rosh employed by Ezekiel.

Q. 1. — What took place on the cross when God forsook Jesus, as He said? Was the divine entirely withdrawn, leaving only the human, or, if not, what? C. B. St. G.

A. 1. — The union of the divine and the human in the Person of Christ was indissoluble from the moment of the incarnation. It was an error distinctive of the Gnostics to imagine a separation when He was about to suffer atoningly and die. And the error is fatal to the divine efficacy of atonement, as well as to the abiding glory of His Person. He had been a sufferer from man all His days on earth, and these sufferings were intensified as He hung on the cross: how did not dogs and bulls of Bashan, as Ps. 22 expresses it, vent their shameless spite and unbridled rage then! But the psalm opens with the new and infinitely solemn fact that God forsook Him — forsook Him when man failed, even His disciples forsaking Him and fleeing, when He most of all needed sympathy. But no: He must drink the cup to the dregs, he made sin, and bear our sins in His body on the tree, have God, His God, dealing with Him, as thus giving Himself as a sacrifice up to God for sin, where all was darkness and not a ray of kindly light could enter. Till then He had walked in the unclouded enjoyment of His Father's love; but then He must taste, as He did to the uttermost, what God feels and must execute as the Judge of sin, and (in His case) of all the sins which were laid on Hit; holy head. This was the perfection of His suffering, not merely from man for righteousness and love, but what was peculiar to Himself, and peculiar to that time of atonement, suffering from God for sin because He was faithful to man and came to save sinners. Only thus could God be glorified about sin; only thus could the unjust be justified to God's glory and the full proof of divine grace also, as laying the ground for the righteousness of God in Christ. Never was the unfathomable love for God and man so proved in Him as when thus bearing our judgment at God's hand on the cross; but for that very reason it could not be a time for Christ's enjoying the communion of His love and delight as ever before and since. This was the necessary change then.

Q. 2. — Why should You think the word "spirit" in Rom. 8: 10 means the Holy Ghost and not man's spirit? C. B. St. G.

A. 2. — It is evident if we examine the context that the "Spirit" in the verses before and after the text referred to means the Spirit of God, variously characterised in ver. 9 and especially 11, but none other than the Holy Ghost. The spirit of man introduced in any of these cases would not only weaken and destroy the truth intended, but render the reasoning null and void; and so it is down to ver. 16, Where first we hear of "our spirit," and here only. For in vers. 23, 26, 27, it is beyond doubt the Holy Spirit. It is true that ver. 10 implies that we are quickened inwardly, but the inspired word goes further. It is not that the "spirit is quickened," but that "the Spirit is life." This could only in my judgment be said of the Holy Spirit. The continuation of the argument in ver. 11 confirms this, because the same Spirit is not only "life" in the believer now, but shall also quicken our mortal bodies by and by at Christ's presence, and thus complete the work of grace by a deliverance even of the body from the last vestige of the power of death. It is so, because of "Christ in you."

Q. — 1 Cor. 7: 39, Does this scripture mean that a sister, or a brother, was allowed to marry, if so led, but "only in the Lord," that is, a fellow Christian? YOUNG DISCIPLE.

A. — In my judgment the apostle meant more than that. A Christian is called to walk by faith in everything, and how much he needs it in a step so important to his future here below! He might be attracted by a sister, who so differed from himself in habits, circumstances, and age as to make it unseemly for others and unhappy for themselves, but by the still sadder fact of such fleshly or worldly mind as to endanger his soul and his testimony, and all the more, if he had been of spiritual mind or sought to be. This scripture therefore seems to cover more than the bare fact of being in Christian fellowship, and teaches that the marrying should be in the Lord, that is, guided for their good to His glory, and so by His direction. This appears to be "only in the Lord."

Answers to Questions from the Bible Treasury Vol. N5-6.

Bible Treasury Volume N 5, p. 16. January 1904.

Q. — What is the bearing of 1 Peter 4: 15, 16, which seems passed over in the exposition we have had?

A. — The text strictly rendered may be thus given with remarks on it: "For let none of you suffer as murderer or thief or evil doer, or as spy on another's matter; but if as a Christian, let him not be ashamed but glorify God in this name." The same excellent witnesses, which do not give the latter half of verse 14 (in Text. Rec.), have here not "part" or "behalf" but "name," which quite falls in with the first half. The moral sense of mankind utterly condemns the first three offenders; yet into what might not a follower of Christ slip if he turned aside? He had learnt the hollowness of the world's estimate of evil, and therefore is the more exposed if he cease to walk by faith and constrained by the love of Christ. He had also learnt the new and dear relation (with its resulting duties) of the holy brotherhood into which our Lord has brought us. Therefore, if love as well as faith did not guide him practically, who in such danger of prying into other people's affairs? For, if in a bad state, he would be sure to regard others as no better than himself: how wretched an excuse for or justification of his own faults! But if he suffered as a Christian, what an honour! The world gave this name as a taunt to the disciples of a rejected and crucified Christ. Faith knows Him dead and risen and glorified at God's right hand, and looks for everlasting glory together with Him, and that the very world will know Him thus at His appearing. What is the grandest throne on earth but brief and mean in comparison? For, besides the millennial display, we shall live through Him unto the ages of the ages, reigning in life through the Saviour.

Bible Treasury Volume N 5, p. 31. February 1904.

Q. — Psalm 104: 26. Does it not seem remarkable that the Psalmist, in the midst of the rehearsal of the works of God, should introduce a work of man? — "There go the ships." Is there just ground for the supposition that by ships are intended fleets of the little nautilus ("which spread their thin oar and catch the driving gale"), creatures of God? Vers. 27-29 seem to exclude the idea of ships being meant. C.J.D.

A. — No doubt the allusion to "the ships" in ver. 26 is a singular and notable introduction, between the marine creatures small and great before, and the one specified after. But the reference has all the more force. The ships glided majestically, and are ever an object of interest to the observer; while the bulky creatures that played within its waters did not escape notice, though not so continuously. "Moving things countless" naturally led from living creatures of the deep to the ships which made their way visibly across the sea. Even they for the purposes of those concerned (and how wide these interests all over the world!) were as dependent on God's care as any of its objects which the Psalm contemplates from the heavens, and the earth, the mountains, the valleys, the springs, the grass and the herb, the wine, oil, and bread, the birds and the wild-goats, the sun and the moon, the monarch of wild beasts and the monarch of creation, before the great and wide sea comes before us.

On the other hand the Nautilus, interesting as it is, presents no such conspicuous object on the sea. Here and there it may abound as in the warm waters of the Pacific and the Australian Oceans, and off the coasts of Asia and Africa and some of their islands. But even so they make no show on the smallest scale comparable to "the ships;" they are as a snail on land compared with the house of man. So rare was the sight of one at sea, that the scientists say "the recovery of this interesting animal was reserved for a British voyager (Mr. G. Bennett, who describes its capture on 24 Aug., 1829, in his "Wanderings in. N.S. Wales," etc.). It struck them as "like a small dead tortoise-shell cat"; and this being so unusual a sight there led to the sending the boat, alongside at the time, to ascertain its nature. Is it conceivable that genus Nautilus of the first Fam. Nautilidae, of Order B. Tentaculifera of D'Orbigny [Prof. Owen's Tetrabranchiata] of the Cephalopoda, should be here meant? "The ships" are an exception, but one so graphic as to fall naturally into this wonderful picture around man as its centre according to God: No sufficient reason appears to warrant their exclusion.

Q. — John 8: 1-11. Is this story a gloss, as so many of the learned reckon, or is it of God? L.L.

A. — When celibacy was an idol, we can understand how unacceptable were the Lord's words. Even Augustine attributed its omission to infirm or no faith. Yet bearing in mind that our earliest copies are of that age, we see marks proving a wilful omission, with ample testimony to its existence. But the Christian can recognise the Shepherd's voice, such as no forger ever invented, and can note that the fact supplies the occasion for the discourse that follows, as in John 4, 5, 6, which otherwise would deprive John 8 of its analogous starting-point. Beyond just question it is of God.

Q. — Does not ξύλον, tree, and σταυρὸς, imply not the traditional form of a. cross, but rather a pole or stake? L.L.

A. — The "tree" was rather generic; and even the Jews used it as a sign of curse and degradation, after killing the evil-doer. The "cross," is more specific, sometimes applied to impaling, at others to suspending the body from the middle, but still more widely to proper crucifixion by nailing the sufferer to an upright beam with a transverse to which the stretched arms were fastened. So the inspired description proves it was in our Lord's case; where there was also all elongation of the central board, bearing over the head the memorable words which Pilate wrote to the dire offence of the Jews. Its form then resembled, not an X as some fancy, but a T with that headpiece surmounting the centre of the cross-beam, pretty near what is generally conceived.

Bible Treasury Volume N 5, p. 48. March 1904.

Q. — 1. Job 22: 30. What is the meaning of the first clause?

2. 39: 13. Can the peacock be meant here? Q.

A. — 1. There is no "island" expressed in either the Sept. or Vulgate, which removes one difficulty. But Schultens seems to have perceived first that the word so translated is a negative, as we see in I-chabod. That sense therefore is quite opposed by those two ancient versions, and it should run thus: "Him that is not guiltless shall He deliver: yea, he shall be delivered by the pureness of thy hands."

2. The A.V. is far from a correct representation. The peacock seems first known, even to Israel in the days of Solomon, and the name is Indian Hebraized. It is the ostrich which is really in the first clause, contrasted with the stork in the second. "The wing of the ostrich flappeth joyously (or, rejoiceth): but hath she the stork's pinion and plumage?" This the Revisers considered a figure, in order perhaps to smooth the connection with what follows, and say "are her pinions and feathers kindly" (and in the margin, "like the stork's"). But assuredly the peacock is not meant here, a bird more striking for its splendid tail when expanded, which does not enter into the description given; whereas the ostrich, unlike the stork for power of flight, runs with the utmost rapidity, and is devoid of that parental fondness which characterises the stork. The same ancient versions are vague enough.

Q. — Hab. 2: 2. What is the true bearing of the last clause? There seems some confusion in the quotation of it that one almost invariably hears. Is the Synopsis or Dr. Pusey right in their view? They say that "he who runs may read it," i.e. that it was to be written so plain as to be read by the hasty glance of one that hurried by. Is it really so? Q.

A, — There can hardly be a doubt that most versions are right, but the commentators wrong, even those who have rendered the Hebrew correctly. The translation of Isaac Leeser, generally correct, is here faulty and in accord with the common mistake, "that every man may read it fluently." Is the misunderstanding due to the influence of popular misquotation? For the word is written plainly, not "that he who runs may read it," but "that he who readeth it may run" — just the opposite. The inference may be merely that the reader need not stop; but may it not be the more worthy one of earnestly pursuing the work of making known the revealed purpose of Jehovah for others also to profit thereby? When the crisis comes, as we are told by another prophet, many shall run to and fro, and knowledge (surely of a spiritual and higher sort than of the stars or of the fossils, of chemistry or of electricity) shall be increased. Assuredly the need of that is as great as it is all-important.

Bible Treasury Volume N 5, p. 62. April 1904.

Q. — Γέεννα, κρίσις, αἰώνιος. What light can you give on these? Lightfoot, Plumptre, Farrar, and others eminently learned, held "aeon," "aeonion" against "eternal," everlasting, etc. Where and how do they depart from scripture truth?  T.O.B.

A. — Without doubt many learned men have written in unbelief as to these solemn terms in the N. T. The unbelief displays itself generally in undermining the divine authority of scripture, and particularly in enfeebling and darkening such words as intimate the everlasting character of God's judgment of sin. What evidence is there that the late Bishop Lightfoot was thus guilty? As he used αἰὼν for the world of eternity, and another form of it for "eternal" in his note on Gal. 1: 4, it is certain that he held a quite opposed conviction, and unless proof therefore be given that he changed, let us believe that the imputation is erroneous. But the truth depends on God's word, not on man's opinion which is of no real worth.

1. Γέεννα, Gehenna, was derived from the valley of Hinnom so often spoken of in Kings and Chronicles, the receptacle for burning all that defiled, and became the figure for the place of endless punishment.

The N.T. and especially the Lord Himself deepens its usaue from anything seen outside of Jerusalem to what we in English call Hell, with which Hades (referring to departed spirits) ought never to be confounded. No spiritual mind can doubt that He taught its final and everlasting character in Matt. 5: 22, 29, 30; Matt. 10: 28; Matt. 18: 9; Matt. 23: 15, 33; Mark 9: 43, 45, 47; Luke 12: 5.

