* * * * *
My dear Brother,—I thank you for your letter. I have always been ready to explain any expressions, and have admitted the human infirmity of them now these eight years. For, strange to say, my papers have been published these eight years, a plain proof that it is, as of God, some other cause than mere doctrine, and of man and the enemy too. It is this which one has to weigh. I am not afraid of the result, but as a passage it has its importance. I have no wish at the present time to have an exhibition of a controversy among brethren. But it is not only that I have been willing to explain, I have done so whenever I have been written to; and, of course, should; and many minds, I know, set at rest. You will remember as to reading Mr. D.’s and Captain H.’s pamphlets, that I had a long correspondence with each; and I am told that D.’s is substantially his letters without mine. Did I read them I might have to answer them, and that I should with difficulty be brought to do. There is a day when all will be brought to light. I bow, I trust, sincerely to the present chastening; feeling a great deal more for brethren than for myself. I am persuaded with patience everything will find its place… God’s meaning in what takes place, I should, and do, weigh with him. It is, of course, an additional pressure on me in my more direct work in this very difficult country, but I do not feel it much now. I am still very glad I offered to stand outside. If it was not to be so, God has His own purpose and blessing in it. If it were to be so, yet I have not as far as yet a thought of giving up a hair’s breadth of what my real meaning was. The world with me or against me, I hold [it] firm and unmoved. My judgment is that while I might relieve them by leaving them (and the doctrine is no proper bus ness of theirs) their yielding to D. and H. would be the first step in their ruin.
What I always desired was that they should go on quietly on their own ground; that is their business; but not be terrified by the adversaries.
Was death as death a suffering and’ sorrow to Christ, for instance in Gethsemane (where H. admits Christ was not accomplishing the work of atonement) or not—I do not mean man’s pure action in it, but death as death—when the sorrows of death compassed Him? Was His cutting off as Messiah nothing to Him? Atonement was in the cup, suffering for righteousness all His public course (at any rate) through. Was there no heart-suffering, but man’s outward persecutions because He was righteous, and His feeling them—nothing that pressed on Christ’s heart but atonement or persecution? They do not seem to know what suffering means, and apply it only to outward actual things coming on a man; nor the true mind of good in the midst of evil. Heart-suffering for others, I suppose, they have never known; I do not envy them. It was neither sympathy for others, nor atonement, when Christ looked for compassion and found none
November, 1866.
* * * I thank you much for your account of Ireland. I had heard of dear——’s departure. I had heard, too, that the world had enticed away her husband, and, I trust, this may have awakened his conscience and heart. I feel such cases as——’s overwhelming. I ask myself why such things occur, for there have been one or two—if anything in myself, or in the ways and teaching of brethren even, to give occasion to what we all abhor. It is well we should judge this. I have no doubt as to the utter dishonesty of ordinary evangelical teaching, nor do I hesitate a moment on the need or glory or truth of simple full grace and salvation. It cannot be separated from Christ’s glory, nor Christ from it. It is a part of eternal truth. I know the stupid objection of unconvinced and self-righteous sinners was alleged against Paul’s doctrine, and that Peter had to say, “As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness.” All this is foreseen of God. But, I ask myself, Is there any check in practice or doctrine overlooked, any onesidedness in the way of putting it? That in the late revival, not among brethren as much as elsewhere, but generally, there was un-scriptural language, I judge, as to repentance and sanctification. The reaction against error over-stepped the bounds of scripture; but I think there must be more than this—something in our ways, in mine it may be, that God judges. I have seen that God has never allowed any allowed evil in brethren to be hidden, and I can thank Him for it; while elsewhere it is hushed up. Still it is very sorrowful that the Lord should be grieved, and those we love dishonour themselves and Him He can restore, that is the comfort; I trust he will poor ——. I am sure He is righteous in all His ways, and such falls are not the beginning of departure from Him, not sudden, but the result— I would trust, the end—of departure from Him. Still I would trust that in a certain sense he was taken in a fault, and our part is to restore such an one in the spirit of meekness, considering ourselves. Judgment on evil is all right, but the restoration of the sinner is the object of divine love; he will never, nor any one, be restored till the origin of the evil be judged. Christ does not reproach Peter with denying Him, but He does say, “Lovest thou me more than these?”—he will have to judge all that led him away from God. If we go down into Egypt, we have no altar till we get back to the one we had at the first, when God brought us to worship Him where our tent and our altar were in the land of promise.
The question you speak of in London has been pretty strongly before brethren. H. sought to make them independent churehes, saying London was as populous as Galatia. ——intrigued with all his energies to excite jealousy against the Saturday meeting; and a man, whose name I forget, who also was seeking to play this all off at the Priory, wrote and printed and insisted on their being churches. The difficulty in practice is real, in principle none; in practice because of the size of the town, and fidgetiness of individuals as to their local responsibility being meddled with. But hitherto a little grace and patience have met these difficulties, and God’s grace can, and, I trust, will. It was this W. meant when he said, what was laid hold of for their purposes, that the one church of God in London, judged ——, in referring to cutting it up into churches—taken hold of to mean we only were the church, and all else outside. But the point was then pretty fully up and met. I took my part in it, and should again, if it came up; only I feel the fruits of righteousness are sown in peace, and I have had toil enough in this world to seek the ministration of the fulness of Christ for myself and for the saints. It is as clear as daylight in scripture that the church of God was one in each city or place. The size of London makes difficulty; the sending the names round was that all might help each; and such cases have arisen. In ordinary ones one has to trust the brethren of each locality; and even the few of them who inquire fully alone are acquainted with the facts, and we have to remember it is not really admission to membership with us, that is a sect, but ascertaining that they are members of Christ, walking godlily in the truth. There was no trying at first. We have to try because we are in 2 Timothy. The Lord lead the beloved brethren on in peace and godliness…
1867.
* * * * *
* * * I have been very ill, perhaps I should say very low, it was an attack with night fever accompanying it when already quite worn out. My first part when so low (and God graciously set me to it) was to repass and judge all my ways—not my activities, which, however wanting, were really for Christ, but all that had passed in my own mind according to His Spirit where I had allowed any evil in my mind. Then I got into a spirit of direct worship in which I was very happy, and full of God’s presence, not exactly dwelling on His love, which I had often enjoyed, but worship—God put in His place, God enjoyed in and for Himself as God; and then much thought, happy and profitable, how I should feel if Christ came—looked at humanly, so to speak, I suppose Mary’s would be the place, she sat still in the house. I felt the unspeakable joy of one look of His favour; and so I passed my time (most kindly cared for) but alone. I had flowers from the famous poet Longfellow’s garden, for God can provide even these from where He will.
1867.
* * * * *
[From the French.
* * * Thank you much for your letter. God knows I have never sought to have dominion over the faith of any one whatsoever, whilst seeking to help their joy, and I think I have this testimony in the conscience of all the brethren: I am heartily their servant for the love of Christ, but I do not accept that they should have dominion over mine.
I see in what is really the object of the attacks of some, an inaccuracy of expression which exposes truths but little examined, and little realised amongst brethren, and where I have exposed them without suspecting their evil will. I see expressions which one might use in a bad sense if one sought to do so: chiefly because suffering means either inflicted pain, or suffering of heart, a distinction that is not made in the statement of the sufferings of Christ. But as to the substance of the doctrine, I maintain it fully, and I utterly reject and as sorrowful error what has been opposed to me. The doctrine of my adversaries (I am sorry that I have any) sets aside the most touching truths of Christianity, and the best affections of the Christian. So much so, that whatever my affection for brethren (and it is very great—you know that this has been the labour of my life), if it were necessary to renounce what I have written in the substance of it, or brethren, I should renounce brethren; not as to seeking their good, but if they will not have me, whilst avowing what I teach there, I should remain alone and leave the decision of it to God.
