THE “TO-DAY” OF CHRIST’S PROMISE TO THE THIEF.
SOME of the readers of the REVIEW may remember the concluding argument in the sermon on Paradise, published not long since. It was there shown from several examples of similar language in the Bible, that this term, “to-day” is used in making promises and declarations, not always with reference to the time of their fulfillment, but sometimes with reference to the time of uttering the declaration, and especially with reference to the time when it becomes a fixed fact that such a thing shall certainly be. We have a good illustration of this fact in 1 Sam. xviii. Saul sought the destruction of David. He would gladly kill him with his own hand, but in this he was not successful. He then determined to destroy him by a snare. He therefore offered him his daughter as a wife, with the condition that he should slay one hundred of the Philistines, Saul’s enemies. He hoped that this would prove the death of David. And now observe the promise Saul made to David. Having learned that his daughter Michal loved David, the record informs us of his attempt to take advantage of it. “And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, thou shalt this day be my son-in-law in the one of the twain.” 1 Sam. xviii, 21. Did Saul mean that David should that day take Michal to be his wife? By no means. He did not mean that he should have her at all. There was a condition to be fulfilled. He must first slay one hundred Philistines. And Saul hoped this would be the death of David. There was even a time fixed in the future, as verse 26 informs us, by which this must be accomplished. Now it is evident that the promise, “thou shalt this day be my son-in-law,” must be explained in harmony with the fact that this could not actually be the case until a certain work was first wrought, and a space of time employed in that work. And Saul, in making the promise, even fixed this space of time. Compare verses 21 and 26. It is certain, therefore, that the “this day” of the promise relates not to the time of its fulfillment, but to the time of its being made. Probably no one will dispute this fact. And why should not the same candor be found in the use of Christ’s promise to the thief, inasmuch as we do know from his own words that he was not in Paradise till three days after that promise. John xx, 17. And Peter, reasoning from the words of David, confirms the same fact by informing us that his soul was in hades, instead of Paradise, from his death till his resurrection. Acts ii, 25–31; Ps. xvi, 8–11. And Paul adds his testimony to that of Peter, when he tells us that Christ descended into the lower parts of the earth, i. e., hades (Eze. xxxii, 18–32), before he ascended into the Heavens. Eph. iv, 9, 10. Surely, Peter, and Paul, and Christ, form by their testimony a three-fold cord “not quickly broken.”