2. Not less certain is it that, unless modified by limiting words αἰὼν and αἰώνιος are regularly used in the N.T. for "eternity" and "eternal." Though even heathen philosophers, used to express themselves in their native tongue of the purest Greek, and with their utmost precision, contrast both substantive and adjective with what began to be and was transitory. It is not credible that any fairly read man could be unaware that Plato sets them distinctly in this opposition. Take for example his Timaeus (Baiter, Orelli and Winck. p. 712); and again Aristotle in his De Coelo (Bekker, i. 279), at the end of which chap. 9 lays down that αἰὼν derived its name ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀεὶ εἶναι, from being forever. If these heathen had heard of God's awarding such a doom to guilty sinners and dreaded it for themselves, they too might have resorted to the shift of an "age" and "age-long" like the sceptical among whom so many divines, especially in our day, are not ashamed to stand. Did any flatter themselves in an understanding of Greek better than these two ancient philosophers? Can any sober person doubt that the denial of Farrar, Jukes, etc., is inexcusable? One sentence of the apostle (2 Cor. 4: 18) demolishes the error. For he too sets in open antagonism the things "temporal" with the "eternal" how could this be, if the "aeonia" were as transient as the temporal?

3. Neither are these speculative persons more reliable as to κρίσις, or judgment. No doubt the A.V. in more ways than one presents confused and inexact renderings of the verb, and its derived substantives as in the mistakes of Rom. 14: 22; 1 Cor. 11: 29, etc., so in John 5: 24, 27, 29, κρίσις, instead of being uniformly translated "judgment," as should be in all the three cases, and everywhere else. For it certainly in all means God's everlasting judgment, as being contrasted with "life eternal," the portion of believers only. The solemn truth is that the wicked are raised for it, a resurrection of judgment. What can be clearer than that raised for it does not mean extinguished in it? So in Rev. 20, 21 we are assured that the wicked exist for ever in their awful resurrection, as the righteous in their blessed and holy resurrection. In the fullest account of the eternal state (Rev. 21: 1-8) we see the New Jerusalem and the blessed then on the new earth. But we also see the accursed in the lake of fire, when God is all in all. So in Heb. 9: 27, 28, "judgment" for the heedless wicked is contrasted not with life eternal but with salvation. Annihilation has no basis whatever. What wisdom it is to believe God in subjection of heart! What folly to weaken, evade, or pervert such a warning!

Though conditional immortality has seduced some children of God, it is really unbelief of the great distinctive fact that man alone became a living soul by the inbreathing of Jehovah Elohim. Like other infidel speculations, it alike leaves out God and debases man as such into one of the mere forms of animal life. The inbreathing of God made man's soul immortal. This did not save from a sinful act, any more than it gave the believer life eternal now and immortality for the body by-and-by. Conditional immortality destroys the true nature and place God gave main, as His offspring, in contradistinction from all other animated beings on earth. It supposes man to be only an animal with inward power superior to that of a dog or a horse; and with this lie against the truth as to man as man, it overthrows his responsibility as a creature to obey God. Who thinks that a dog has any consciousness of God, or fears having to bear His judgment of sins? But scripture declares this of man; and all experience confirms that man, when guilty, cannot avoid reference to the God he dishonours, however much superstition or infidelity may strive to efface it.

Q. — What according to scripture is the character of the future Jewish remnant, after the rapture of the saints, before Christ and they appear together in glory? DISCIPLE.

A. — Take the following concise answer in the words of another.

They are godly; under law; upright in heart, yet confessing their people's blood-guiltiness; they are looking for Jehovah's intervention against their enemies. They are persecuted under the beast; betrayed by their false brethren who have received the Antichrist. All these sorrows find expression in the Psalms. In using them they begin, as I understand it, but dimly at first, to perceive that some One has been in these trying circumstances before them; One who when He cried to Jehovah, was heard. "This poor man cried, and Jehovah heard him, and delivered him out of all his troubles." This encourages them to cry that He may deliver them. Gradually the thought of His being more than man dawns and grows on their souls. Jeremiah may tell them, "Cursed is the man that trusteth in man" (17: 5) while Ps. 2 will say, "Blessed are all they which trust in him." This seems a contradiction; but the perception of His divine nature is gradually but effectually taking its place in their souls, until the moment comes when He appears to their deliverance, and they look on Him whom they pierced and mourn, and find Him to be Jehovah's fellow — nay, Jehovah Himself.

Q. — What is the difference between the calling and the inheritance as in the Epistle to the Ephesians, from the same terms in the First Epistle of Peter? J.O.

A. — The Apostle Paul was given to reveal the calling and the inheritance in all the height and depth, length and breadth of the glory of Christ, the Son and glorified man in the heavenlies, the Head over all things and Heir of all things, our portion one with Himself and joint-heirs with Him.

The Apostle Peter was inspired to present rather the Christian's heavenly calling and place, and God's family, His priests and kings, in contrast with Israel's hopes; and therefore to an incorruptible and undefiled and unfading inheritance reserved in the heavens for those that are here, guarded by God's power through faith for the salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. It is not a great mystery as in Eph. 5: 32, respecting Christ and respecting the church; any more than the mystery of God's will and purpose (Eph. 1: 9, 10) in setting Christ at the head of the universe heavenly and earthly, the inheritance in its fullest extent.

Q. — 1. What do you consider the force of the two expressions, "in Christ," and "in the Lord"? 2. What means, as said of marriage, "only in the Lord" (1 Cor. 7: 39)? G.B.B.

A. — 1. Though they approach nearly, there is a shade of difference, the first rather expressing privilege, the latter responsibility. 2. This is certainly so in the case proposed. Two persons might be "in Christ," truly attached in affection, but the one entering into the full relationship of the Christian, the other hardly rising in faith or practice above a simple believer, content with remission of sins and general care as to moral walk, and in a false position ecclesiastically. Would it be "in the Lord" for such to marry? Can two walk together before Him who are not agreed in a duty so important for His glory?

Bible Treasury Volume N 5, p. 80. May 1904.

Q. — Judges 18: 30. The Revised Version substitutes "Moses" for "Manasseh" in this verse. Has this change good authority? INQUIRER.

A. — The R. V. is not without good reason for the change from "Manasseh" to "Moses." Even D. Kimchi, a famous Rabbi, allowed that the copyists were ashamed that a grandson of the legislator should have sunk into becoming the priest of an idol, and sought to conceal the fact by the substitution of "Manasseh." De Rossi as well as Kennicott have the witness of MSS. for the true reading. Even in the Masoretic text there is the remarkable and suspicious circumstance that the "n" is written above the proper line. Now this is the only letter in the unpointed Hebrew, by which the one name differs from the other.

It may be added that the two incidents at the end of Judges (Judges 17, 18, 19-21) are not in chronological sequence of what precedes (as a careless reader might assume from their place), but occurred in the early days of its history. Both took place in the second generation after Aaron and Moses, as attested by Gershom's son in the one, and by Phinehas in the other. The aim of both accounts was to show how deeply Israel was even then corrupted Godward and manward.

Bible Treasury Volume N 5, p. 95. June 1904.

Q. — John 3: 35, 36. Have we to consider these verses as not the utterance of John the Baptist but of John the writer of the Gospel? INQUIRER.

A. — I think that internal evidence is clear that the testimony of John the Baptist closes with ver. 34; and that vers. 35, 36 are the comment of the Evangelist. For John's answer from ver. 27, however given of God, does not exceed what was within the measure of his spiritual knowledge; whilst the concluding vers. 35, 36, are the reflex of the deeper and higher truth which the Lord taught His disciples. We may see that such a comment is in the manner of the Evangelist in John 1: 16-18; John 2: 21-25; John 7: 39; John 8: 27, 30; John 11: 51; John 12: 33, 37-43, etc.

Q. — Is there any restrictive rule as to speaking in the assembly? MATHETES.

A. — Certainly in 1 Cor. 14: 27-29 there are restrictive rules put as to speaking in the assembly. The very disorder in the church at Corinth furnished the occasion for the profit of all afterwards. "If any speak" with a tongue, two or at most three, and in turn (or, separately), and let one interpret; but if there be no interpreter, let him be silent in an assembly, and let him speak to himself and to God. And let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge."

The apostle had just laid down the great principle, "Let all things be done to edification." Then he applies it to the two typical or representative cases; to a tongue on the one hand; and on the other to prophesying. He begins with what the vain Greek mind affected most, speaking with a tongue, because it was so open and surprising a witness of divine power. It electrified people. But in an assembly, if alone, it did not edify. Therefore if he who had "a tongue" could not interpret, or no interpreter was there, he must be silent and content with speaking to himself and to God: an excellent lesson, where there was the desire to display that gift. Even if there was an interpreter, edifying required only two or at the most three.

Next, he turns to prophesying which had the highest character of direct edifying, and directs that two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge, not add their contributions, which could only distract instead of edifying, but rather hinder the profit of what came from God. Under this regulation comes teaching of any kind "in assembly for edification, encouragement, consolation, exhortation, warning or any other spiritual aim. More than "two or three," even if possessed of the most weighty of God's gifts, is forbidden in the most distinct and absolute way.

The question is, if we believe that grace still preserves meeting "in assembly," and if we in divine mercy cherish so signal a privilege, spite of its absence in general, are we subject to the "Lord's commandment" in these things as in all else? It is to be feared that many forget it, and think that prevalent ruin opens the door to laxity and self-will. Perhaps others too have heard not many years since of no less than eight speakers! occupying a professedly Christian assembly, and rather boasting of this plethora of talk, as if it were a proof of zeal, simplicity, or the freedom which the Spirit of the Lord creates. It really indicated their lack of intelligence or subjection to the inspired word which they could not but know, but failed to recognise; and love of letting their voices be heard on such a solemn occasion, which is meant to witness that God is verily in or among the saints.

In vers. 34-36 is another and a prohibitory rule, "Let the women keep silence in the assemblies; for it is not permitted to them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And if they wish to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for a woman to speak in an assembly. What! went the word of God out from you? or came it to you alone?"

Such is His regulation of His assembly. Would we as Christians prefer, or even tolerate for ourselves, an assembly independent of God, where man speaks as he pleases? How necessary it is to judge ourselves, especially if we exercise the title to judge other people. What is more excellent than obedience?

Bible Treasury Volume N 5, p. 112. July 1904.

Q. — 1 John 5: 20. The article before "eternal life" in this verse is said not to have authority sufficient to retain it in the Greek. What difference does the presence or absence of the article make for this passage? In the controversy during recent years on "life eternal" I have seen it stated, that the absence of the article here renders this passage to mean that "life eternal" is "characteristic" of Christ, not that He is personally "the life eternal." INQUIRER.

A. — In 1 John 5: 20 the oldest and best authority excludes the article before "life eternal." But it is only a novice in zeal for the notion that could thence infer that the phrase is characteristic and not objective. For the article before "the true God" is passed on by the connective particle to "life eternal" also according to a well-known principle of its usage. "The true God and life eternal" are thus bound up with our Lord Jesus Christ in the striking way peculiar to this Epistle, which combines God with Him, or as here with life eternal. The case therefore is not only an oversight, but a cogent proof against those who would separate them. Had the article been repeated before "life," it would have made them distinct objects, the very thing which the apostle avoided. The opening chapter 1 (ver. 2) is most emphatic in predicating objective reality of "the life eternal," both with the Father before He became flesh, and when He was thus manifested. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing," especially for such as hastily seize a superficial appearance in questions so grave and momentous, where truth and safety are found only in entire subjection to the written word.

Q. — Col. 1: 18, Head of the body. Is there any ground for deducing from J.N.D.'s French Version, that he by "chef" denied Christ to be "head," and made Him only "chief"? A.V.

A. — Those who talk thus have no other ground for their notion, than their own will to lower Christ, along with ignorance of the French language, which treats "tête" in this connection as antique and prefers "chef" in the same sense as its substitute. The real word in the context for "chief" is "first-born," both in creation (ver. 15), and in new creation (ver. 18). But the word employed by the Spirit of God in this last verse for "head," "head of the body," means this and nothing else and Mr. D. never allowed a thought of anything short of it. Nor could any one familiar with his writings or oral teaching have the least question about it. The indulgence of such baseless speculation, both as to his faith and yet more seriously as to scripture, betrays the spirit of error in opposition to the Spirit of truth.

Bible Treasury Volume N 5, p. 143. September 1904.

Q. — John 1: 1, 2; John 17: 3, etc. What scripture would you bring in support of the deity of Christ?

1. John 17: 3 refers to the "Father" as "the only true God." A man belonging to the "Faith" sect points out that John 1 makes a distinction between "the word was with God" (should be "the God"), whereas "the word was God" (is not "the God"); and that this prevents him from accepting the statement that Jesus is God in the full sense that the Father is the true God as in John 17.

2. I don't understand Greek, but I notice the verse in the R.V. is weakened by the margin "thy throne O God is," etc. (Heb. 1) which you have quoted in a back number of T.N. & O. in support of the deity of Christ.