Thank God, it is not thus; the attacks have only drawn closer the bonds of affection. The influence of these poor brethren, whom I love with all my heart, had already become null by the state in which they were found; it was the effect of their position and not really the cause.
Meanwhile a mass of brethren have gained much in their souls in meditating on the sufferings of the Lord. If I must go through sorrow of heart that brethren may arrive at this result, I do not complain. It has been extremely painful to me because of the persons engaged in these attacks, being very specially connected with one of these brothers. But all this is good. I have not taken it haughtily. I have carefully examined my writings, the word, and the objections of my accusers. I have allowed time for others to examine them; I do not fear the result, whilst admitting my infirmity and weakness. I believe that this will turn into great blessing. I wait…
Meanwhile, by the grace of God, I pursue my work as usual. I am rather encouraged in New York though it is a day of small things. We have no meeting place, but souls begin to come together. It is a terrible country, morally and spiritually, but there are many true souls who groan and suffer from the state of things. Worldliness, heresies of all sorts, politics—this is what characterises Christians. There is a certain activity, and generosity as to giving; but the word has no authority; they seek the amusements of the world like the people of the world, and politics perhaps still more. But God has a people. Our privilege is to keep near Him.
The more one goes on the more one knows whom one has believed. Then He knows how to keep what we have committed unto Him. No one, I believe, can have a more true and deep sense of his nothingness than 1 But the love of Jesus, and of our God in Him, is an inexhaustible depth of happiness, happiness which is called eternal, to our hearts. We wait for His Son from heaven. The sorrows down here are but for a moment. If only we can be faithful and glorify Him—that is the desire of my heart, I believe it is of yours, although you are by circumstances more in relation with this poor world. Count on the Saviour, so good, so faithful. He is so through all the circumstances everywhere that the will of God places us in. How happy we are to have to do with Him! My heart rejoices deeply in His love and goodness, poor and worthless as I feel myself to be.
May the grace of the Lord keep you at rest and cause you to enjoy abundantly fellowship with Him.
* * * * *
Dearest —— … I have not read brethren’s tracts, but when I have, I find many things to question, or not well founded. I have found what I utterly rejected … but God works through a great deal of inaccurate statement, if real truth and grace is there—only the effect bears the mark often of its origin—so He does through imperfect work. One can only trust Him quand même… Things are, as I have often said, in a shocking state here, and people are beginning to feel something better is wanting, and come to see that Christianity according to scripture is quite another thing. These of course are few, but truth is working its way, meanwhile the loose principle is there to hinder decision of conduct if possible. The loose meeting here avows, or rather positively holds (for they never avow as a meeting), the non-immortality of the soul; but their leader and teacher has publicly declared he glories in it, and the emigrants from neutral meetings go there; but there are others equally loose who do not go there or anywhere, but would be a hindrance to any one’s being decided…
There is a work to do here, and God is working, but it is a work of patience as yet. Brethren are more accustomed to go full sail, or work in simple evangelisation, blessed work too, but the fruits come out naturally. Here the existence of brethren has to be made good where there is no such thing, or if any be thought such, connected with a broken up loose meeting, denying the immortality of the soul. That there is such a thing as meeting in the unity of the body, holding the faith more than any here, is at least known now.
The churches, so-called, are awfully afraid of this annihilation doctrine, but let that and everything else in. They are a nursery for indifference to godliness and truth. Did I look as a man I should not be very sanguine. There have been hindrances I cannot enter into here in the elements to be dealt with. Still truth, and a testimony, has been before souls, and has penetrated far in many. The manifested fruits may be delayed, and others reap what has been sown, which I shall be delighted at with all my heart… Mere apparent success (God can of course work a special work) I should dread here. I know what succeeds here, and it is few who can get on even as Christians without it. I would rather have what God approved.
New York, May, 1867.
* * * * *
My dear Brother,—I am sending you some lines,82 by which you will see I have been more happily occupied with the sufferings of the blessed Lord than our friends in England. As to the lines, they are to go if you desire to put them in without initials or any sign of authorship. You are perfectly free to put them in or not: so many are disposed to find some heresy in what is written, at any rate by me, that you had better look closely to it. I am not the least concerned about it for myself. It is a very small matter to me to be judged of their judgment, but I should not commit other people to the inquisition; so you had better look close. I had not an idea of writing more than a verse or two as a hymn, and it spread out under my hand. Nor had I an idea of entering on what might give occasion to these amiable comments; but I found when I got on to the latter part I was on that part of the subject which might afford a handsome occasion for their investigations. So that while I enjoyed my meditations I should not expose others to their criticisms. I do not write any articles now for brethren’s journals. I have written a good deal, and I bide my time. I ought not to commit them to my position or views. The editors have no distrust, but I prefer for the present taking my own ground. I am publishing some tracts here. I thought a mere hymn I might be safe in, but it has extended to such a review of Christ’s sorrows, that though for me it is mere meditation and self-edification, others might find some awful doctrine in it, so that I make this long preface. It is rather long and not very poetical. But I enjoyed the meditation with my pen, and others may, too. I was very glad to get your letters.
Affectionately yours in the Lord.
The second part of the lines begins at “I pause.” The three last verses, if you like to leave from “I pause” out, come in after “To every soul in need.”
May, 1867.
* * * * *
My dear Brother,—I cannot but regret that this thought has laid hold of your mind. It goes far more deeply into the centre of Christianity than mere human notions of measured punishment. The immortality of the soul lies at the root, and with it, responsibility, repentance, and atonement; all of which are wholly gone in this human scheme. The character and evil of sin, and divine judgment, are equally involved; and where-ever it acquires power over the mind, the whole state of the soul is changed and loses reality and integrity before God. It is not merely a question of comparatively obscure passages in the Revelation, but of our nature, and the whole nature of our relations with God. If the soul be immortal its state in judgment continues; if not, we are only a superior kind of animal, more intelligent perhaps, but morally the same, and our responsibility, as such, gone. If temporary punishment is adequate, Christ had to bear no more. I say this not to prove anything, though for one who possesses the truth in his conscience it proves a great deal; but to shew you what is involved. If a man was to prove to me that a doctrine involved unholiness, I should know without more it was false; as was said to me yesterday I am free to sin—that must be false interpretation.
