p. 4 | THE LAW UNTIL JOHN by S. P.

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 21, 1861

THE LAW UNTIL JOHN.

By S. P.

THE law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached. Luke xvi, 16.

It will be noticed by the reader that the word were, associated with the words, law and prophets, is a supplied word in the translation: no word answering to it being found in the original. This is known to all by its being printed in italic characters.

We find by examination that Dr. Campbell and Prof. Whiting's translations both exactly agree with the above. Nor have we at hand the authority of any other translator for supplying any other word than the one here supplied.

It is deeply to be regretted that this unequal tide of mind has set in from the beginning against us; and there seems to be but few of the strong minds of the learned arrayed in our defense to help the weak to withstand its power. This brings us into a straightened condition, being under a conscientious necessity of exhibiting truth, as it shines upon our mind from the Bible, on general principles, without being influenced by the opinions of uninspired men, though they possess faculties and attainments vastly superior.

It will doubtless seem to many like daring presumption to differ essentially from such high authority: nor should we dare thus to do, if it were not enjoined upon us by still higher authority, to "call no man master on the earth."

If even the presumptive evidence is, that this was a mistake or oversight in them, ought we, contrary to the whole tenor of the scriptures, to adopt it as a correct sentiment, in order that we may run in the channel of popular opinion, against our own convictions, without daring to think for ourselves in the matter, and thus risk the consequences of imbibing error, which might finally prove fatal?

We choose rather to regard the teaching of the great Dr. Watts in this respect, that "We ought to bring our minds free, unbiased and teachable, to learn our religion from the word of God."

In analyzing the language of the text, we will in the first place examine the meaning of the verb to be, of which were, the supplied word, is but a variation. Dr. Webster, after quoting some six corresponding words from as many foreign languages, says—"The sense is, To stand, remain, or be fixed; hence, to continue." After these and additional definition descriptions, he begins to define by saying—"First, to be fixed; to exist; to have a real state or existence for a longer or shorter time."

We will now substitute some of these definitions for the word itself, in the examination, to see what ideas we get by thus doing. The law and the prophets did stand until John. Is not the fair inference that they stood no longer? The law and the prophets did remain or continue until John. Is not the inference evident that they did not remain or continue after John? Again, the law and the prophets did exist, or did have a real state or existence, until John? Is not the unavoidable inference that they did not exist, or have a real state of existence, after John?

Hence we see, if the supplying of the word were is correct in this instance, then the law and the prophets cease to exist at John; and our opponents have the better of us in bringing up this scripture as an objection to our keeping the Sabbath and the law of God. With this hypothesis let us see how it harmonizes with the following verse: "And if it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than for one tittle of the law to fail." It is remarkable that verse 16 destroys the law at John, and the next verse perpetuates it as long, at least, as heaven and earth shall endure. There would have been however no such solecism, but the most perfect harmony, had the ellipsis in the original been supplied with the words which are there by the sense implied.

We will further see how this hypothesis agrees with even some of their own favorite doctrines. Indeed it proves so much that it would overthrow many of the essential points of doctrine to which most or all of the churches have held for ages. The prophecy of Daniel's seventy weeks might here be introduced, which all commentators hold was not fulfilled till the close of Christ's mission on earth. And some of them agree with us that it was three and a half years later. Hence the law and the prophets did not cease to exist at John according to their own belief. We might also mention the temporal millennium, that glorious state of the church in this world, anticipated by most or all of the churches, which some of the leaders, especially Prof. Bush, think to signify prophetic instead of literal years. This would make that period to continue 360,000 literal years, instead of 1000. Truly this vast period of time could not have expired at the time of John's mission; nor has it yet expired, nor will it, according to that view, for thousands of ages yet to come.

Further, all the prophecies relative to Christ's mission on earth at his first coming, those which relate to his second coming and the setting up of his heavenly kingdom pertain to a period wholly subsequent to that of John; notwithstanding the argument brought against us is, that there would be no more law, prophets or prophecies after John. For if there is an argument against the law, there is as strong a one against the prophets and prophecies. But did not Moses say, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up from among the people, like unto me; and does not Peter distinctly inspired say that that prophet was Christ? And did not John himself say, One mightier than I cometh after me? And do we not read in the Acts of the Apostles, years after this, of prophets who foretold future events? Acts xi, 27, 28; xxi, 10.

Further than this, did not Peter subsequently, on the house top, fall into a trance, in which he received information of God's favorable impartiality toward the Gentiles? And was not Paul as late as A. D. 45, caught up to the third heavens, where he heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful, or possible,

for a man to utter? And these he calls revelations, which made him a prophet; and those revelations were prophecies. Do not all admit that John, the beloved disciple, was a most distinguished prophet, and that the most remarkable disclosure of future events was made through him as late as A. D. 96, on the isle of Patmos?

Hence we see how utterly futile for any to vindicate the supplying of the word were in this scripture, since their own sentiments, as well as the Bible itself, fully refute the propriety of it.

But the question is, What word or words should be supplied? Answer: That which the language expressed in the original, according to its common use, would suggest. It reads as follows: "The law and the prophets until John, since that time the kingdom of God is preached." Our translations would read the same, were no words supplied. Authors of grammar say, "To avoid disagreeable REPETITIONS and to express ourselves in few words, an ellipsis or omission of some words is frequently admitted." Now I ask, What repetition have the translators caused by supplying the word were? Is there another of the kind in all the paragraph? Certainly not. Had they supplied a word that would have caused a repetition, it must have been the word preach in its passive form. It would then read, The law and the prophets were preached until John. This would have given the sense exactly. This would have been supplying words according to the rules laid down by the learned, and adopted by all, founded in the very nature of language itself. Where there is an ellipsis of a word, that same word will somewhere be found in the connexion. Then of course the word expressed tells unmistakably that the same word is the one that must be supplied where the omission exists. All the antithetical relation found here is not between the existence of the law and the prophets, and the preaching of the kingdom of God, but between preaching of the law and the prophets, and the preaching of the kingdom of God. There was a striking contrast between the preaching of types and shadows and the preaching of the realities of the gospel.

Previous to John the great burden of the preaching had been that of the law and the prophets. Doubtless it had been that exclusively; ceremonial and judicial as well as moral. All that belonged to that dispensation, which typified better things to come, had been fully preached. But now another and better dispensation was being ushered in. The only heir to the throne of that kingdom and his forerunner had already come and were revealing truths which had been concealed from the foundation of the world.

S. P.