3. What answer would you give to those who dismiss the reality of the mount of transfiguration scene, and its proof in favour of the present conscious existence of Moses and Elias, by stating it is only a vision"? What about the heavenly vision"?

4. A "Faith" man argued that "the kingdom" and "Paradise" are the same or similar as "When thou comest into Thy kingdom," with "This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise." In proof of it, he pointed out that man in Paradise was set over the works of God's hands, and that Paradise was the kingdom, or the beginning of it. QUERIST.

A. — The very first chapter of the first Gospel proves Jesus to be not only the Messiah genealogically, but God and Jehovah. He is Emmanuel, or God with us (Isaiah 7); and He should save His people, Jehovah's people, from their sins. He could say, "Before Abraham was (came into being), I am," the ever being One, or, as in the Revelation, the Alpha and the Omega, First and Last, the Beginning and the End. He was, is, and ever shall be God. No Christian doubts but affirms that He, the Word and Son, became man, but also that He was eternally God. True Christianity depends on His person, as His word assures us who believe; and the denial of it will be, for those guilty of it, their perdition no less righteous than true. So in Rom. 9: 5 Christ is declared to be over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

1. As the Father is the true God, so is the Son (1 John 5: 20); and we might add the Holy Spirit also. This is proved of the three Persons, if we compare Isa. 6 with John 12: 41, and Acts 28: 25-27: all the truth, and grace, and glory pertain to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, alike God and Jehovah.

The "faith sect" must be a burlesque of faith, a school of nothing but unbelief. The man referred to understands Greek no better than Querist who owns his ignorance honestly. For the distinction in John 1: 1 has nothing to do with the alleged difference, but only with the predicative usage, which in Greek requires the absence of the article, as every scholar knows.

2. Psalm 45: 6, 7 is expressly cited by the inspired writer of Heb. 1: 8, 9, as proving the Son to be God as well as man.

3. The Transfiguration scene had for its object to give a living sample of the Son of man's future kingdom to the three chosen witnesses; and, as its still more important effect, to make known the glory of Jesus as the Son of the Father, before whom the great representatives of the Law and the Prophets vanish; "hear ye Him." That Moses and Elijah have "present conscious existence" required no such a display; they were like the fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and indeed not only all saints, but all souls of men. God is not God of dead but of living; for all live unto Him, " But I say to you, my friends, Fear not those that kill the body, and after this have no more that they can do. But I will show you whom ye shall fear: Fear him who after he hath killed hath authority to cast into hell; yea, I say to you, Fear him." It is to trifle with Him, when any essay to treat the Transfiguration, or the apostle's "heavenly vision," as unreal. God is not mocked.

4. The unbeliever's argument, if so be it can be called, to identify "the kingdom" with "paradise" is mere trash and confusion, and not even the least bit of sound reasoning. The Lord that day entered paradise, and so did the saved robber. The Kingdom will be at His coming. The paradise of Adam was ruined by sin; the paradise of the second Man and last Adam stands in the righteousness of God, and was open that very day to him that had faith in Jesus. Of Him spoke Ps. 8 prophetically, not retrospectively of the first man that fell.

Q. — Rev. 6: 9. Who were these saints, and by what means brought to God? A CONSTANT READER OF THE B.T.

A. — It is certain and clear that these saints in question were not of Christian standing, but apparently believing Jews, called after the translation on high of the heavenly saints (of the O.T. as well as of the N.T.), and seen around the throne under the symbol of the twenty-four crowned elders. They on the other hand were seen underneath the altar, as victims offered up to God, "the souls of those that had been slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held; and they cried with a loud voice," not at all as Stephen did in Acts 7, but like the godly Jewish remnant in the Psalms and the Prophets, "saying, How long, Lord [or, sovereign Master], holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on those that dwell on the earth? And there was given to them each a white robe; and it was said to them that they should rest yet a little while, until both their fellow-bondmen and their brethren who were about to be killed as they, should be fulfilled." Their resurrection to reign with Christ was to come; and Rev. 20: 1 describes it for them in Rev. 6 and those to follow them in Rev. 13.

We are not told, as far as I know, by what means they were brought to God; but there is no difficulty in conceiving that He may have wrought immediately, by His grace through the word in some, who were used to act on others, as He has often done even in our day where the more ordinary means failed.

Bible Treasury Volume N 5, p. 175. November 1904.

Q. — The great difference between the descent of the Spirit upon Christ as a dove, and upon believers as a cloven tongue of fire, struck me so forcibly that I searched the subject out and saw that He being holy, harmless, undefiled and separate from sinners, received the Spirit (not that He was not immaculate by the Spirit from His mother's womb before) as an emblem of purity and harmlessness — a dove; whereas the believer, sinful still, received Him as a cloven tongue of fire. Was not the promise of Matt. 3: 11 fulfilled at Pentecost, a baptism with the Holy Ghost and with fire? I connected with it 1 Cor. 3: 13, to the effect that the believer who is led by the Spirit will not build inflammable structures; but that if he exert his own quenching influence upon the fire of the Holy Spirit, worthless building must result. Then again, 1 Cor. 3: 5, "ye are the temple of God; The Spirit dwelleth in you."

Thus the unquenchable fire (Matt. 3: 12) to me seemed the Spirit Himself who seeks daily to burn up the chaff of flesh and self, and so to transform us more and more into the likeness of Christ. It is the purifying influence of fire, that we generally failed to admit a baptism of fire as coincident.

We speak of allowing the Spirit to work, and so exclude the works of the flesh and expel them too: is not this the purifying work of fire? The symbol seems to fit well. When (1 Cor. 3) the day shall declare our works, how much of flesh shall be burnt up by fire! all man's building undirected by the Spirit. Had the Spirit been allowed to do His work, would not these works have been burnt up at their inception instead of their author's having to suffer loss after this life's close? The "quench not the Spirit," is it necessarily a negative command to the assembly? The accompanying commands seem to be to individuals. Can not an individual effectually quench the Spirit, or does σβέννυτε go too far for this?

If the fire of the Spirit is not for purifying purposes, why the promise in Matt. 3 and the cloven tongue of Pentecost? and is not Matt. 3: 12 applicable in great measure here and now, at this present time? And is not this what He is doing continually in us as we pass along? Is it not His will that by this process we should be more and more transformed into the likeness of Christ? What means "Our God is a consuming fire?" Q.

A. — It is well to observe that the form of the Spirit's appearance is stated in our Lord's case to be "as a dove," and in the saints "as of fire." There was divine suitability in each; and as gentleness marked the one, so the testimony of the other was to judge and consume as fire all opposing falsehood. But this is not the complete fulfilment of Matt. 3, though a moral witness of what awaits the Lord's execution of judgment on the living at His appearing. As the O.T. often mixes the two comings of Messiah, so did John the Baptist the twofold baptism. Not till He comes again is the winnowing fan in His hand, whence He shall throughly purge His threshing-floor, and gather His wheat into His garner, but also burn the chaff with the unquenchable fire. Surely this last is in no way a moral purifying of faults of the righteous, but the judicial destruction of the wicked. Luke, who brings in the Gentiles, does the same; for His judgment will befall them too.

This is corroborated by the Gospel of Mark, who did not write especially for the Jews as Matthew, but as the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Accordingly in God's wisdom he presents John the Baptist as speaking of Christ's baptising with the Holy Spirit (Mark 1: 8), but not a word about the baptism of fire. That baptism took place at Pentecost. So in John's Gospel (John 1: 33) we hear of Christ's baptising with the Holy Spirit only. His judgment on the quick is here left out, but will surely be at Christ's second advent.

1 Cor. 3: 12-15 has nothing to do with the baptism of fire spoken of in Matt. 3: 11, 12, and in Luke 16, 17; nor does any one of them speak of its purifying influence, still less of burning up the chaff of flesh and self. For us the basis was laid in the cross where God condemned sin in the flesh, and as a sin-offering for us, and thus our sinful nature had His judgment executed on it, as well as our sins borne away. No doubt there is also a daily moral government carried on,. as our Lord pointed out in the Vine (John 15), the fruit-bearing branches being cleansed (we read) by the water of the word, whilst the fruitless are left for the fire of another day; but there is no mixing up the two for this day. The transforming into Christ's image from glory to glory, even as by the Lord the Spirit, is by looking on His glory with unveiled face, after the type of Moses, as 2 Cor. 3 tells us. — Heb. 12: 29 refers to Deut. 4: 24, in no way to the baptism of the Spirit.

Q. — Do the following scriptures teach that we the children of God shall never see God? "No man hath seen God at any time." "He dwelleth in light, which no man can approach unto." "Whom no man hath seen, nor can see." "He (Christ) is the image of the invisible God." A.J.R.

A. — It seems to me that the querist supplies the answer. The pure in heart are to see God, but Christ is the medium, whether in grace or in glory. Scripture cannot be broken; and both John and Paul intimate that it is Christ who reveals Him to us. The manner of our seeing God is made as plain as His inaccessibility whose essence no man ever saw or can see. The more we know His grace the more let us own His proper majesty and our own place in respect of Him. He is the blessed and only Ruler, the King of those that reign, and Lord of those that exercise lordship, Who only hath immortality, to Whom be honour and eternal might, and the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ shall show it.

Bible Treasury Volume N 5, p. 190. December 1904.

Q. — 1. Gen. 1: 16. Why the "two great lights" mentioned in the fourth day's work, seeing that the sun is really the centre of our planetary system? and how could it have been dark (ver. 2) if the sun was then in existence?

Q. — 2. Gen. 1: 29, 30, Gen. 2: 16, Gen. 3: 18. By comparing the sustenance of man and beast in Gen. 1: 29, 30, Gen. 2: 16, with Gen. 3: 18, does it not seem as if man was reduced to level of beasts in the field — "thou shalt eat the herb of the field" — and after that it goes on to say "dust thou art, etc.?"

Q. — 3. Gen. 3: 15. What is the meaning of thy seed (the devil's seed), and of "thy seed and her seed?

Q. — 4. Luke 4: 18. What lesson is to be learnt from the insertion of "recovering of sight to the blind" in Luke 4: 18 though absent from Isaiah 61: 1? E.N.

A. — 1. The two "great lights" were constituted as they still are (not created then) in relation to the earth prepared for man, like the work of all the six days. The dense darkness that prevailed in the chaotic state which preceded these days easily accounts for the gloom, though the sun, moon and stars were already in existence since God created the heavens and the earth, which took place, it may be, ever so long before the great geologic ages previous to the Adamic race. Not that scripture is occupied with these material processes; but it leaves ample room before the first day in ver. 3.

A. — 2. There was no "reducing" man to fruit and vegetable as his early food till the deluge, when animal fare was allowed with prohibition of the blood with good and holy reason assigned. Man enjoyed even before far beyond "beasts of the field." Yet even so through sin his body is as reducible to the dust as any beast's. But why omit that he only has a soul immortal (for good or for ill) through the inbreathing of Jehovah Elohim? He only was, solemnly in divine council, made "in our image, after our likeness"; the most distinct separateness from, and elevation above, every other creature on earth. Why lose sight of this?

A. — 3. Can there he conceived a weightier announcement, after sin had entered with death ensuing, than Jehovah Elohim made in pronouncing the curse on the Serpent? "I will put enmity between thy seed and her seed: it shall bruise thy head, and thou shall bruise his heel." While countless souls are by grace associated for all blessing and triumph with the woman's seed, One is marked out, on Whom all the blessed of similar seed depend, Who should suffer the deepest anguish, yet live (again, as we can add) to crush him who was the liar and the murderer from the beginning, and all who, refusing grace, perpetuate the enmity of Satan.

A. — 4. It would seem that the Seventy, who translated the O.T. into Greek, added here from elsewhere in the prophet Isaiah, another beneficent fruit of Messiah's presence and power, the bestowal of sight on the blind. Dean Alford in his note to this text refers to Isaiah 58: 6. If this be correctly represented, it is hard to discover the link literally or spiritually. It may be more simply and fairly referred to Isaiah 35: 5, where the sense is the same, though the words differ. Luke cites here and elsewhere from the Septuagint. No other lesson seems intended.

Q. — Isaiah 7: 14. "Behold, the virgin," etc. It is asked, for some young men stumbled by the allegation of a non-Jewish source, what reply should be given. X. Z.

A. — It was to be expected that Satan would imitate in his lies what God gave as a gracious sign to the incredulous but superstitious and profane Ahaz through the prophet Isaiah. Yet the difference between the true and the false is irresistible, when one weighs the occasion that called forth the original prediction, the character of the alleged sacred books, and the moral aim and effect sought and produced. "What is the chaff to the wheat, saith Jehovah?"