But I will first shew you how false your presentation of things is, as to “all live unto him.” There is no implication. The doctrine to which it is an answer denies the immortality of the soul and holds consequently that as the soul is not immortal, death is ceasing to exist, as in the case of the beasts that perish. Now the passage quoted is a direct formal proof that death is no such thing, but that when dead, they are alive to God as before. It formally and explicitly denies their doctrine. But you say, “These shall go away into everlasting punishment,” implies everlasting punishment. It implies nothing about it, it states it; just as it states that the others go away into “everlasting life.” Neither imply anything, they state the fact. If it had been said “everlasting fire,” it might have been alleged truly or falsely, that though the fire was eternal, they were not. But they go into “everlasting punishment,” which is not so, if they do not exist. There is no punishment if no one is there. Again, you say “the smoke of their torment” modifies. How does it modify it, if it is their torment, not the smoke of the fire? It is the smoke of what they are undergoing. If death is not ceasing to exist (and scripture is carefully certain as to this, killing the body is not killing the soul); if the duration of punishment is the same as of life, as of God, as of redemption, the case is clear statement, not implying. The truth of the ground taken by those who hold these doctrines is that we have existence as animals; all their arguments turn on this. If this be so, responsibility is gone. A dog and an elephant are not responsible, have not to repent, Christ has not to bear their sins. Give them eternal life! no gospel is needed for them. Christ has nothing to bear for them. They need no atonement. They do not hate God as man in the flesh does. If, as in your theory, men endure temporary punishment (a cruel system unworthy of God), then Christ had only that to bear for me. Sin has only that measure of evil. All the glory of His work, and my sense of sin, sinks down in proportion. Nor did I ever find one person who held these views, who had not at least mentally lost the atonement, nor can it be otherwise. For one who has only an animal soul cannot be responsible; be he saved or not, no atonement was needed. Christianity is gone in this system. If I have an immortal or undying soul and hate God, when judicially cast out (being such) my torment is infinite, as far as a creature can use the word. This I understand—feel in a measure— only not with finality of course present—but if it is only inflicted punishment for a term, without any object, but purely gratuitous, it seems an easy scheme to man, but it is God taking pleasure in useless punishment when they are going to end their existence after all. What “eternal” means is clear from scripture: “The things that are seen are temporal, the things that are unseen are eternal.” It means what is the opposite to “for a time.”
Isaiah 66, as all these Old Testament passages, refers to the government of earth and what happens there. But it shews this much, that the fire and the worm do not destroy, the carcases subsist without being consumed. Hence the Lord does not cite it, but uses it as the expression of enduring torment. He does not speak of carcases, nor an “abhorring to flesh.” It is not true to say it abstains from statements of duration of pain. Eternal punishment (kovlasi", torment) is expressly the contrary. So is “everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord.” Your explanation of a continual stroke seems to me as unfounded as possible. The stroke was not removed; he was always under it; it was not instantaneous but continual. It is not only the beast and the false prophet and those who worship the beast’s image who are cast into the lake of fire, but whosoever was not found “written in the book of life:” and it is a simply gratuitous assumption that there is a third death after it—not in the gospel, not given as a hope or as perspective deliverance, but invented to satisfy the thoughts of man, as possible as you say, but which denies the statements of scripture as to many, being spoken of when needed (they are “in danger [ejnoco"] of eternal damnation”), which makes the threatenings of scripture a bugaboo to frighten people with what is not true. But when it says “their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched,” it is all groundless fear. It is not their worm very soon at all; for though the worm is not dead, they have ceased to exist; so that the terror for them is unfounded. And remark, that at the judgment of the great white throne, the intermediate state is closed, death and hades. The dead have been raised, and these (the wicked) cast into the lake of fire, where we have seen others tormented for ever and ever, and of which it is said in general, “where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”
Responsibility, repentance, atonement disappear; and instead of the offspring of God, sons of Adam (“son of God”) into whose nostrils God breathed the breath of life, turned to hate God and so, persevering in it, excluded from His presence, cast into outer darkness—privation of God now judicially, for whom by His inbreathed spirit of life he was made, you give me with no need of atonement for me, a set of animals punished for a time, with no possible purpose or possible fruit; and on the ground that you say ‘may it not be possible?’ I say, impossible, if God’s word be not a bugbear, and Christianity not true—if my responsibility, repentance, and atonement be true.
I reply to your letter; I do not argue out the question, because you have what has been written, to which you may add F. W. Grant’s book “Life and Immortality;” but still more the word of God, but the word of God for conscience. I have always found it to be a question of the sense of sin, and so the need of atonement; what my sin has deserved from God. Your own letter proves this, for temporary punishment is adequate to it. I thank you for writing to me about it, and reply at once. My being in America of course delays my answer. I earnestly pray God your soul and conscience may get clear, may get that sense of sin which makes it impossible to accept these reasonings. It is a common thing now, but issues (though saints are deceived by it too) in infidelity.
Affectionately yours in the Lord.
* * * * *
My dear Brother,—I have got frightened on seeing the title page of what you are publishing of my old papers: I thought nothing—as all but two had been published, and they gave some historical insight into the first starting-point of brethren— of their being published again; nor do 1 It is the title page only that frightens me. It has a kind of pretentious look, making a kind of author of me who attaches himself to his works and his works to himself, which is not really the case. I feel as little as it is possible to feel I believe of authorship, save in the first place that what God does not give is useless in the church, or worse; and, not having naturally that kind of pride, sometimes I do not like what I have written, sometimes I do.
Do you know, I am somewhat afraid that this publication has brought out Hall and Dorman, worked on them, I mean, to take the place they have. They will have felt that it was committing them to a kind of system of leadership, not by anything I am doing now, for, as you know, I have not been, so to say, in England; but as a programme of doctrine which was put forth. I have never had the most distant idea of any unsoundness of doctrine in what they took up, nor have not; nor have any peculiar views at all on Christ’s personal or relative position. So that while, of course, willing to correct or improve expressions, I believe there is edification, not error, in the papers. I should be sorry that deeper apprehensions as to Christ’s sufferings should stumble any, for that is all there is. I know not that charity could have done more to remove it; or that it would have been right to deprive the saints of blessing (which has been some five years before them) as if it was error; but I leave all that to God.
It is the title page of the book I speak of as having a somewhat pretentious air on my part, though I had nothing to say to it. I do not know if it could be remedied now, and another title given—“a collection of tracts and papers, some out of print or never published, by J. N. D.,” or some such thing. I have not the least objection to their seeing the light, though the form frightened me. I never liked putting “the author” in any tract of mine, feeling there was no good in anything God was not the author of.
There is a little progress here, but all is in its infancy. The denial of the immortality of the soul is so common among Christians of fair profession, all but universal where Christ’s coming is known and the state of the church seen, that one has to be greatly on one’s guard. I have had to contend earnestly about it here. Thank God, the brethren who had been decided about it have, through raising the question by others, seen clearer than ever. They have seen that it really upsets atonement…
I mourn over D., but my judgment is as clear as daylight: brethren, if I can; Christ at all cost.
Ever affectionately yours.
Some were much helped and some brought out at the Guelph meeting.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, August 8th, [1867].
* * * * *
Dearest ——,—The West Indies are a question of service, and he that saveth his life shall lose it. I like neither winter seas, scorpions, nor heat; but the gracious Lord will take care of me, if it is His service and His will that I should go. It will cheer and encourage them, and I do hope interest others as it has in Canada and the States. But I feel that in the present state of the church of God and the world, if spared, there is a serious work to be done in England in the breaking in of the latter-day evils, and that my present service with what strength I have left, is mainly there, and I trust, ere some six months be up, the Lord helping, to be there. There is blessing here just now so that I linger…
Our life here is but a passage, West Indies or anything; but there is a government of God, a dealing in grace, but in respect of our state, as in Deuteronomy 8 I feel my visit there is a trial as to my mere nature; but I feel that is nothing, and if God be with me, all will be well…
I trust all will be peace as to ——. I fear narrowness, but long experience has made me feel continually more the importance of respecting the actions of those habitually engaged in service in any place.
