The Interpretation of Scripture.
By F. Gould
KNOWING this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation; for the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 Pet. i, 20, 21. My design in this article is not to enter into any lengthy argument respecting prophecy, but simply to notice a few points relative to the difference between private interpretation, and that given to us by holy men. What I understand to be private interpretation, is that we should not consult men's private opinions relative to any point of truth given us in the Scriptures. We find at the present day, that most men who profess to take the Bible for their rule of faith and practice, instead of doing what they profess, are ready and willing to endorse the views and opinions of some celebrated theologian, or commentator, and thus give the lie to their profession. Men have become so infidel in their principles, and their minds so poisoned by the spirit of the world, the deceitfulness of riches, and self-aggrandizement, that instead of leading the honest inquirer after truth, in the way to heaven, they will teach them to follow in their own wake, and thus drown them in perdition. The apostle Paul cites our minds to a higher fountain for instruction. For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. Rom. xv, 4. From this text we are referred to holy men who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. But many argue that because our world is filled up with unlearned and illiterate men, the principles taught in the Scriptures cannot be brought to bear upon, or rightly impress, the mind, without the aid of the learned. In order to illustrate the position I have taken, I wish to take from the scriptures two points, and lay by the side of them God's rule of interpretation, and also the opinions of men, in order to show the fallacy of the latter. The first is in relation to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. By private interpretation we are taught that this parable goes directly to prove man's condition in death, that the righteous immediately after death enter into all the comforts and enjoyments of the kingdom of God; while the wicked at the same time are in conscious misery. According to the laws of interpretation and language, all parables in order to represent the things to which they relate, are to be explained as wholly literal, or wholly figurative; and as the above parable cannot be taken in a literal sense, they are obliged, in order to prove their position, to explain it as partly literal and partly figurative, which destroys all harmony and the true sense of language. God has given us a perfect rule by which we can measure the Holy Scriptures, and restore harmony through all parts; that is, by letting them stand as their own interpreter. I propose making an application of this rule to the above parable. Let us look at the organism of man. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Gen. ii, 7. It appears evident that after he was formed from the dust of the ground, before God breathed into him the breath of life, he was destitute of any knowledge, or mind; but the very act of breathing into him, produced a state of consciousness or a principle susceptible of knowledge. This I understand to be the true condition of man in his organization. Now let us look at him in death, when the breath leaves the body. Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit (or breath) shall return unto God who gave it. Eccl. xii, 7. We learn from this, that at death man returns back to the same condition that he was in before he became a living soul. From these premises we conclude that mind is the result of organization, and cannot exist without it. When the principle leaves the body which causes it to act, it returns to its original elements. I will bring forward one more testimony. Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath goeth forth, he135returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish. Ps. cxlvi, 3, 4. Thus by measuring this parable by the true rule, the popular doctrine of a conscious intermediate state, vanishes. The second point which I purpose to notice is in relation to the Sabbath. We are referred to the circumstance of Christ's meeting with his disciples on the first day of the week, a great point in the popular theory, to the establishment of a first day Sabbath. We are told that the disciples met together to honor the day in which Christ rose from the dead, thus making it pre-eminent over the seventh, inasmuch as the work of redemption is greater than the work of creation. In order to get at the truth of this matter, we will lay it by the side of the great standard, and see how it will correspond. When the two disciples returned from Emmaus to Jerusalem they found the eleven gathered together, saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared unto Simon. And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread. And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and said unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed they had seen a spirit. Luke xxiv, 33, 37. I ask here how they could have met for that purpose, when they did not know, neither would believe, that he had arisen. This would be contrary to all Bible rule of interpretation. But the prophet Daniel well understood the matter when he said, The wise shall understand. The last end of the true church will not taper down to nothing, but, according to the true Witness, their eyes will be anointed with eyesalve that they may see, and be clad in white raiment, and will be ready for a removal from this sin-cursed earth, to the beautiful heights of mount Zion, that already appear in the distance. F. GOULD.