Besides, if it be pretended that a heathen tradition of the kind existed anterior to Isaiah, the believer can point to the first communication, when Adam and Eve sinned in the paradise of Eden. The most obtuse, self-willed, or irrational of rationalists cannot avoid seeing that grace was pleased to give prominence to the "woman," contrary to all natural thoughts and especially at that moment. Nor was it only that "born of woman" was thus singularly predicated of the coining Messiah. It was no less evident that, while He would thus be man, more fully than Adam who was not born, He must be more than man to reach and crush the great spiritual foe, who used a serpent's form for his deadly enmity to God and man. "Immanuel" expresses this, God-with-us. The authentic bears the holy imprint of God's grace and truth; the spurious suits Satan and his seed of lies among men. The time is long come when men turn away their ear from the truth, and turn aside to fables.

Q. — 1. Heb. 8: 3. How are we to understand the last clause? What has our Great High Priest in heaven now to offer, seeing He had previously on the Cross offered Himself?

Q. — 2. Is there any scriptural warrant for the statement that the Lord Jesus offered or presented the church to the Father on the day of Pentecost? W.G.

A. — 1. I presume that the Great Priest offered the greatest gift ever presented or presentable to God, Himself dead and risen representing not His person only but His infinite work on the cross.

A. — 2. I see no warrant in scripture for His offering the church to the Father on the day of Pentecost. Such a thought ought not to be uttered without the word of God unambiguously for it. Why should Christians who have the whole revealed mind of God indulge in any fancy of their own?

Q. — Matt. 28. What is the name that should be used in baptising? I believe in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit according to last chapter of Matthew. But in America the majority among so-called O.B. use the name of the Lord Jesus according to the examples in the Acts of the Apostles. A SCOT ABROAD.

A. — Matthew's Gospel is the one which shows and provides for the then approaching transition from Judaism to the kingdom of the heavens, in mystery as it now is, and to the church. Besides, what can be more characteristically Christian than baptising unto the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? This could hardly be even intelligible to the future though godly Jewish remnant, whose faith will be in Jehovah, and His Anointed, Jesus the Lord. Not a few in Gt. Britain similarly misuse the Acts to depart from the true form. In the Acts only the general historical mention is made, and in keeping with its design of the book in asserting the Lordship of Christ, not once in giving the precise formula, save in the spurious verse, Acts 8: 37. It is easy to bring in His Lordship also in baptising; but unless to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, it scarcely deserves to be accounted proper Christian baptism, as it is an unintelligent and bold annulling of our Lord's express provision till the end of the age when His own are to be gathered into the heavenly garner.

Q. — 1 John 3: 9, 1 John 5: 1, 18. Some explain "whosoever" as referring to the new nature. To my mind it refers to the individual. Help is desired and will be appreciated. A.M.

A. — The individual has sustained a change of all moment. "I am crucified with Christ, and no longer live I, but Christ liveth in me; but what I now live in flesh, I live in faith that is of (or in) the Son of God who loved me, and gave himself up for me" (Gal. 2: 20). So in Rom. 7 where this question occasioned immense inward effort and trial of spirit, the soul was brought to see the radical distinction of the new from the old man: and to say "it is no more I that do it [evil], but sin that dwelleth in me," not to excuse but wholly condemn self, and cry for that deliverance which the new man craves and finds in Christ Jesus dead and risen. The apostle John too loves to think and speak absolutely of the believer in his new blessedness. It is clear that if Christ lives in Him, sin cannot result from such a life; equally so, that if one so blessed sin (as in 1 John 2: 1), it is from unwatchfulness in prayer which let in such an inconsistency. But John as the rule does not occupy himself with the modifications owing to the mixed condition, and holds to the absoluteness of the truth, as faith is entitled to do by grace. To doubt is not only infirm but a grievous error, and a wrong to Christ's work.

"HEATHEN THEORIES."

Such is the title of a short paper, which cannot be called a query. The writer seems above inquiry, and filled with Hindu ideas which he attributes to Christians. But it is untrue of the Christian, if it is true of the Hindu, that he regards scripture "as a single, indivisible, and mechanically inspired book, dictated throughout by the Deity, and from which all human elements are jealously excluded."

Now on the face of the Bible, there is the patent fact that it consists, not of "a single book," but of an immense "division:" the older in Hebrew with a small part for good reason in Aramaic; the later in Greek when the door of faith was to be opened to Gentiles; the one occupied with God's ways on earth, the other with His heavenly counsels based on the manifestation of His Son, the Lord Jesus, and of redemption. But yet more its contrast is apparent with the impostures of the Hindu and Arabian, in the vast variety of its writers in the O.T. as well as in the N.T., separated by very many centuries of old, but in a brief space for the more recent; yet with absolute unanimity where the same subject is broached. There is therefore in this and in all other ways the reverse of a "mechanical inspiration" in its many distinct but harmonious books;. by a legislator and a general, by judges and prophets, by kings and great ministers of state, by priest and herdsman by known and unknown; again, in the N.T. by a taxgatherer, and a physician, by fishermen of little learning, and by a tent-maker of great. "Dictated by the Deity" it is not, save in a comparatively small degree in the Pentateuch (chiefly in the latter part of Exodus, and we may say in all Leviticus), and in the later prophets. Nor are "all human elements jealously excluded," but abundantly, considerately, and most touchingly found, as the rule, from Genesis to the Book of Revelation. But it is inspired of God, God-breathed every part of it — "every scripture," as the apostle lays down authoritatively. The Lord Himself and the apostle Paul and Luke often used the Greek translation, not as if it was perfect everywhere but as adequate in its way. No wonder that neither the Veda nor the Koran bear translation, and attain it but slightly for the curiosity of some and of others to refute their vain imagination. The Bible lends itself remarkably to transfusion into all the tongues of men. The grand truth is that God controlled the many writers, notwithstanding their infirmities and allowing each his own style, so as to exclude error and give His word, Who cannot lie and needs not to repent.

Bible Treasury Volume N 5, p. 254. May 1905.

Q, — Rom. 8: 33, Eph. 1: 4, 1 Peter 1: 2. Is it right on spiritual grounds to preach election to the unconverted?

A. — It is right to teach election to the living Christians, who show that they are elect by their confession of Christ and the godly walk inseparable from life eternal which they have by faith. Election is then meat in due season, as we see it ministered to our faith by more than one apostle cited above. But it is unscriptural and therefore wrong in a believer's eyes to preach election to the unconverted. The Christian preaches Christ to those who have Him not, that they may turn to God as lost sinners and be saved as believers by His grace.

Leave it to Arminians to preach man's freewill and power to turn, if not to do good. We know that we were slaves of Satan and dead in sins: a state incompatible with their bad doctrine. Leave it to Calvinists to preach election to the world, which can do no good to the lost but only injure them by accepting it in a fatalistic way, while still under the enemy's bondage. They are alike enamoured of their doctrines, true but wholly unsuitable in the latter case, and quite false in the former one. Be content with Christ and Christianity, which are divine. Arminianism and Calvinism are human and may be left for men to squabble about, instead of simply following (as all Christians ought) the word which glorifies Christ by the Spirit, and delivers the believer that cleaves to Him from the narrowness and the error of all human systems.

Take this evidence of it:- Calvinists and Arminians contend with no small acrimony in their common assumption that purchase and redemption are the same thing. He who holds to scripture learns the difference which they ignore. They do not see that the Christian is both bought and redeemed, and that the unbeliever, though not redeemed, is bought, Confounding the two, they cannot convince any but themselves; the Christian who discriminates them is assured that all are bought, even the most wicked (as in 2 Peter 2: 1), and that the believer has redemption in Christ, the forgiveness of sins through His blood. Man, whether he believes or not, was purchased by the Lord, is bound to own Him, and is preached to ("all men" and "everywhere") that he may repent and believe the gospel of salvation. Those who believe are by faith forgiven their sins, and enter the family of God as His children, comforted to know their redemption as well as their election by sovereign grace. All the evil was theirs, all the good is of God which for us turns on faith in Christ.

Q. — Acts 20: 25. As many are not clear, and some confused by strange doctrine of late about "the kingdom," may I ask what it was exactly that Paul preached as he says? Was it the present dispensational aspect in mystery as in Matt. 13? or was it the moral power as in Rom. 14: 17, etc.? W.T.

A. — Neither, as I believe, but that coming intervention of God for changing the heavens and the earth, which the Lord coming in visible power and glory will inaugurate and establish to the joy of all the earth, of Israel and all the nations. How near to the hearts of the heavenly saints it is for Him Who is by grace and at all cost the effectuator of all this harmonious blessedness to the glory of God the Father! Neither gospel nor church obliterated the apostle's value for this grand truth, which has faded from the testimony of many once zealous. Such forgetfulness, or narrowness, or whatever else may be the cause, is surely to be deplored. "To every thing there is a season;" and the apostle warrants it for this truth to be preached, as the Lord Himself did.

Q. — John 1. Is it true that the language of some scriptures is drawn from contemporaneous philosophy as (a) in the opening of the fourth Gospel from Philo the Alexandrian Jew, especially as to the Logos? (b) that moral terms of the Stoics reappear in Paul's Epistles? (c) that early Gnostic expressions were derived from the apostle's Epistle to the Colossians? W.T.

A. — (a) The truth is that God in His grace, who knew the bewilderment of man's mind, not dissipated but deepened by philosophy and the vile half-breed of the Gnostics, either anticipated or answered these unbelieving reveries by the revelation of the truth. Philo was born somewhat before the apostle John, and died long before him, certainly in part a contemporary, yet speaking of his advanced age about A.D. 40. He had no thought of Christ save as a conqueror of the nations and a restorer of Israel to the highest power, honour and enjoyment on earth, and even to the great relief of the brute creation. He believed in the inspiration of the O.T., which he allegorised every. where excessively to suit or teach Platonism, without denying the law or the history. Indeed he held that the law of Moses would rule for ever. But he did not believe that the Lord Jesus was the Son of God or even the Christ. Hence the Gospel of John reveals the Logos in the strongest contrast with all Philo's vapourings which deny the truth of both God and man.

(b) It is not otherwise with the use of moral terms, in great vogue among the Stoics, the proudest and sternest of all heathen philosophers. To live according to nature was their first principle, and a direct ethical lie; because it is evil through sin since the fall, which they wholly disdained. None more radically opposed to man's ruin or to God's grace. The terms if the same have a totally different source and sense in Paul's usage.

(c) The same principle applies to the Gnostical expressions. The Pleroma, the Æons, and the Demiurgus, etc. of scripture uproot and destroy this pretentious school of fantastical error, a different Christianity which was not another. Christ true God and perfect man is the revelation of God, which sets aside the corrupt Gnostic, the self-complacent Stoic, and the dreaming Platonist. If inspiration employed their language, it was in pitiful condescension to impart the truth of God in Christ, which brings to nought their vain, self-righteous, and false ideas.

The Fathers of the second and third centuries were deeply infected with the Alexandrian philosophy which denied that the true God comes down to the earth, or that man's body ever goes to heaven: an error derived from the East. Christ refutes both absolutely in His own person. Justin Martyr, the Hermas of the second century, Clemens Alex., and Origen were all heterodox more or less.

Q. — 1 Thess. 4: 13. Does not παρουσία, presence, always refer to the same time as the ἀποκάλυψις or revelation of the Lord? J.J.

A. — When the "presence" or coming of the Lord for the earth and Israel is intended, as in Matt. 24, James 5 etc., it does coalesce in time with His "revelation," "appearing" and "day." So it is also when His "presence with all His saints" is spoken of as in 1 Thess. 3. But it is never so when not thus particularised. Take 1 Cor. 15: 23, which does not imply that those who are Christ's arise at His revelation but at His presence long before, though special classes of Apocalyptic martyrs only then. So in 1 Thess. 4 we assuredly do not remain till His "revelation" but His "presence" which raises the dead saints first and then calls up the living, all changed, to meet the Lord in the air. Revelation, or appearing, or day, is carefully excluded. It is His presence for the translation of His own solely, in strong contrast with the "day" in chap. 5. But the conclusive refutation of any such thought is in 2 Thess. 2: 1 where His "presence" is bound up strictly by one article in the Greek with "our gathering together unto Him," there again in the most pointed contrast with His "day," which coalesces with His "revelation" and "appearing" in judgment of the "lawless" and wicked generally, as in 2 Thess. 1: 2 and 2 Thess. 2: 8. No doubt the glorified saints accompany Him when that day dawns. It is His "presence" therefore first for the heavenly, after that for the earthly who only begin to be called in the interval, while the wicked ripen rapidly for judgment when He is revealed.

If we think of breadth and display, the blessed hope is the Lord's appearing to put down and govern all men in righteousness and deliver creation from thraldom. But for the heavenly it is not "the appearing of His presence" but His presence, to receive us to Himself for the Father's house and joys which are far above those even of a regenerated earth.

Q. — 1 Cor. 5, Do not verses

1 imply "leprosy,"

2 "leaven,"

3-5 dealing with the former,

6-8 with the latter (cathartic),

9-13 (excommunicatory).