Peace be with you, kindest love to all the beloved brethren.
P.S.—I have been much struck lately with the fact that in Luke we have more of suffering in Gethsemane and none on the cross.
September, 1867.
* * * * *
* * * When I got your letters and read them, the effect on my mind was, and I said so; well, it is a simple thing to go to heaven when one is going there, and that was my feeling. I have long growingly felt—and every storm leads to that port —that that was where one was going, and when the time was come, it was a kind of natural thing to go there; and dear Mrs. —— was surely as little of this world as any one I know of at least, and went to where her home and rest are. Still I feel the loss of one so dear to you for you; and it is not those who gently lean upon us, and trust us, whose loss we feel the least; but all leads on to where our true home and rest is. As for her, all is rest… . Peace be with you.
Toronto, September 16th, 1867.
* * * * *
To the same.]
* * * Your testimony now is to be enjoying Christ for yourself, and not to be looking at your testimony to the saints. As you enjoy Christ for yourself saints will find it out, and that will be your testimony to them.
* * * * *
My dear Brother,—I am on my way by Montreal to New York, where they look for me. I found your B. T. and pamphlet here. I have nothing to reply. I suppose the paper was one in my MS. books, and so not guarded against expected adversaries; but I have had the question before me often. The opposition is only ill-will, and were I to seek to cavil, I might reply that Christ shed no blood in dying at all. It was not by taking blood from Him as a victim that He died. The water and blood that were shed were when He was dead—and it is vital to hold that He gave up His life and that it was not taken from Him by shedding His blood. I quite admit He had really to die. But the reality of His drinking the cup of wrath, which unquestionably from scripture was accomplished before He gave up His spirit, is of the last importance. I do not believe there is in the objection any love of the truth, any real, serious concern about Christ, any deep sense of need met by the blessed Lord’s sacrifice, anything but ill-will, and I have no answer to give, and am quite unmoved at such an one’s accounting it heresy.
It is not true that it is only attributed to blood-shedding and death. It is attributed to suffering including death. And in the act of dying Christ did not suffer, but peacefully commended His spirit to His Father. Death was dreadful to Him surely, but it was not in the act of dying it was so.
I have run my eye hastily over J. M. C.’s. There is nothing new in it, unless a denial that scripture suffices to direct us in certain cases, which I wholly deny. I do not say any gathered part of all believers is the body. They only may be meeting on the principle of its unity. It is a stupid paper. It says, “But we can only stand unmoved by holding the Head with doctrine and practice undefiled.” I believe their practice is very wicked indeed—heinous contempt of Christ; and so I do not go with them, and that is all about it. I do not reject people because they do not agree about the one body. It is all, as all these documents are, an effort to sanction evil, calling it therefore an infinitesimal degree of alleged complicity. The true ground of gathering is a de facto protest against evil, when a man purges himself from it in the midst of church corruption. And that is what they hate. But to carry it on faithfully, and not to be perpetually debating it, is our business. I have never seen one tract on that side whose effect was not to excuse or allow evil—in most I have seen, and I do not it is true read them—vexation of having faithfulness firm, their own conscience being bad and galled by it.
Ever affectionately yours in the Lord.
Ottawa, November 8th, 1867.
* * * As regards the first query,83 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 chap, 3); but unfolds the elements of the position of the believer before God as reckoning himself dead to sin, baptised 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 chap, 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 chapter 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. Chapter 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 chapters 3-5. Christ has died for our sins when we were sinners: now is added, we have been baptised 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 chapter 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 that Jesus was not yet glorified.” And lust was in the Old Testament saints, but now the flesh working 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 realised in the measure in which we walk in the Spirit, as we live in the Spirit.
Some further remarks will clear this point. The inquirer 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 Gal. 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 oujk e[stin aujtou' (ver. 9), 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, aujtw'/; 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 (aujtoi') till they have His Spirit. All men are Christ’s in a certain sense; all His sheep are His own in another: but none can be said to be His when they have not His Spirit.
The saVrx is not dead; saVrx would not do at all here (ver. 10); when the sw'ma is alive, active in will, it is saVrx, and there is sin. Hence if “Christ be in you”—not simply, if I am born of God (which a man is in Rom 7), but, if Christ be in me I reckon myself dead; I am, in the true christian estimate, dead (compare Col. 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 recognise 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. Pneu'ma is surely the Spirit of God, but dwelling in us, and the source of and characterising 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 aujtou'. 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.
[1867.]
* * * * *
* * * The whole of the beginning of 2 Corinthians is founded on the circumstance, that the apostle had just been in a violent persecution, in which it seemed impossible to escape with life. The sentence84 referred to declares that this outward danger of being put to death had no power over him whatever, because within he held himself for a dead man, and trusted in Him that raiseth the dead. What was killing to a dead man who only looked for the power of resurrection to be exercised? Apovkrima I take to be a judicial sentence, not an answer, though it has this sense also. He held himself as a child of Adam under sentence of death. It was a condemned, sentenced, nature. But he says more than this; he had this in himself—he held himself for dead. His own life was condemned for himself. As far as the natural man moves, and wills it, it is flesh; but holding the flesh as actually dead in one’s own mind is holding the body-to be dead, as far as any mental sentence can go. “If Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; and the Spirit is life.”
Nevkrwsi"85 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, that is, his being put to death. In Romans 4 it is not simply death, as if Sarah were dead, but the losing 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 4:19, but he realised 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. Nevkrwsi" is making a corpse of, depriving of life; this ended with his body because it has so been with Christ. So Peter says, Christ having suffered in the flesh, we are to arm ourselves with the same mind.
[1867.]
* * * * *
* * * The epistle to the Ephesians contemplates the church86 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 Col. 1:28), “that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.” The perfect man means simply 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 6:1. !Anqrwpo" is the race including man and woman, and would not be appropriate here. Speaking merely of men, I say pavnta a[nqrwpon, as Colossians 1. *AnhVr 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.
[1867.]
* * * * *
* * * The change from “we” to “ye” is very simple. “We,”87 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 Mal. 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.
There is only a shade of meaning different oJ ajsthvr oJ prwi>nov", Revelation 2:28, and fwsfovro" here, one referring to the early appearance, the other to its introducing dawn or light. Peter is speaking of prophecy as a light, a candle shining in a dark place—God’s light in the darkness of this world; with which he contrasts Christ’s heavenly coming, the hope of the saints as bringing in the light of a new day. &O ajsthVr oJ prwi>nov" is merely what it is—its appellative, Christ Himself, still not in the kingdom: that precedes in verse 27, and is found rather in “the Root and Offspring of David” in chapter 22.
[1867.]
* * * * *
* * * The firstfruits were to be offered but not burnt, because88 leaven was in them; and they could not be in themselves a sweet savour: hence a sin-offering was offered with them. (Lev. 23:17-19.) They represent the church, being (as may be seen in Lev. 23) the offering of the day of Pentecost: not the church in the unity of the body, but as formed among Jews on earth on that day. The first of the firstfruits, the corn out of full ears, is Christ risen, offered on the morrow of the sabbath after the Passover; it represents Christ Himself, and hence (Lev. 23:12, 13) there was no sin-offering. If we look at it in Lev. 2:14, it is still Christ. Oil and frankincense are put on it. It is an offering made by fire without leaven. It is Christ looked at as man, tried by divine trial of judgment, but perfect to be offered to God. The expressions are somewhat remarkable—geres carmel, “corn mature out of full ears;” it may be, “produce of the fruitful field,” the latter being the known sense of carmel; the meaning of geres was certain. But the general meaning of the offering is pretty plain: Christ in His manhood, sinless and full proved, presented to God with oil and frankincense of acceptable odour, the firstfruits—fruits of man to God.