So in 2 Tim. 2: 21, is it not purging one's own vessel? J.J.

A. — "Leprosy" here is a fancy. It does not apply in a believer. There is not the least hint of it here or elsewhere in the N.T. as to Christians. Nor does the O.T. warrant it as to such typically, though such an application has been favoured by some. But in 1 Cor. 5 the leaven is the offender who if allowed defiles the assembly; which had not only to purge him out but to purge themselves, according to their standing as unleavened keepers of the feast. In 2 Tim 2 it is not purging out the vessels to dishonour, but purging one's self out, when the evil gets a sanctioned place. One was the assembly still recognised spite of its transient disorder; the other, a state where it could not be owned save for judgment.

Q. — What is the meaning of εὐδιάθετος as opposed to προφορικὸς in J.N.D.'s Notes and Comments, ii. 322 and elsewhere? Can it he that the Editor did not know that Mr. D. must have written ἐνδ. for what is immanent, residing in the mind or unexpressed, as opposed to προφ. actually uttered? These play a large part in Philo and the Alexandrian School of philosophy. There is no such antithesis as εὐδ. to προφ. Is it not a mere guess and a mistake of Mr. D.'s manuscript? X.Y.Z.

A. — The querist speaks correctly, and answers himself for the benefit of those who have the Notes referred to. Mr. D. was thoroughly familiar with these questions among philosophers, easily misunderstood by others not so versed.

Q. — Eph. 5: 23; 1 Cor. 11: 3; and Col. 2: 10. Christ given as Head to the church over all things is the plain truth of God; but does not Eph. 5: 23 convey a different thought? and in what sense are we to understand 1 Cor. 11: 3? and Col. 2: 10? W.T.

A. — It appears to me that there is no sufficient reason to attribute any real difference to Christ's headship of the church in any scriptures which speak of it. In each passage the great truth is used in a different connection, as to the Ephesians (Eph. 1: 22, Eph. 4: 15, Eph. 5: 23), but His headship remains the same in all; and so it is in Col. 1: 18. And what more glorious for us as members of His body?

This is remarkably confirmed by the statement in Col. 2. For the apostle tells the saints, drawn away to Jewish ordinances and to visionary speculation about angels, that all the completeness of the Godhead dwells in Him, and that we are completed in Him, be that we need nothing creaturely outside Him. And he clenches it against the higher invisible hierarchy, of which we are expressly told so little, that He in whom we are thus complete is the Head of every principality and authority, so as to exclude all erratic flights, and satisfy our souls with Him who is not only our Head but after the incomparable nearness of head and body, which is not true of any other headship.

As to 1 Cor. 11: 3, it is clearly relative order only, to correct a breach of decorum according to God; and we read that the Christ is the head of every man (ἀνδρὸς, not (a human being) ἀνθρώπου), but woman's head is the man, and the Christ's head God. This is throughout quite outside the church, in which there is neither male nor female. It is the order or respective place for woman in subjection to man, and for Him who in love and for God's glory became Man, the Firstborn, to God who abode unchanged in divine supremacy.

Bible Treasury Volume N 5, p. 287. June 1905.

Q. — Rom. 5: 12. Is it correct to say that sin did not exist in this world before Adam? We are told that pre-adamite animals are unearthed in Siberia in whose carcases can be distinctly traced disease; and is not all disease the result of sin? How reconcile this with the words of this scripture? ENQUIRER.

A. — On the one hand it has never been proved that any unearthed animal wherein disease is traceable is pre-adamite; nevertheless it is clear that innumerable creatures once alive composed the fossilised strata with which all geologists are familiar. These were deposited ages before the deluge or even the Adamic world. On the other the verse in the Epistle to the Romans is entirely limited to Adam and his descendants; and it is equally clear from Rom. 8: 20 that the creature here below was subjected to vanity, not willingly but by reason of him who subjected it, yet in hope that the creature itself also shall be freed from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. Thus the Second man the last Adam is not merely our Saviour but creation's deliverer when we are revealed in His glory and glorified like Himself.

It is however true that above the earth sin broke out before man was created. How far, if at all, this affected pre-adamite animals, the creatures on the earth before Adam, as I am not aware that scripture speaks, I forbear to speculate. The subjection to vanity of which the apostle speaks is confined solely to man's world.

Q. — 2 Tim. 4: 13. It has been stated that "if men were really converted, their libraries would go to feed the flames." Is this quite sober? Of course the supposition is that "the parchments" were portions of Holy Writ; but there is the possibility that they ware not. Paul quotes on two occasions (Acts 17: 28 and Titus 1: 12) profane poets.

Whether the quotations were remembered from his pre-conversion days or not does not seem to affect the principle involved. If this teaching is of the Spirit, it appears that no Christian, however gifted, should read human writings even with a view to exposing their fallacies in the light of the word of God. Your enquirer fully admits that "all things are lawful; but all things are not expedient," and this question appears to be one in which everyone is to be "fully persuaded in his own mind," always of course before the Lord. X.

A. — It has long seemed to me that the apostle's direction has a larger bearing than is generally apprehended. He desired the cloak left behind in Troas rather than to procure a new one; "the books" too, which do not appear from the general expression to have been the scriptures; and "most of all, the parchments." These naturally imply that, being of the most valuable and lasting material, and not yet written on, they were wanted by the apostle, conscious that his outward ministry was closing. "For I am already being poured out, and the time of my release is all but come." Can we conceive of anything more present to his spirit than the desire to have his Epistles copied with care under his own eye and for permanent use? When he originally wrote, as to the Thessalonians and others, he was perfectly aware of its inspired character, and adjured by the Lord that what he wrote should be read to all the brethren. And in the next letter, as he speaks of a spurious one to mislead the saints, he drew attention to each of his conveying at least the salutation by his own hand. We can the better understand the distinction drawn between the written books which had no sacred character, and the unwritten parchments destined to the most important use at the moment when he could say, "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith." He would not on his journeys, we way he well assured, leave behind a single roll he had of the scriptures; but he neither burnt nor despised other books. Yet all he writes shows a soul wholly above the indulgence of the mind, and repudiating all authority but God's in divine things.

Q, — Heb. 10: 25. 1. Is it correct that this verse refers to other than the Lord's Supper and prayer meeting for exhortation?

2. Does not Pliny's well-known letter give the idea that in early days, believers met together daily, and that at the commencement of the day, to commend themselves to the care of Christ? The practice now seems to be to meet at the close of the long day's work, when all freshness is gone. The reason adduced seems to be "convenience," but should this reason be admitted?

3. In apostolic times were there set meetings for prayer, for scripture study, etc., when it was considered wrong to deviate from a fixed motive? or is it that whenever the saints were assembled together there was absolute liberty either to praise, pray or exhort? X.

A. — 1. It is true that the passage in Heb. 10 does not specify the gathering together for the Lord's Supper; but it in no way excludes exhortation from that great occasion. This is manifest from Acts 20: 7. The prime call was to remember the Lord in the breaking of bread. Yet the apostle was not the one to violate divine order when he not only "discoursed" (not "preached"), but in view of his departure on the morrow prolonged the discourse till midnight. No doubt in 1 Cor. the Lord's Supper is treated in 1 Cor. 11 before and independently of the interior working of the assembly in 1 Cor. 14, or even of its animating power in the presence and operation of the Holy Spirit in 1 Cor. 12. There might be but "two or three"; and the grace of the Lord provides for even so few who might not be endowed with any marked charisma for public activity. If man would have overlooked such little ones, God did not; and hence, gift or no gift, we have the Lord's Supper a section complete before the Holy Spirit's presence and action begins. But this was in no way to exclude His working there and then both ordinarily and extraordinarily as in the case of the apostle just named, and recorded for our profit to guard us from all narrowness, where it might he called for as at Troas. The principle is, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Cor. 3: 17). Not even the deep solemnity with thanksgiving proper to the Lord's Supper excludes prolonged discourse in especial circumstances, as scripture proves. Again, the highest form of gift in the assembly does not only speak to God in prayer and praise and blessing, but to men in edification and encouragement and consolation as the Holy Spirit might guide in His perfect knowledge of present need to God's glory. Thus should all things be done to edification, but comelily and with order, of which scripture is careful.

2. Pliny in writing to Trajan does not speak of a daily meeting but of one before dawn "on a stated day," no doubt "the Lord's day," though Justin Martyr may be the first outside scripture to describe it more fully still. It is as clear that at Troas the meeting was late in the day or in the evening, and on this occasion prolonged till midnight. This is mere detail and left for observance according to a gracious arrangement for the best according to circumstances; just as no stress was laid on the kind of bread, whatever was the fact on the original institution of the Lord's Supper. Certain minds always tend to formalism — the reverse of Christianity.

3. Besides the gathering of the assembly to remember the Lord and to edify one another in the Spirit, there were set occasions for "the prayers" from the first, as we read in Acts 2: 42 generally, and in Acts 12: 12 particularly. There is thus room for all that is edifying; whilst the fact of the special object "to break bread" or "to pray" indicates the wisdom of adhering as the rule in each to its own character prominently. Why should anyone seek to break this down by narrowing, or to broaden what scripture lays down?

Bible Treasury Volume N 5, p. 303. July 1905.

Q. — Lev. 13. What is the true explanation of the leper here? J.J.

A. — Surely it typifies a sinner cleansed from impurity otherwise fatal, rather than a saint overtaken by the way. It is ruinous evil in a man's condition beyond means or hope, and not merely the fallen state of a male or female child, as in Lev. 12 which it also seemed good to divine wisdom to impress on Israel. Nothing short of the work of Christ in type could avail for either. But it appears quite illegitimate to tone down a defilement so deadly as leprosy to anything but the effect of sin in all its malignity. Here it is not its healing but its cleansing when healed by the adequate and unnamed power of God. To meet its terrible result we have first the figure of Christ's death and resurrection applied to pronounce him clean and the man subsequently washing his clothes, shaving all his hair, and washing his person. Nor does this effect all; for Jehovah would have him, after a careful purifying on the seventh day, to appropriate on the eighth the value of Christ in all the fulness of His sacrifice, as the trespass-offering, sin-offering, burnt-offering and meal-offering. As the priest applied of the blood of the trespass-offering to the right ear, right thumb, and great toe of the right foot, so of the log of oil to the same emblematic parts of the body; that his hearing, his service, and his walk must be manifestly thus brought under the power of redemption and of the Holy Spirit. So minute and complete is the analysis of the virtue of Christ's work, so varied and comprehensive the exigencies for the sinner's perfect cleansing before God; who would have us know the ungrudging provision of His grace. The true figure under the law for restoring one passingly defiled is the very different sprinkling the unclean with the red heifer's ashes in the water of separation (Num. 19).

Q. — Dan. 7, 8, 11, Rev. 13, 19. The article in B.T. for Feb. pp. 212, 13 raises questions. "Who can doubt?" says the writer. I can for one, what is taught of the king of the north as "like the second Beast." Why is he not the second beast? or "King" of Dan. 11: 36? E.C.J.

A. — It ought not to be a difficulty that as Dan. 7 treats of the Western Empire with its head which Rev. 13 and 17 declare is to be revived, but destroyed by the Lord's appearing, so Dan. 8 tells us of a great offshoot, north-east of Palestine, from the third or Greek empire which is to afflict the chosen people at that "time of the end," with both craft and violent power. This therefore is quite distinct from the internal enemy of God who reigns in the land and is a Jew, in fact the Antichrist. Whereas the king in chap. 8 answers to "the overflowing scourge," the retribution for "the covenant with death and agreement with hell," the contract between the Roman Empire and the apostate Icing. Though for all three is the same doom, they ought to be distinguished. Compare Isa. 30, which tells of "the king" as well as the Assyrian or the north-eastern power, as Rev. 19 tells it of the western empire with its ally the king of the Jews in that day. It is clearly the same power which in Dan. 11, is designated as "the king of the north" in distinction from "the king of the south" (or, of Egypt), with "the king" between them. But here again, the distinction is plain, however many may have failed to see it. We should rather compare the king "of fierce countenance and understanding dark sentences" to a quasi-Solomon than to a rabbi. But the sense is the same if the degree differs; and it is natural enough for an oriental Gentile to affect wisdom and entangle the Jews before he turned to besiege and overwhelm them. But this could not be the policy of the false Messiah or of his Roman ally. Compare a Gentile; for so described is the prince of Tyre (Ezek. 28: 3).

In short Dan. 7 and 8 must not be confounded. One is western, the other eastern; and both distinct from the wilful king of Dan. 11: 36, who will have his ally in the one, his antagonist in the other, at the time of the end, when all three perish awfully. Their judgment with the subsequent one of Gog (Ezek. 38, 39), the last of the hateful and persistent foes of Israel, will be a large part of God's lesson whereby the world's inhabitants learn wisdom, and bow to Messiah's kingdom and personal reign for a space without example, before the heavens and earth that are now melt into the new heavens and 'earth wherein dwelleth righteousness, the eternal state, when God is all in all.

Q. — Luke 13 and 15. Many believers would value your judgment on the enclosed tract ("The Strait Gate, and the Prodigal Son"). Is its teaching scriptural? G.S.Bh.

A. — No wonder that sober Christians are disturbed by these speculations. We way not set scripture against scripture in our zeal for the full gospel of grace. The sermon on the mount is no more the gospel of the kingdom than that of Christ's glory. The reception of Christ by the true action of the Spirit and the word was always requisite, which works both faith and repentance in the soul. On this the Lord insists in Luke 13: 24 as in Matt. 11: 12 and John 3: 3-5; the form and figures suiting its own context, but the same truth substantially. To be born anew goes to the root of the need, is a vital want, and cannot be without painful exercise before God, expressed in the first case by striving at all cosh to enter through the narrow door into God's kingdom. In the glad tidings is His answer to what the heart craves for peace and joy.

This is anticipatively shown in the three parables of Luke 15, the lost sheep, the lost piece of silver, the lost son: activity in straying, insensibility Godward, and on the soul's self-judgment, the full revelation of the Father's love and the riches of grace in "the best robe" and all other blessing in the communion of His love. It is false that a backsliding saint is here contemplated. How can any instructed Christian err so profoundly? Is a fallen believer a "lost" one, as the Lord here reiterates? Is it not the full salvation of the sinner's soul? Who could allow or teach that it is the restored saint that receives "the best robe," the ring, the sandals, the fatted calf, the joy shared with God when the dead one came to life, and the lost one was found?

There is no real difficulty in the "two sons" as the Lord spoke. For man naturally is by Luke treated as "God's offspring": so the apostle preached to the heathen Athenians; with which we may compare Luke 3: 38, as to Adam so constituted by God in contrast with the brute, or the clean animal. He only had an immortal soul and must give account to God; but after the fall and all God's dealings he is pronounced "lost," and needs a new nature, as well as redemption, whereby he becomes a child, and an adopted son of God by grace. The natural relationship could not avail against sin: and self -righteousness made things worse for the "elder brother." Hence evidently the "elder brother" fully confirms the just application, and refutes the blunder that either one or other as such means a son of God by faith in Christ Jesus. This the prodigal does become when he comes not only to himself but to the Father; this the elder son, as far as the parable teaches, does not become, whatever his pretensions, and whatever the external privileges shown here. The upshot is that He "would not go in"; he has no part in the Father's joy of grace. He has only satisfaction in himself, reproaches for the saved sinner, and insult for the God of all grace and His boundless goodness to "this thy son."

Bible Treasury Volume N 5, p. 320. August 1905.

Q. — 1 John 5: 18. Here is a man who, born again, has gone on rejoicing in the knowledge of all his sins forgiven, yet at length gives himself up to evil (say, drunkenness, and dies in this reprobate state. Does scripture give us light on such a case? J.H.

A. — Surely it does. He is one of the many who deceive themselves, and say that they have fellowship with God while walking in darkness; whereas they lie and do not the truth (1 John 1: 6). It is easy for unconverted souls, especially when emotional excitement prevails, to think themselves born of God when they are not, and never realised either their utter guilt and ruin, or God's grace in life eternal and remission. High pressure in appeal to feeling as in reasoning, on "the plan of salvation" tends to this imagination that all is right, which may carry souls along for no short time, and in zealous efforts to win others; though the conscience has never been before God either in true self-judgment or in submitting to His righteousness in Christ. There never was a seed of God remaining in such souls. It was but flesh, which perishes in the wilderness. It is too much to assume that they were born of God. They may have had joy in the thought of plenary forgiveness but not abiding peace with God, and so become castaway or reprobate. Heb. 6: 4-8 is as strikingly solemn to show how far flesh can go in appropriating Christian privilege, short of life eternal or the new birth; as vers. 17-20 give strong consolation to the weakest believer, however tried. For it would be hard to find in the N.T. true faith set out in terms less hold than "having fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before us." Yet is it all-sufficient. Never does Scripture suppose one born anew perishing in his sins. But we way easily be mistaken in counting souls renewed who are not.

Bible Treasury Volume N 5, p. 334. September 1905.

Q. — Matt. 24, 25. Is it true that Christians, real and professing, have nothing to do with these chapters, and that both relate to Israel and to the kingdom, to the Son of man and to the King of Israel? Q.

A. — This statement is not true, though there may be a superficial appearance in the reason alleged. Even there it illustrates how dangerous is a little learning when it speaks oracularly. For the remarkable fact is that "the Son of man" as such has no real place in the central one of its three sections (Matt. 24: 45 - 25: 30). This does relate to Christendom, and neither to Israel in view of the kingdom as the first part, nor to all the nations or Gentiles as the last part, which on the face of it cannot relate to Israel. It is well-known that in the only verse of the intermediate part of the Christian profession, good and bad (Matt. 25: 13), the last clause is spurious. Therefore, it is strikingly absent here, and is only used where the Lord refers to His ancient people, and to all the nations, as in Dan. 7. The little work entitled "The Prophecy on Olivet" might help, or yet more the volume "Christ's Coming Again, chiefly on its heavenly Side".

Q. — Acts 20: 7. Is every Christian whose faith is sound and walk godly admissible when known as such to the Lord's Supper? J.O.S.

A — The principle is sound; but in the growing confusion care is due to the Lord that it be rightly applied so as not to cover ungodliness in either way by evil communications which corrupt good manners and defile even when personal appearance seems right. There are vast numbers, besides Papists, who now countenance idolatry in their so-called worship. There are very many, both Nationalists and Dissenters, who sanction or are indifferent to the scepticism of the Higher Critics. It would be wicked to make either of these free of the Lord's Table. They are enemies of the truth, and to allow their fellowship is a sin. Their belonging to some ecclesiastical system where such things notoriously flourish, to which they are attached, is a necessary ground to refuse them as long as they persevere in an evil association. Otherwise it is to blow hot and cold, and to adopt in what represents the church of God the laxity of the world which knows not God. In the case of relatives, friends, or the like, peculiar caution is due, lest in amiable feeling we should compromise Christ. In early days we had neither the idolatrous evil nor the sceptical one as we have now. The shadows of the coming apostasy are around us. Let us increasingly watch unto prayer and in jealousy for Christ's glory, and in true love to Christians.

Let me here warn those who would cleave to the Lord's name to beware of the recent tracts of W. S. and W. L. P. as special pleading and compromise, the latter too in a tone not quite becoming the most mature and honoured if such he were. It is diligently kept hidden, if known, that the two perhaps most intelligent of the Ten were thorough partisans of B. W. N., and seceded from Bethesda, not only because the Newtonian advocates were got rid of privately, but because of the seven meetings in which his evil doctrines were condemned (very much through pressure from without, as of B. Ch. and others), even G.M. joining pointedly. It is well-known too that another whose place was high among them strongly sympathised with N.'s errors. And the fact is that the seceding two tried to establish a Newtonian meeting in Bristol and had B.W.N. to aid them in it. When this failed, they sought readmission to Bethesda, and were received on their saying that they ought not to have seceded!! That this was all sought by Bethesda from themselves I know from letters written at the time in answer to strict enquiry, by Messrs. G.M. and J, Meredith severally on one side, and by the seceders or at least R.A, on the other.

Many years have elapsed; but I am sorry to say now as then that the Letter of the Ten made it a day for the faithful and true to renounce Bethesda and all that tolerate its abjuring the prime duty of God's assembly; that the seven meetings were fairer in word than in deed and truth; and that their proceedings both in getting rid of the Newtonians by a private door instead of a public judgment, and in receiving back the guilty pair who sought in vain to exploit a Newtonian meeting with its leader flaunted before all eyes, proved their indifference to a false Christ, their jealousy only for their own honour. I was one then of the not few who regretted that J.N.D. so hastily gave credit to the sincerity of Bethesda and its leaders. But God is faithful, and overruled. Yet who was not shocked at the rude and self-righteous repulse his too confiding spirit received? And what are we to think of G.M. and wife, years after all the denunciations and without any further self-judgment on B.W.N.'s part, daring without a blush to travel from Bristol to Tunbridge Wells to hear N.'s reading or sitting lecture, and to declare the value he set on N.'s writings?

Far from me to despise any one's little measure of knowledge; but how can one avoid indignation at such a tissue of unfaithfulness to Christ, without piling the agony? No, dear brethren, unless there be, on the part of the intelligent at least, a real clearance from such evils, our painful duty is to stand aloof and separate to Christ, however abused and disliked for His name we may still be. Those who never went through the deep grief and shame are hardly the persons to judge wisely or to speak with weight.

Q. — 2 Cor. 9: 15. What is God's unspeakable gift? H.H.H.

A. — Every Christian ought instinctively to answer that it is His grace in Christ. Nothing else in "unspeakable"; nor is anything easier to count than a little money in remembrance of the saints poor in this world. So, in urging liberality according to God in 2 Cor. 8: 9, the apostle points to the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, who "being rich became poor that by His poverty ye might become rich" in a way incomparably above the world's wealth. Only Christ applied in faith gives us the truth of anything.

Q. — 1 John 3: 7-10. Is the state which characterises the child of God absolute? And is it so also with the child of the devil? AMOS.

A. — The language of the apostle is unqualified. Nor could it be otherwise where grace gives a new nature, for it is to have life eternal in Christ. There ought to be no difference as to this among the simplest saints gathered to the Lord's name. To hear of "one teacher opposed to another" or to what is so plain in scripture is strange. "A lake of fire" too may be a symbol; but it figures unutterable woe and unending punishment for those cast therein, exceeding all possible by the literal terms. We are bound to give the largest scope to the judgement of God no less than to His grace.

Bible Treasury Volume N 5, p. 351. October 1905.

Q. — Eph. 2: 7. Is it God's kindness toward us through Christ Jesus shown to His saints, or to wondering worlds? W.B.

A. — We are assured of it now through and in Christ: nothing could exceed this proof. Then it will be the display of it in us when like Him and sharing His glory, to the principalities and powers above as well as to the world, Israel and the nations below, blessed as they may be. The glory will demonstrate the love. Compare John 17: 22, 23, and Eph. 1: 9-14, when that purpose is fulfilled. We know it by faith and have the earnest of the Spirit also beforehand.

Q. — The great denominations of Christendom, from Rome downwards, are all wrong in their constitution and outward form, and should be separated from. But where the constitution, the outward form, is correct, like the various sections of Brethren, does not scripture seem to show that there should be no separation, whatever the evil, but that saints should stay within, and strengthen the things that remain (e g. 3 John, the Seven Churches, etc.)? Does not this seem to derive all the greater force from the fact that there appears to be no instance of separating from the outward thing? Surely saints could remain within and remember the Lord without setting up another table though in daily walk only associate, or follow, with those that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. Immoral persons it is clear should be put out. Those going out would then manifestly not be saints, not being in fellowship. X.Y.Z,

A. — Resemblance in outward form is no sufficient warrant that the saints are truly gathered to the Lord's name. There might be acceptance of fundamental evil in the allowance of a false Christ, either on the human side or the divine. Communion with one who does not bring the doctrine of Christ, as 2 John proves, is more fatal than any moral laxity, wicked as this would be, and demands more stringency, as He is of infinitely more weight than any or all professing Christians. Even ordinary greeting is forbidden to such a deceiver and antichrist. Indifference to such sin is to become a partaker of the evil deeds, even if one does not imbibe the evil doctrine. 2 Tim. 2 also is clear that when evil is allowed within, and vessels to dishonour are sanctioned instead of being excluded, the faithful are bound to separate. If a so-called Christian assembly keeps them in defiance of all right call to purge them put as leaven, the true saint must purge himself out, in order to be a vessel unto honour, and to follow all that is godly with those that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

The Apocalyptic churches do not touch discipline or polity, but the Lord's dealing with them, from decline and peril of the candlestick removed to the final spuing out of His mouth. The argument of hence denying responsibility to withdraw goes so to contradict our duty as shown elsewhere as to evince its falsity and evil. For it would compel us to have fellowship with Nicolaitan antinomianism, fornication, adultery, etc. What proves too much disproves itself. Tolerating evil under the Lord's name is intolerable; and no evil is so bad as heterodoxy as to Christ, whether held or winked at and unjudged. To give it licence of the Lord's table is heinous sin.

Q. — As to receiving from the sects conditionally, is there not a great difference in the sects of today compared with those of Paul's day (Corinthian rebuke)? Undoubtedly the denominations of today took their rise in dark times mainly in their struggle for the truth, and without, apparently, any knowledge of unity as characteristic of the church of God? X.Y.Z.