[1868.]
* * * * *
* * * It is important to pay attention to the place where89 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 chapter 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. Verses 20-30 of chapter 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 chapter 12, and the mysteries of the kingdom are brought out in chapter 13. On the occasion of this transition we see the testimony of John and that of Jesus 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 chapter 14, the change in the ways of God is clearly shewn, 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. (Vers. 16-24.) Then the ways of God in sovereign grace towards man—towards sinners—are brought out in that treasury of grace and love, which is found in chapter 15; and in chapter 16, the Lord shews the use that man ought to make of that which he possesses 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; instead of enjoying it as a thing possessed in this world. He should think of eternal habitations. It is here that the passage relative to the kingdom and to John the Baptist is found. 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; 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 Psalms 15, 24, 37, and many others; Isaiah 48:22, 51, 57:21, 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 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. Now the first thing that they 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 would have reigned in righteousness. But it was not so; it was preached, and preached by prophets—and by those who were more than prophets—and by 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 only the energy of faith, going through sufferings, which could seize on it. Satan and the heads of the nation would do all they could to prevent people from entering, and even soil their hands with the blood of the righteous. Those who preached the kingdom suffered, and those who entered it were to have their portion with them. The kingdom was not being established in power; the King did not reign; He was preached. It was only by violence that one forced one’s way into 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 chapter 4. The parable which follows these verses in Luke goes farther. It decidedly opens heaven, and completely overturns the Jewish system, which made earthly blessings to be a proof of God’s favour.
* * * * *
* * * The difficulty suggested as to the date can have no90 place whatever. Other questions may arise as to the force of words. In Revelation 12 Satan is cast down, clearly before the last great tribulation, greatly enraged, because he knows he has but a short time, and persecutes the woman for the “time, times, and half a time.” In the passage in the gospels, where the mark of time seems precise (Matt, 24, Mark 13), the shaking of the powers of the heavens is after the tribulation. That is, the casting down of Satan in Revelation 12 is before, and introductory of, the last tribulation; in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 the shaking of the powers of the heavens is after the tribulation. Thus, as events, they have nothing to do with one another. In Luke 21 the expression is vague, and gives a general ground for what happens. The inquiry then is simply, without any reference to the fall of Satan from heaven, what these terms mean.
It seems to me that in Luke there is a mixed metaphor; in Matthew and Mark it is more in the style of Old Testament prophecy. I have little doubt that the scene will be as mixed as the metaphor—terrible signs actually given (compare Luke 21:11); and, besides that, an actual disruption of all existing powers, and terror on every heart, with the tumultuous swellings of peoples. Compare Psalm 93, where I do not believe it is mere literal waters. Further, I find in Daniel 8:10 the host and the stars clearly refer to rulers (Jewish priestly rulers) on the earth. Now I do not doubt the shakings and subversion of the future (before the great and terrible day of the Lord) will be much greater and more terrible than what is in Daniel 8; but this gives an inlet into what those expressions mean. I would not confine this tremendous breaking up of existing powers and rule to Jewish ones there, though it is in Daniel 8, because Gentiles and Jews are all mixed up together, the sacrifice taken away, and idolatry come in. But there will be more than a revolution—a subversion and upsetting of all manifested and organic powers. There is an analogous upsetting of all powers in Revelation 6, supposed by the inhabitants of the earth to be the great day of the Lamb’s wrath, which it is not, but only a precursor of it. I refer to it to shew that such subversions of all constituted powers are so spoken of, without any raising of the question whether Satan is cast down from heaven or not. This is before the trumpets and the vials; the end of the last tribulation comes after it—somewhere at the end of the second woe-trumpet, and then God’s judgment by Christ Himself. The .beast and the final tribulation are a special subject, besides the general government under which these shakings come; and they are so given in the Apocalypse. The general government of God applies to the nations at large; the beast is in connection with the rejection of Christ and enmity to Him. They go on concurrently, but the latter is a special matter.
* * * * *
* * * There is, I think, no difficulty in Exodus 6:3. If we91 compare Exodus 3:14, 15, we find there, “Jehovah, the God of your fathers.” It was the personal name of God as having to do with men, and particularly with Israel—man in the flesh set in relationship with. God. It is His abiding name as to this world, either who was, and is, and is to come, if we take Him historically, or more perfectly as in Revelation who is (oJ w]n), and was, and is to come, the oJ w]n, the existing one (atta hu), and past in time, and to come. But in Exodus6:3 it is different. It speaks of the character in which He revealed Himself in order to their walking before Him. And note, when the revelation of Shaddai, as the name to be owned in walk took place, it is said Jehovah appeared unto Abram; and the word was, “I (Jehovah) am El Shaddai; walk before me.” Hence, in Exodus 6:3, “I am Jehovah; and I appeared unto Abraham (3) as El Shaddai: (in) my name Jehovah was I not (made) known to them.” This refers to the appearing to put them according to the nature of that revelation’ in relationship with Himself: so to Jacob (Gen. 35:11), as soon as God revealed Himself to him. To Isaac, who stands connected with Rebekah, the risen head of the church, He is not revealed by any name. The historical name is always Jehovah or Elohim. The One who appears is always Jehovah; but He appears to Abraham as El Shaddai, and so reveals Himself as the ground of, and that which gives its character to, his walk before Him. But it is always Jehovah who appears, as in chapter 12:7. In chapter 15:7 it is no appearing. The word of Jehovah came to Abraham and said, “I am Jehovah that brought thee out of Ur.” And in Psalm 91, the title of Shaddai is used as the expression of almighty protection; the Messiah says as knowing the true secret of who the Most High is: “I will say of Jehovah,” etc. And so He is kept by the power of Shaddai. Thus, I judge, that though Jehovah, as the expression of the constant being of God, was taken as the specific covenant name of Israel’s God—the God of man in the flesh who had to say to God—yet it was, as the name of constant being, the abiding historical name of God. Almighty and Father are special names of character and relationship taken with those to whom God is so revealed. The name of the one true God, the name of the being, is His abiding name, in relationship with the earth—the name. The Israelite had “blasphemed the name.” Most High is another relative name taken. Hence it is only in the millennium fully. But it is still Jehovah who is the Most High. Hence you would not have ‘the angel of Shaddai’ or of the Father, or Elion, because he represents His power as such, not a name of relationship; but he took His name, as the name of relationship with Israel.
It was not that the name of Jehovah was not known as the proper name of the true God, but that His making Himself known to them, as the One before whom they were to walk, was in another specific name. He did not take His name, His own name so to speak, as the name by which He was to be in relationship with them. It is a very important circumstance as to Israel that God’s own name, what I may call His personal name, at least in connection with man on earth, “the name” became the name of relationship with that people. Hence in celebrating that name, even in the wide extent of the unopened glory, in the past which belongs to earth, we have (Psalm 8), “O Jehovah our Adon, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!” He had set in that His glory now above the heavens. Elohim is the One who stands in the position of the divine being. Jehovah is the personal name of Him who truly is so. He became the Elohim of the Jews as a nation who had been called out of the world to and by Him when idolatry had come in. (Josh. 24) Jehovah, He is Elohim. And now we say, Father, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom He has sent; but withal of the Son, He is the true God and eternal life. When it is said “then Jehovah shall be my Elohim” (Gen. 28:21), we must refer to verse 13, whence Jacob drew that which he then said, and so verse 16. But in Exodus6:2, we have equally, “I am Jehovah.” But in Genesis 35, when Elohim reveals Himself to Jacob as the present God with whom he had to do, it is again (ver. 11) El Shaddai. Jehovah is found in chapters 31:3; 32:9. In a word, Jehovah was not unknown to their own thoughts or in intercourse; but it was not the name He took in relationship to the patriarchs in their character as such: it was with Israel after the bush.
* * * * *
* * * The meaning is that, if Christ died for all, it was92 because all had died: otherwise there would have been no such need for Him to die. You need not go down into a pit where one will perish, if he is not there perishing. That it is not all died to sin is evident from the correspondency of “all” in the sentence; and further that “they which live” are taken as some out of the “all” in what follows. “He died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live,” etc.— oiJ zw'nte", not zw'nte". Hence he does not know even Christ after the flesh, as a living Jewish Messiah, whom as a Jew he would have known: “God was in Christ, reconciling the world.” Nor does he know Christians as belonging to the old creation to which they had died, nor others, for they were all dead—their whole history. But if a man was in Christ, it was a new creation: he belonged to that in which all things were of God.
The whole subject is the power of life in Christ as triumphant over death. Hence, when he applies it, he does not say merely “who died for them,” as when he speaks of all, but “rose again” also. It is the power and fulness of a new thing for those taken out of death through Christ’s going down into it. There was neither Jew, Gentile, sin, flesh, nor any other thing of the old Adam or legal estate, but a new creation.
[1869.]
* * * * *
* * * The first miracle was, as noticed heretofore, the expression of the change from Jewish purification to the joy93 of the millennium, when Jehovah shall restore Israel in truth; as the subsequent acting at Jerusalem was the judicial cleansing part of the same period. But from that act all is changed.
Jesus receives not man’s acceptance of Him as a present thing by mere human faith. A man must be born again. Instead of the Messiah received by Israel, the Son of man must be crucified. And heavenly things are behind this; and “every one,” and “whosoever believeth,” the sphere of action. John Baptist reveals Him fully as to His Person and testimony (if not also His relationship with Israel as bride). (Chap. 3:29-36.)
Hence in chapter 4 He goes Himself through Samaria, and God’s gift, man’s conscience, spiritual worship, the Father’s seeking such around Him as worshippers, and the Saviour of the world, are brought out. Then He goes to Galilee (that is, not established Judaism, but the slighted objects of God’s mercy in a really fallen Israel), where the second miracle is the life-giving power of faith. He arrests the power of death, when approached in need as able. This was His present service. He comes in His second character into Galilee, His Messianic reception being out of question. An analogous and larger expression of the full state of things dispensationally (which this is not) is His going down to heal the ruler’s daughter, but she is really dead. Meanwhile He heals, by virtue going out of Him, by the way, when He is touched by active faith; and afterwards He restores to life Israel, being really dead but in God’s eyes only asleep (that is, hid for a season though morally dead). This second miracle then is in special connection, but contrast, with the first.
* * * * *
* * * When the dative94 is used for time, it is always viewed as one whole point or object; when the accusative, it is a space during which. Thus, taking the common reading, Judges characterized the period of 450 years, as we hear of them during forty years in the desert. (Ver. 18.) So iJkanw' crovnw in Acts 8:11, and Romans 16:25. Thus trivth hjmevra and trivhn hJmeran would not have the same force, though in result the sense would be the same. In the first phrase I should think of that one day so characterized. With trivthn hJm. I think of two days elapsed before. In a word the accusative is duration, as the dative is epoch, though in sense running often into one another. Thus according to the common reading of the dative, in Acts 13:20, the statement would not be during 450 years, but up to, as far as (i.e., counting from the end of the desert). Thus Joshua, Elders, and Cushanrishathaim would have to be deducted—say some forty-five years. And the chronology is in no way changed. But then the reading of the more ancient authorities gives a very different sense.
* * * * *
* * * We live diaV ton Crivston (John 6:57), not merely diaV tou' C., as if it95 was merely a means of living, but on account of Christ, because of Him, and hence according to what His life is derived from, as He lived diaV toVn p. It is not cavrin, but the continuous cause, only objectively so, for we eat this blessed food. The force seems to be the moral source of the character of what is produced: thus in Galatians 4:13, dij ajsqeneivan, “in infirmity.” Infirmity of the flesh was the moral source of the character of his preaching; as in Philippians 1:15, envy was the moral source of the character of the preaching for some, as goodwill was for others. So here the Father was the moral source of the character of Christ’s life in the world, as Christ is of ours.
* * * * *
* * * I do not see any difficulty in God’s answering prayer96 connected with general laws, if we allow God to be free to act in His own world—as free as I am. Do I change general physical laws when I go, on request, to visit some sick person? My will—how, I know not—acts on and by these physical laws. Gravity is in my foot or in the earth, force is in my muscle, electricity in the nerves which set it in motion; yet I in my poor way have answered a request. Now I recognise fully power in God because He can, I need not say, not only change His law, but, without doing so, give force to agents in them, produce gastric juice more powerfully, or more electricity in the system at His will without introducing a single new element or law which governs it. Laws remain the same: His will interferes to produce agency by them. He may work a miracle, as raising the dead, which is by no law—He has done so. But I do not speak of miracles which take place when He changes a law, as when He makes the hatchet swim, but when He works by law to particular effects of His will. This may be miraculous, as when a strong whirlwind acted on the sea, and another took away locusts or brought quails. But He may give special activity or quantity to agents which act by laws regularly. I am sure, at any rate, that He bears and answers prayer. The very action of mind on man’s frame that more results may be produced, and God’s on mind (as to external circumstances), is so wonderful that I see no difficulty at all. Laws which bind nature I admit; laws which bind God I do not.
* * * * *
Dear Brother,—I am not surprised at Jowett’s exercising influence over those who breathe Oxford atmosphere; but for such the least sparkling of truth is an amazing coruscation, and he has heart and pleasure in truth he finds: but I was struck in reading his book, how little bits of truth which thousands of poor saints possess, as a matter of course, were the mountains of the moon for him, wonders of discovery. But he has a mind which would interest the young. But the ignorance of the clergy is astounding. And now for your questions. There can be no doubt women prayed and prophesied by inspiration, as Philip’s four daughters; but the assembly was to be the expression of the order of God, and there they were to keep the woman’s place. 1 Corinthians 11:17 begins directions for the assembly, what goes before not. Only we nave general instructions in Timothy, that they are not to teach but be in silence. The men are to pray everywhere, women to be modest in demeanour. I should hardly use Isaiah 8:20 against the Quakers, save to take the scriptures as the test of all they say. I hardly think djv could bear the sense of “light” in the Quaker sense. But Romans 8:9, latter part, is clear on the point. I wrote a tract “On Light and Conscience”97 once, having a good deal to say to Quakers.
There is a difficulty you have not weighed as to ejntoV" in Luke 17:21: that the Lord is speaking to Pharisees who had not the kingdom of God in the spiritual sense. Kingdom of heaven is used only in Matthew as a dispensational word; that is, the kingdom of God when the King was in heaven. So kingdom of their Father. Kingdom of God is the generic term, and can be used therefore morally, “is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” The kingdom of heaven is developed into the kingdom of our Father, and the kingdom of the Son of man.