A. — The awful fact now is that all the denominations are more and more contaminated with the infidelity cloaked under the name of "Higher Criticism." This makes it increasingly difficult to allow Christians, so careless and indifferent to God's dishonour, a place at the Lord's supper until they clear themselves of such a compromise. If orthodox and holy, we welcome them.

Q. — An evangelical clergyman was preaching in the open air and spoke of Jesus as pouring out His Godhead on the cross ("My God, my God, why" etc.). Surely that cannot be a right application of the scripture. X.Y.Z.

A. — If the Evangelical said as is reported, he uttered folly; and if he understood his own words, he was heterodox. Probably he knew not what he said, carried away by the desire to make known the infinite humiliation of our Lord on the cross. But He emptied Himself of the glory proper to a divine Person; He could no more cease to be God, than we to be men; and had it been possible, it would have deprived both His life and death of that which makes each infinitely acceptable to God and efficacious for us.

Bible Treasury Volume N 5, p. 379. December 1905.

Q. — Luke 16: 9. What does this mean? E.G.R.

A. — The Jew was losing his earthly place through rejecting God in Christ. Yet grace wrought not only to save the lost (as shown in Luke 15), but also to set aside wealth and honour in this world, and all is changed as to the use of present possessions, which are turned into a path of heavenly fruit for heaven. The Jew was steward for God but abused his trust. The Gentile was and is nothing. The disciple of Christ may follow the unjust one for present life in his prudence of looking out for the future. But our future is in heaven. The world is really bankrupt. True wealth is in the world to come. These are the real privileges to faith, our own things; whereas present things are Another's, which we are called to sacrifice freely in view of glory on high, instead of hoarding "the unrighteous mammon" as men like to do. We are entitled to treat money as "the mammon of unrighteousness," looking to be received, when it fails, "into the everlasting habitations."

That they may receive you" is only a mode of speech for "that ye may be received;" as we may infer from similar phraseology in Luke 6: 38-44, which really means "shall be given" into your bosom, instead of "shall men give." For in fact men do not so give. It is an ignorant misuse of the phrase. Compare Luke 12: 20, Luke 14: 25. We cannot have two masters; and are bound as Christians to imitate the God of grace. If not faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who shall entrust to us the true? and if we have not been faithful in what is Another's, who shall give us our own — what we are to share with Christ? We are called to follow in His steps, who though rich for our sakes became poor, that we through His poverty might be made rich.

Q. — Luke 16: 22, 23; Luke 23: 43; Acts 2: 31. Light is requested on Hades and Paradise in these texts. W.W. (Ottawa).

A. — As this has been answered repeatedly, the querist is referred to "The Preaching to the Spirits in Prison" The subject is there fully discussed.

Q. — John 4. Was the Samaritan woman there and then indwelt by the Holy Spirit? or could this be true of any one before the Spirit was sent forth on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2)? F.F.

A. — The woman was begotten anew at the well of Sychar that day. But this, though a most momentous operation of the Spirit, quite differs from the gift of the Spirit which only came after the Lord ascended to heaven. When unbelievers, we need to be begotten or born of the Spirit; when we believe the gospel and rest on the Saviour's finished work, we are sealed of the Spirit, and not before. "Because ye are sons (not, to make you sons), God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying Abba, Father." All saints had been begotten anew; but none received the indwelling Spirit till Pentecost and afterwards. The Lord told the woman of the great gift He was going to give,; but she had to wait for the new gift with the apostles and all else till that day. And so it is today. We are first born anew; and then when we give up our efforts to better ourselves, and rest on Christ's work, we receive the Spirit, entering into peace and liberty, not before. Eph. 1: 13, often quoted to show that when we are born anew we are sealed by the Spirit, proves on the contrary that we are not scaled till we believe the gospel of salvation. This is faith far beyond what overwhelmed one under the weight and guilt of our sins. To jumble the two together is to hinder both, as many do. They are quite distinct operations of the Spirit; and the agony of the one makes us enjoy all the more the peace of the other. How any Christian can doubt the word, or forget his own experience, is strange and sorrowful. For such unbelieving confusion enfeebles his judgment and hinders his spiritual power. He cannot adequately apprehend either what the Christian is, or the Church, till he bows to the new privilege.

Q. — Acts 26: 23. "That He should be the first that should rise from the dead." How reconcile this with Luke 9: 30? "There talked with Him two men which were Moses . . . ." Was Moses there only in spirit, or, risen from the dead? Christ was "the first." X.Y.Z.

A. — There is no difficulty as to Elijah who did not rise from the dead. And it is not said that Moses did, though one may not be able to explain more than that both appeared in glory at the transfiguration. But scripture cannot be broken: Christ is the first-fruits.

Q. — Acts 2: 30. "Of the fruit of his loins." How, if Joseph was only his reputed father? X.Y.Z.

A. — The reality of the Lord's manhood lay in His being born of Mary who was "the Virgin" of David's house. If He had not been Son of God really on the other side, the truth of His Godhead would have been overthrown. If He had not enjoyed the rights of the Solomon line through Joseph legally, though but reputedly, He was not the true Messiah according to Jehovah's oath to David. In Luke 3, ''as was supposed son of Joseph" is the right parenthesis; and "being of Eli, of Matthat," etc. is the genealogical line, a distinct construction. Eli was father of Mary, as the Talmud admits; and to her accordingly the visit of Gabriel was made. In Matthew the visions were to Joseph, son of Jacob, the Messianic and Solomonic line; in Luke, it was to Mary.

Q — Rom. 6: 4. I gather that the believer is here viewed as having died in Christ's death; that he is entitled to regard himself thus; and that his baptism is the confession of this truth. But what means "buried with Him by baptism unto death?" W. B.

A. — Is it true that we are ever said to have died in Christ? or is it a bit of Calvinistic misapprehension of the truth, making mystic what is really experimental, however truly and rightly based on faith? What the passage says is that we died with Christ; that baptised unto Christ Jesus we were baptised unto His death. "We were buried therefore with him by baptism unto death; in order that as Christ was raised out of dead [men] through the glory of the Father, so we also should walk in newness of life." Buried with Him is a confirmatory figure drawn from having been under the water of death. Compare ver. 6. Without Christ we had lain there; but we are identified thus with His death to give us quittance from sin, and therefore to live no longer in it. The next chapter (Rom. 7) shows that it was not without proving the futility of legal efforts after we received life. Thus we were brought to own what His death is, not for pardon merely but deliverance.

Q. — 1 Cor. 5. Is there leprosy as well as "leaven" meant here? E.B.D.

A. — There is not the most distant allusion to leprosy. The brother, who thinks those with whom he no longer walks need to revise their teaching, has now to beware of delusion. Leprosy in the O.T. (Lev. 13: 14) is typical of unremoved sin. Only divine power could meet the case. The priest was called in both to pronounce on it and see to the entire separation of the unclean from the camp of Israel; but, if it were healed, to see to his cleansing in the fullest way. This typifies a sinner brought to God with the utmost care for its completeness up to eighth-day provision. It is in no way the mere restoration of a saint defiled (which is given in Num. 19).

It is a ridiculous mistake to make out leprosy in ver. 1 and leaven in ver. 2. Both verses, indeed all the first five, relate to the same "wicked person," as he is called in ver. 13. The apostle's judgment in 3 and 5 is about him. "Leaven," as figuring what was to be excluded from the Feast of unleavened bread which the Passover introduced, is applied to the case in 6 and 8. Leprosy is nowhere save in a fanciful brain. The apostle's exhortation is to urge dealing with a so-called "brother," and not with the world which must be left to God; but the assembly's responsibility is to judge "those within." "Purge out" in 7 refers indubitably to "leaven" without the least reference to the saints themselves; "put out" is the application to "the wicked" person in question. The zeal against exclusivism which forges such a weapon as this can damage only the cause which deduces from this chapter "that a leavened person is not to be put away!" If a leavened person, were allowed and kept in when proved, it would defile the entire assembly.

Bible Treasury Volume N 6, p. 30. February 1906.

Q. — John 4. Was the woman at Sychar born again only? Is not this true of all saints from Abel downwards? Did she receive any living (ver. 10) source of refreshment for the heart beyond O.T. saints? W.H.T.

A. — She was born anew the day she met and believed on Christ, Who told her of the living power of the Holy Spirit to be given to her in due time. This nobody received till after redemption was accomplished, and Jesus was glorified on high.

Q. — Why do we not read of the apostles being baptised with Christian baptism?

A. — It would be hazardous to undertake explaining why the apostles were not baptised With Christian baptism, though some or all may have had John's baptism; which Acts 19 proves not to he equivalent. But we can gather from it what a comfort the fact is to such as from a variety of circumstances had not been baptised duly, and did not feel it well or wise to go through the form after enjoying church fellowship for ever so many years, when the initiatory sign of a Christian would have lost its meaning or conveyed a false one.

Q. — Could you please inform me if there is a scripture which tells us exactly when and where the judgment seat will be? (2 Cor. 5: 10 ) R.R.T.

A. — The great importance of the Bema of Christ is that every one in his own time and place shall be manifested and give account of the things done in the body. But saint or sinner will make a difference of moment. It appears to me that for the heavenly saints it will be above, just before the Marriage-supper of the Lamb, long after we are translated to heaven in sovereign grace, and just before we are manifested with Christ in glory. What else can be meant by the bride making herself ready? See Rev. 19: 7, 8. Thus is the place of each determined for the Lord's appearing in His kingdom. Only in this passage is there such an apparent reference. And very beautiful and touching it is that it should only be then. For the wicked it will be before the great white throne in Rev. 20. This is judgment.

Q. — Would you say the "gifts" (in Ephesians at least) are certain characteristics of Christ, to be displayed here on earth? X.Y.Z.

A. — Certainly, but from Him ascended on high, as the citation from Ps. 68 shows. This falls in with the character of the Epistle, not so much operations of the Spirit's power in the way of signs to man, as the gifts to the church of Christ's love who is in the heavenly places.

Q. — 1 Thess. 4: 17. What will be the actual place of the Lord and His heavenly saints during the Millennium? W.B.

A. — Without doubt, in the heavenlies, where even now we are blessed in Christ. But this does not binder reigning over the earth in general, nor the striking fact of His standing on the Mount of Olives. The rent of the mountain, still undivided and a standing witness to what awaits fulfilment, will be part of His rescue of His people when hard pressed. But His standing again on the mount of Olives, whence He ascended to heaven, will be the clear witness of His peacefully possessing Himself de facto of all the earth, as the prophet tells us.

Q, — 2 Tim. 2: 21. What is the relation between the purging here mentioned, and the government of the "great house"? Were the vessels to honour to go out, refuse any longer to obey the rulers, and set up a government of their own? G.B.St.G.

A. — The evil predicted for the last days is such that the apostle speaks not of saints but of "men," "having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof" (2 Tim. 3); and his direction to the faithful is, "from such turn away." This was not to "go out" from the house of God but to be separate from the evil done in the Lord's name. It is in no way to leave God's house but due to Him; it is to depart from evil, but not to forsake the Christian profession. They were to have nothing to do with wicked rulers or wicked ruled. These alike were vessels to dishonour, and one is bound by the inspired word to purge oneself out from them (2 Tim. 2: 21). If so, and not otherwise, one shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the Master's use, prepared for every good work. But there is to be no slight of fellowship: one is called to court and cleave to it with all that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

Thus indeed we are under all circumstances to obey God, certainly not to obey the rulers who disobey God. We are never to "set up a government of our own" (which is what almost all Christendom does, though in different ways), but fall back on that organization and rule which God established and His word makes plain, as far as it is still existent. For it is clear that apostles were not permanent, though then inspired; and that they personally chose elders in every church, but left no provision for perpetuating them. But if we have not apostolic authority to choose regularly, we know what their desired qualities should be, and are bound to own such as are so far fit. Again, we have gifts, evangelists, pastors and teachers, which never depended on ordination, but only on Christ and His unfailing love for the church. So that there is no real ground for discouragement, though we need living faith.

To act on this scripture is the very reverse of schism; for schism means splitting what God sanctions. But God does not sanction going on with known vessels to dishonour in evil or error. On the contrary it is He who directs and sanctions our purging ourselves out, after that all right means fail, tried in vain to purge out those unworthy vessels. This is His answer to that difficulty, and as plain as it is righteous and orderly. His church is the last place to make a refuge for iniquity, and the Fathers proved their iniquity in making it so. It is not a direction to a Timothy or a Titus only. It is incumbent on every faithful soul who is sure of the dishonour done to God: ἐὰν οὖν τις, "if any one therefore purge," etc. This is surely unanswerably certain.

We are still bound to own the one body, and disown the denominations of men. And as the Lord makes the duty obligatory to quit a fellowship where evil is allowed and refused to be dealt with according to God's word, so He has given in Matt. 18: 20 the precious resource in the constitutive principle with which the church began: "where two or three are gathered together unto (εἰς) My Name," (not Episcopalianism, Presbyterianism, Congregationalism, or any other sectarian system) "there I am in the midst." And this precious principle assures us of the same sufficient and all-worthy and efficacious centre for all saints to the end. He is worthy, the one Head of the one body, whatever the members may do; and the one Spirit abides to give it living power where there is faith to act on the word of His grace. To remain in the evil condemned is to rebel against God's word, and set one part of His word against another. Is not this evident?

Q. — Rev. 3: 9. What is meant by "those who say that they are Jews, and are not, but do lie?" and what by their homage before the representative of the church in Philadelphia? S.Y.

A. — It is a synagogue of Satan, as we are told here and in Rev. 2: 9. The existence of a party among the professors of Christ, who abandon walking in the Spirit, and take the judaised position of antiquity, historical continuance, saving ordinances, and priestly order. As a matter of fact this was openly advanced in the second and third centuries when heathen persecutions also raged; and it broke out afresh in the nineteenth century not only for Great Britain and her Colonies but the United States of America, Germany, Holland, etc. It was Satan's effort, when it began; and it was realised afresh when God's grace was recalling the faithful to Christianity and the Church in their true and heavenly character as in the Spirit. But even those so misled are compelled to feel and own that, as far as man can judge, the love of Christ rests on those who utterly deny this retrogradism from heavenly relationships to "the weak and beggarly elements" which dominate them. The grace and truth which came through Christ are as far as possible from fine buildings, fine music, and fine sermons. For we are not of the world, but above it, and go along with His reproach. How far and in what way the adversaries shall come to do homage, it is not for us to say. Even now the most prejudiced feel in their conscience who they are that have His word and His love abiding in them.

Q, — What is the chief error (or errors) of the Seventh Day Adventists? I believe they teach annihilation of souls. A.Y.

A, — They used to be called Millerites, the leader being bold enough to set a certain day for the Lord's coming in 1844, which of course was untrue. Now, if numerous, they are in various portions, rejecters of all the truth of Christianity. Their new name proclaims this really for them all. For as the sabbath or seventh day was under the law a sign between Jehovah and Israel, and the memorial of the old creation, the Lord's day or first day is characteristic of grace and the new creation. They are therefore stamped on their own profession as men that say they are Jews, and are not, but lie. Turning their back on the faith, they make themselves debtors to the law which condemns all that fail, and especially apostates from Christianity. No wonder that they deny the heavenly hope, hold the soul's sleep or its extinction, and look for resurrection (if at all) for the earth, when only eternal life is given, with no more than a promise now. But many deny the Lord's deity, etc. They are not entitled to the name of Christians in any real sense. The Salvation Army are beyond the line of destruction, but only borderers. To leave them for the S.D.A. is an awful step backward.

Bible Treasury Volume N 6, p. 46. March 1906.

Q. — Gen. 1. Which do you believe to be the true interpretation of this chapter? And why is no other view so satisfactory as the one you favour? M.A.

A. — In a general way it may be said that three different modes of understanding have prevailed.

1. What maybe called the oldest known exegesis among Jewish and Christian commentators was the very vague notion that "In the beginning" (vers. 1, 2) was practically very near if not actually at the same time, as that which is detailed in "the six days" beginning with ver. 3 and following to the end of the chapter. There may be some slight difference among the early fathers as among Rabbis. But the general impression which they convey was the conviction that the creation of heaven and earth almost immediately was followed by that of our first parents. The second verse presented no small difficulty. Heathen ideas would have inclined many to have reversed the order of vers. 1 and 2. Others could not admit such a change possible, and would have seen that as this was disloyalty to scripture, so it would have involved a difficulty as great as it removed. Hence the disposition to leave the two verses altogether a general summary, and details of creation to begin with ver. 3. To some Israelites "the six days" had to be explained away, and long geologic ages since the beginning and preceding man did not occur to those who thought of it as a vast single result of God's will. But waiving this, no tradition more widely ruled men, and Christendom in particular, and the Puritans as much as the Fathers.

2. The popular idea, since evangelical geologists looked for a scriptural support of the long ages of change after the "beginning," and before Adam or the race, was to look for them in "the six days," so extended as to cover the immense periods required. An Irish barrister, Dr. D. McCausland, eminently fitted by his ability and his scientific attainments to examine the question, urged this solution in his "Sermons in Stones"; as it was also taken up warmly by many scientists in Great Britain, America, etc.

3. There remains the third, and as I believe, the really sound meaning of the chapter: in that it leaves room for all that God wrought, however protracted the time that elapsed between the "beginning" and the "six days" in successive acts of God in construction and catastrophe: cognisable by men of science, and left for their discovery in due time, but entirely outside the scope of revelation. The first two verses give the principle of creation and of chaos for the earth, the one as necessary as the other for man when created, not only to learn the facts from the earth's crust but to use the results according to God's beneficent provision. Thus scripture departs not from its supreme design and character, nor encumbers itself with teaching science which is man's pride. But it is untrue that it commits itself to "false science" or unreliable history, or any other insinuation of infidels. Hence, as in a scripture not poetic in any way but the simplest prose attributed to God by as true a saint as ever lived, there is no ground to doubt that the "six days" are literal, as "the evening and the morning" seems expressly meant to convey.

Indeed there is great moral beauty in "days" having no place in the part which commences with "In the beginning" and ends with "the Spirit of God was brooding over the face of the waters." It was well that we should know that the great divine agent, who in Israel deigned to give His all-powerful energy for making the vessels of the Sanctuary, and later, came down to make Christians individually and the church collectively God's temple by His indwelling, took so suited a relation to the last work which God was preparing for man to inhabit long after. it was no mighty tempest, but His suited brooding over the waters. But when the "six days" begin which man crowns before they closed, how in keeping a measurement of time so important for the race, and in relation to God above all! Then we first hear of them. Moral dealings then begin, with the wondrous proof of God's deep interest in man, and the corresponding responsibility of man to God, to the race, and to the lower creation. Then too we first read "And God said," and the deep privilege of reading and the solemn call to believe. This too confirms that the six days had nothing to do with the many acts of creating creatures, inanimate and animated, who could not understand Him; but His speaking definitely of all that formed the environment of the race was as precious as instructive for His vicegerent here below. Still more blessed when we look on by faith to the Second man and last Adam, the antitype and contrast of him that brought in sin and death, as Rom. 5: 14 lets us know, the Conqueror of Satan, the holy Sufferer for our sins, that the believer should reign with Him, and the world itself be blessed under His reign to God's glory. His word as to both Adams is not science but revelation, as indeed all the Bible is.

Q. — 2 Cor. 5: 15. The brevity of the remark on the late Bp. Lightfoot's view of these verses, followed by the Revisers', may account for my difficulty in apprehending the evidence and argument against it. May I ask for further clearing of the point? F.

A. — Not having the Bp.'s book at hand, I quote the R.V. which conveys his mind! "For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that one died for all, therefore all died; and he died for all, that they which live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again." Every reflecting believer, I think, must feet that the critical text sounds harsh and inconsequent for want of the εἰ (if) of the vulgar text. And every one used to various readings can see that the εἰ was peculiarly liable here to be dropt, because of the ι immediately preceding and the εἷς immediately following. But accepting the text preferred, wherein does the consequence lie that, because one died for all, therefore they all died, in the sense of dying with Him to sin, the marked privilege of all Christians? This very assumption misled Dean Alford unconsciously into misrepresenting the apostles, when he says that He died for all, that all should live to Him. But this is to change what the apostle wrote in contrasting "all dead" with "those that live." "The all" are men universally; "they that live," are only such as by faith have life in Christ. And this distinction is fundamental and everywhere sustained by the scriptures. The sense therefore is, for "all," death through sin and their sins, for whom nevertheless Christ died as the witness of love toward them in their sad and sinful state. The judgment of love is not merely this but that He died for all, that they that live by faith in Him, which assuredly "all" do not, should no longer be as once when dead, but live to him who for them died and was raised. For the Saviour whom the Christian owns is not a mere Jewish Messiah ruling Israel and the nations in righteousness peace and happiness on the earth, but a dead and risen Lord with whom we are associated, rejected by the earth but glorified on high, and we in obedient devotedness sharing His sufferings here and waiting to join Him there.

Thus what we are taught is not that all men have the Christian privilege of having died with Christ to sin, but that their being all dead as sinners was the motive for Christ to die on behalf of all. Where sin brought them without exception, love. sent and brought Him. Yet this, however glorifying God's nature and proving Christ's love, were vain to save them unless by faith in Christ they received life in Him to live to Him. Thanks be to God this is verified by His grace in "those that live" (as contra-distinguished from "all dead)," whom Christ's love constrains to live to Him who for them died and was raised. Accordingly the apostle shows that not only the evil but the old things at their best are passed away to Christian faith, and for any one in Christ (not surely for man unbelieving and outside Him) "a new creation, and all things of the God that reconciled us to Himself by Christ."

The perversion to death in Christ to sin, which can apply to none but believers, dissolves the reasoning for how could this prove the love of Christ dying for all mankind? Whereas no Christian but sees His love for all in dying for all. And what follows is decisive against such a meaning as the Bp. put on it, for it is a part and not "all," but only "they that live" who enjoy the privilege, and accept the responsibility of Christians. As these learned men give the sentence, "We thus judge, that one died for all, therefore [illatively] all died," it stands rather unintelligible, and is refuted by the context that follows. Text and translation, if right, lead to no such result.

Q. — 1 Tim. 3: 15, 16. Is there any good ground from a critical point of view for the following reading of this passage?

(15) "But if I delay, in order that thou mayest know how one ought to conduct oneself in God's house, which is a living God's assembly".

(16) "Pillar and base of the truth and confessedly great is the mystery of godliness, the which was manifested in flesh, was justified in [the] Spirit, was seen of angels, was preached among Gentiles, was believed on in [the] world, was received up in glory." [The rendering has been made more exact to avoid repetition and discussion, save at the beginning of ver. 16. Ed. B.T.].

It is contended by the adherents to this new rendering that the history of the church has proved that it has not abode in the truth, much less can it be said to be the pillar and base of the truth! and that it is a relief to find that the scripture does not say it is, as has been universally supposed.

Then, that all critics now agree that ὅς, "he who," is the correct reading (instead of "God" and that therefore the mystery of godliness, Christ and the church, is the pillar and ground of the truth — not Christ in incarnation. This removes the difficulty that many feel in understanding how Christ personally could be said to have been "justified in [the] Spirit"; and also that it is this mystery which was preached among the nations (Eph. 3: 9; Rom, 16: 25, 26) and believed on in the world, which Christ could not be truly said to have been before He was received up in glory. Th. R.

A. — It is a mistake to consider this clumsy, crooked and wholly unjustifiable form of taking the first clause of ver. 16 as a "new rendering"; for so understood several Protestants, for the most part of dubious faith, as Er. Schmid, Limborch, Le Clerc, Schöttgen, Rosenm. (the elder), Heinrich, etc., etc. I do not wonder at Dean Alford's saying "if any one imagines St. Paul ... able to have indited such a sentence," it were useless to argue with him. "To say nothing of its abruptness and harshness, beyond all example even in these Epistles, how palpably does it betray the botching of modern conjectural arrangement in the wretched anticlimax! . . . If a sentence like this occurred in the Epistle, I should feel it a weightier argument against its genuineness than any which its opponents have yet adduced."

Only less untenable is the absurdity of understanding Timothy (and behind him Paul and the other apostles) as "pillar and basement of the truth."

There is no real difficulty in referring it to God's church, which is not the truth, but pillar and basement of the truth responsibly on the earth. Christ is the truth engraven as it were on that pillar here below. Where is or was any other before men after Christ's brief appearing and His ascension? If Israel with His law was a witness as His chosen people among the nations, how much more since God's new house was a living God's assembly, witness of grace and truth in Christ! But it is the Second Epistle, not the First, which instructs the faithful what to do when disorder and departure from the truth, and sanction of evil and error, gave a false witness.

Still less difficulty is there in applying the mystery of godliness to Christ's concrete person, who was manifested in flesh, justified by the Spirit in resurrection, then seen of angels instead of mankind, preached to Gentiles instead of reigning over Israel in Zion, believed on in the world instead of ruling the nations with rod of iron, received up in glory on high instead of displaying it over all the earth, as the Prophets had testified for the world-kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ. The last was reserved, it would seem, to contrast with the great declension of mixing Him up with the sordid and earthly character of Christendom, and its delusions. So far is the notion of making the church part of the "mystery of godliness" that it would import wholesale and deadly error. It is "who," not "which" as the church is.

Mr Kelly departed to be with Christ on the 27th March 1906.