As to Luke 21:19, although ktavomai is in general ‘get’ as contrasted with kevkthmai, yet it is used for keeping in possession, possessing so as not to lose. (Acts 4:34; 1 Thess. 4:4; Matt. 8:9; Luke 18:12.) Its direct reference is to the being spared, kept of God, saved in the dangers of the mission which they had among the Jews. There may be analogy, but possessing is not the working out. Salvation in Philippians is always viewed as at the end of the course.
1 Corinthians 7:14 and Hebrews 10:29 are only the same in the most general way. The Jew who married a Gentile was (not profane) but profaned, the child was profane, and had no title to be accounted a Jew or have part in their privileges; they were to be sent off. Under grace, the converse was the case. An unbelieving partner was (not holy, but) sanctified, and the child holy, not unclean, that is, had title to the privilege. In Hebrews the people are looked at as such, as objects of divine favour. Christ died for the nation as such. “Whoever, therefore, owned Him as Messiah, did not reject Him in unbelief, was looked on as set apart by blood. Once Loammi, not my people, but now Ammi, according to Hosea 2:23, only it was by blood. Hence so much warning in Hebrews against falling away.
Luke 8:46 and 6:19: it is the power to heal which resided in Christ, and became efficacious when the touch of faith was there.
As to Melchisedec, scripture makes him purposely a mysterious personage, not as you say the Son of God, but made like Him; no priestly genealogy, nor beginning at 25 years, 30 years, and ending at 50 years of age, and the like. It is not image (Heb. 1:3) of the Father, but of God: the Father as such, is not the subject of Hebrews. I do not think that chapter 9 gives co-existence. It shews that the tabernacle, etc., pre-figured as to sphere and general relationship of place and principle the heavenly places; but was not an exact representation. There were many dying priests, here one. There many sacrifices, here one once for all: a veil saying men could not go in, now for us at any rate, boldness to go in, and the like. After the person of Christ, the main subject of Hebrews is access to God as such, not relationship.
I write in haste, but glad to help you in any way. I shall be very glad, if the Lord allow, to meet any young men at Oxford. I hope, ere long, to be free here, as my new edition of New Translation is nearly finished.
Your affectionate brother in Christ.
1870.
* * * * *
* * * The words used for people, peoples, nations in the98 Hebrew are these. <u^ “people” in the singular in general signifies Israel, <yM!u^ in the plural “peoples.” This is very often indeed wrongly translated “people” in the Authorised Version, I suppose because “peoples” is not correct English; but the sense is quite different. I believe the <yM!u are the peoples in connection with Israel, brought into relationship with Israel. <y]oG on the contrary, are the nations in contrast with God’s people. It is used of Israel, where it is disowned, in Psalm 43, rys!j*-a{l yoG an impious nation. There is another word, and quite general, <yM!a%l=, “tribes,” “races,” and so “nations.” This is the word translated people in Psalm 2, and often elsewhere. The word toMa%is found in Genesis 25:16 (of Arab tribes), and in Numbers 25:15, in the same sense. We have <y]Mu^ in Psalm 18:47. In Psalm 3:6, it is <u^ Israel. In Psalm 7:8 it is <y]Mu; that is, while a general word, not the nations looked at in contrast with Israel, “Gentiles,” as we are accustomed to say. In Psalm 9 God is viewed as clearing the land of His enemies. He is known by the judgment He executes. The wicked (which may be of His people in the land) are turned into Sheol, are slain and go down into the pit, and the Gentiles also who give no heed to God but go their own way, despising Him. In Psalm 67:2, it is “all the nations” everywhere, contrasted with Israel who speaks. Verse 7 is the effect. In verse 3 they are looked at as brought into relationship, <y]Mu. In verse 4 it is <yM!a%l=, all the various tribes of the earth. Then He judges them, not in destruction as <y]oG, but as peoples (<y]Mu^) under Him: then <yM!a%l= the various tribes or races He shall lead or govern. In verse 5 it is <y]Mu^ all the various peoples, but viewed in relationship with Jehovah.
We have in Luke 2 “before the face of all peoples.” Were the laoiv expressed in Hebrew, it would be <y]Mu^ a general word (not I think here <yM!a%l=) but viewed as brought into relationship with God. Then the nations, e[qnh, (<y]oG) were viewed as wholly invisible, unseen and ignored. The light of Christ was to reveal them, bring them out into visible existence, so that they became <y]Mu^ so to speak. Then “people Israel” is plain enough.
[1871.]
* * * * *
To the same.]
As to the divine names, Elohim, <y]hOa# is the common99 name for God, Him with whom we have to do; hence for all who are viewed in this place by man, or represent Him who is rightly so viewed, as judges in Israel (Ex. 21), or angels. (Psalm 8) Of course there is but one true God, but gods many amongst men: but hence,. in Elijah’s history, “Jehovah is the Elohim, Jehovah, he is the Elohim.” It is the word in universal use for God as such. But constantly, when Elohim is distinctly used for the one true God, the article is added Ha Elohim. Eloah is the singular of Elohim.
El (la@) is the strong or mighty one, who stands, so to speak, by His own power. Hence we have El-Elohe-Israel, El (God, the mighty one) la@, the God of Israel. El and Eloah are constantly used in Job. (la@ chap. 5:8; 8:13, 20; 9:2; 12:6; 13:3, 7, 8; 15:4, 13, 25; 16:11, etc. Hola$ 3:4, 23; 4:9; 5:17; 6:4, 8, 9; 9:13; 10:2; 11:5, 6, 7; 12:6; 15:8, etc.) It is said to be Aramean. So we have in Daniel El Elion (most high God).
I can say nothing satisfactory to my own mind as to Jah. That it is used as an ancient poetic name for Jehovah is clear, as in Hallelujah. So in Exodus 15:“my strength and my song is Jah.” If you look into most dictionaries, you will find it stated to be a shortening of Jehovah. But then I find them used together, as Isaiah 26:4, “In Jah Jehovah is everlasting strength.” So Isaiah 12:2, “My strength and my song is Jah Jehovah.” It is found in Psalm 68 where a B= precedes, translated “by His name Jah” in English, but which may be doubted, though a name of holy song and praise at any rate.
Jehovah is God’s name of dealing and relationship with men, specially with Israel, derived (I suppose) from hy`h*, to exist; and practically translated “who is and was and is to come,” not, “who was, and is,” which is true, but “is” (exists, that is, in Himself eternally) “and was and will be” in past and future true. Hence He is one who having spoken makes good. “Thou art the same and thy years shall not fail.” Hence we have in Genesis 1, “Elohim,” the Creator; in Genesis ii., “Jehovah Elohim,” because the relationship of God with men is spoken of; for there it is not His place simply over creatures as such connected with God, but all His various relationships: how Adam was placed, warned, and dealt with, his wife’s place with him, creatures’ subjection, etc. These words, Elohim and Jehovah, are never confounded in scripture. The senseless scissors’ distinction of rationalists shews only their want of looking intelligently into the written word of God. God is God as such; Jehovah, One who enters into relationship with His people and with men.
There is another name yD~v^ la@ by which God revealed Himself, that is to Abraham and the patriarchs, El Shaddai. See Exodus 6:3. where Elohim takes specially the name of Jehovah as the God of Israel. These two names are beautifully brought out in 2 Corinthians 6:18 to take the name of Father with us. “I will be a Father and ye shall be my sons and daughters,” says Jehovah Shaddai, the God who was the one to Israel, the other to Abraham. In Genesis 2:3 it was of all importance to connect Jehovah, Israel’s national God, with the only one creator God. So in Exodus 9:30 the God of the Hebrews, whose name was Jehovah, is declared to be Elohim; Pharaoh would not yet fear Him. Otherwise Jehovah is a name, Elohim a being: only Jehovah is Elohim, but the former a personal name. <l*ou la@ El Olam is the everlasting God. See Genesis 21:33.
Elion (/oyl=u\ la) is the Most High God. This is a fourth name God takes in connection with men; His millennial name above all idolatrous gods and demons and all power, and then said to be “possessor of heaven and earth.” Hence, when Nebuchadnezzar is humbled, after being a beast till seven times had passed over him, he owns the God of the Jews to be the Most High God. So in Daniel vii.; but not when connected with saints: there it is plural (Elionin) and refers, I believe, to the high or heavenly places. (Vers. 18, 22, 25, 27.)
hy\h=a@ Ehejeh in Exodus 3 is merely the abstract tense in Hebrew, and “I am that I am” I believe to be right enough. [Some take it as “I will be that I will be.”]
Adonai (yn`d)a&) is simply “Lord” (in the plural of majesty as is said), but hence, I believe, is used for Christ, exalted as man, but Jehovah withal, as Psalm 110:5. It is also Adonai in Psalm 2:4; Isaiah 6:1, 8; Daniel 9:17.
There is another word which, though it may be used as an attributive, can hardly be excluded from being a name of God. aWh Hu, Atta Hu, “thou art the same,” the unchangeable One (see Deut. 32:39); “I am He, the same and besides me no god.” I am He, aWh: Psalm 44:4; Isaiah 41:4; 43:10, 13; Jeremiah 5:12. It is in the sense of the immutable existing One, which is true of God only, as Psalm 102:27 cited in Hebrews 1 oJ aujtov".
Though the Psalms afford in the most interesting way the difference of the use of God and Lord, I just refer to Genesis 7:16. God commanded him, it was Elohim’s order; and Jehovah, the personal God that cared for him, not merely the divine being, shut him in. The scissors must be very small and fine that cut this into two documents, while the Lord’s mind shines out with the deepest beauty and interest to those that have eyes to see. So in chapter 8:21 we have “Jehovah smelled a sweet savour,” because it was a personal relationship and dealing with men. All the rest of this part is Elohim, God as God dealing with a subject world in the flood, and sparing, as such, Noah and his family. In chapter 9:26 Jehovah comes in again in evident relationship. As to all these, readers have only to take an “Englishman’s Hebrew Concordance” and seek the passages where these various names occur, generic, personal, official, or compound. It will not be lost labour, nor anything which is an inlet to the divine mind—God’s revelation of Himself.
* * * * *
* * * If we compare Hebrews 5:7 and Gethsemane’s100 cry, I think the force of the Psalm will be evident. The answer in the Psalm is not being preserved from dying, but life as risen in glory above, made most blessed for ever; not sparing life for a time here, but honour and great majesty laid upon Him as man in a higher and more glorious condition. Christ as a man, though mighty to do all things, asked everything of His Father. Dependence was His perfection. At Lazarus’ tomb He asked, knew His Father heard Him always; asked in John xii.; asked that the cup might pass. Only the word out«o is not used of Him. The necessity of an event does not hinder asking. Everything in God’s purpose will be necessarily accomplished; but He leads men’s hearts to ask, as the moral filling up of their relationship with Him. In Christ, as man, this was perfect.
* * * * *
82 “The Man of Sorrows.”
83 ‘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 oujk e[stin aujtou' rather than aujtw'/? Does it mean merely a sheep of Christ, or one born of God, or what more? Again, why is body (sw'ma) here and not the flesh (savrx)? and what is the distinct connection of “because of sin,” and “because of righteousness?’”
84 ‘2 Corinthians 1:9.—Does the “sentence (answer) of death,” spoken of by the apostle, mean nature’s death, that is, the penalty of death? or does it mean that, by the cross, we have the sentence of death, so as to have no more hope or expectation, in ourselves?’
85 ‘2 Corinthians 4:10. What is meant by nevkrwti" (translated in the English Bible “dying”) here? Is it “deadness” or the state of death, or “killing,” or what else?’
86 ‘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 a{ndra rather than a[nqrwpon (as in Col. 1:28)?’
87 ‘Can the prophetic word here (2 Peter 1:19-21) 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?”’
88 ‘Why were the firstfruits to be offered and not burnt? (Lev. 2:12.) What was intended by the corn out of full ears (ver. 14)?’
89 ‘What is the bearing of Matthew 11:12, and Luke 16:16?’
90 ‘Matthew 24:29.—Is there any ground to identify the shaking of “the powers of the heavens” (or, as in Mark 13, “the powers that are in the heavens”) with the fall of the dragon and his hosts from heaven in Revelation 12? The time does not at all agree. If not, what is meant?’
91 ‘I have difficulty as to the exact meaning of Exodus 6:3. The word Jehovah occurs 195 times until Exodus6:3. In 144 times there seems little difficulty, it is Moses shewing Israel their Jehovah was Elohim, and therefore it is always in the form of reported speech. I have classified the 49 [remaining] different passages. First, where persons speak of Elohim as Jehovah, not in reported but in direct speech, as Genesis 28:21; 32:9. If they used the word Jehovah, then Elohim was known to them by that name. Secondly, men calling on the name Jehovah, not on Elohim, as if at that time they began to know Him as Jehovah, this, however, in the form of reported speech, does not present the same difficulty. Thirdly, angels using the name Jehovah directly to men. Fourthly, God Himself using the name directly to Abram and Jacob. (Gen. 15:7; 28:13.) If “Jehovah” was known before its formal revelation, without knowing its meaning, is this analogous to the other [names]: namely, Shaddai not known till Abraham; Abba not known till Ha declared it and sent forth the Spirit into our hearts? Is Jehovah exceptional?’
92 ‘2 Corinthians 5:14, 15.—What is the force of Christ dying for all? and in what sense are all dead as proved by His death?
93 ‘What is the special connection or the contrast between the two miracles at Cana of Galilee, with the bearing of what lies between? (John 2-4)’
94 ‘What is the difference in the use of the dative and accusative of time, as in Acts 13:20, etc.?’
95 ‘Why is it diaV toVn patevra and not diaV tou' p., as the Authorised Version might imply? And why not cavrin.?’
96 ‘How do you reconcile God’s answering prayer with general laws?’
97 [Col. Writ., vol. iii, 87.]
98 ‘What is the distinctive force of the words used for people, peoples, nations in the Old Testament? And to which would the different Greek words in Luke 2:31, 32 correspond?’
99 ‘What is the true distinction in the names for God, Lord, Lord, etc.?’
100 ‘Psalm 21:2, 4.—What is meant by “He asked life of thee, and thou gavest it him?” and when did He ask? Was it as the Messiah, as in Psalm 102:24, and answered in resurrection? But why asked for? Was it not of necessity, so to speak, that as a man He should ascend to His Father?—Psalm 16:11.’