Earlier text: General ArticlesThe Undying Worm and Quenchless Fire.
By Uriah Smith
MARK 9:43, 44: "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." Twice our Lord repeats this solemn sentence against the wicked, "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." Verses 46, 48. These passages are relied on with as much assurance, perhaps, as any, to prove the eternal misery of the reprobate. If this language had never been used by any of the inspired writers of the Scriptures, till it was thus used in the New Testament, it might be urged with some degree of plausibility, as an expressive imagery of eternal torment. But even in this case, it might be replied that fire, so far as we have any experience with it, or knowledge of its nature, invariably consumes that upon which it preys, and hence must be a symbol of complete destruction; and that the expression, as it occurs in Mark 9:44, can denote nothing less than the utter consumption of those who are cast into that fire. But this expression was one which was well known and understood by those whom Christ was addressing. Isaiah and Jeremiah frequently use the figure of the undying worm and quenchless fire. In their familiar scriptures the people daily read these expressions. Let us see what idea they would derive from them. We turn to Jeremiah 17:27, and read:— "But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the Sabbath-day, and not bear a burden, even entering in at the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath-day; then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched." From this text we certainly can learn the meaning that was attached to the expression, "unquenchable fire," by the Hebrew people. This fire was not to be quenched, therefore it was unquenchable. But it was to be kindled in the gates of Jerusalem, and devour the palaces thereof. It was therefore literal, natural fire. But how could a fire of this kind, thus kindled, be supposed to be a fire that would burn eternally? They certainly would not so understand it. No more should we. Moreover, this threatening of the Lord by Jeremiah was fulfilled. 2 Chron. 36:19: "And they burnt the house of God, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem, and burnt all the palaces thereof with fire, and destroyed all the goodly vessels thereof." Verse 21: "To fulfill the word of the Lord by Jeremiah." Thus Jerusalem was burned according to Jeremiah's prediction that it should be consumed in unquenchable fire. But how long did that fire burn? Only till it had reduced to ashes the gates and palaces on which it preyed. Unquenchable fire is therefore simply a fire that is not quenched, or does not cease, till it has entirely consumed that which causes or supports it. Then it dies out of itself, because there is nothing more to burn. The expression does not mean a fire that must absolutely eternally burn, and that consequently all that is cast therein to feed the flame must forever be preserved by having the portion consumed immediately renewed. To the wicked the threatened fire is unquenchable because it will not be quenched, or caused to cease, till it has entirely devoured them. Ps. 37:20: "But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs; they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away." Mal. 4:3: "And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this saith the Lord of hosts." Ezekiel speaks of unquenchable fire in a similar manner. Eze. 20:47, 48: "Thus saith the Lord God: Behold I will kindle a fire in thee, and it shall devour every green tree in thee, and every dry tree; the flaming flame shall not be quenched, and all faces from the south to the north shall be burned therein. And all flesh shall see that I the Lord have kindled it; it shall not be quenched." Though this is doubtless figurative language, denoting sore calamities upon a certain land called the forest of the south field, it nevertheless furnishes an instance of how the expression, unquenchable fire, was then used and understood; for that generation many ages ago perished, and those judgments long since ceased to exist. Isaiah not only speaks of the unquenchable fire, but he couples with it the undying worm, the same as the language in Mark: Isa. 66:24: "And they shall go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched, and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." This is undoubtedly the language from which the expression in Mark is borrowed; but a moment's examination of it will show that the worm is not the remorse of a guilty conscience, but that, like the fire, it is something external to, and distinct from, the objects upon which it preys; and moreover that those upon whom it feeds are not the living, but the dead: it is the "carcasses" of the men that have transgressed against the Lord. In Isaiah 14:11, and 51:8, the prophet again speaks of the worm as an agent of destruction, but it is always in connection with death. It is thus evident that the terms employed by our Lord in describing the doom of the wicked would convey to the minds of his hearers the very opposite of the idea of eternal life in misery. There is other evidence, though no other is necessary, to show that the idea which would be conveyed, and which the language was designed to convey to their minds, that of complete extinction of being, an utter consumption by external elements of destruction. The word translated hell in the passage under consideration is ge-enna. It is better to enter into life maimed, than to go, in full possession of all our members and faculties, into ge-enna. Did those to whom Christ spoke know anything about this place, and what kind of a fate awaited those who were cast therein? A vivid picture of the place of torment to which our Lord refers was in constant operation before their eyes, near by Jerusalem. Greenfield defines the word thus:— "Gehenna, the valley of Hinnom, south of Jerusalem, once celebrated for the horrid worship of Moloch and afterward polluted with every species of filth, as well as the carcasses of animals and dead bodies of malefactors; to consume which, in order to avert the pestilence which such a mass of corruption would occasion, constant fires were kept burning." Such was the fire of Gehenna; not a fire into which people were cast to be kept alive and tortured, but one into which they were cast to be consumed; not one which was designed to prey upon living beings, but upon the carcasses of animals and the dead bodies of malefactors. Hence we can see the consistency of associating the fire and the worm together. Whatever portion of the dead body the fire failed to consume, the worm would soon seize upon and devour. If a person had been condemned to be cast alive into this place, as the wicked will be cast into their Gehenna, what would have been his hope of escape? If the fire could have been speedily quenched before it had taken his life, and the worms which consumed what the fire left, could have been destroyed, he might have had some hope of coming out alive; but if this could not be done, he would know of a surety that his life would soon become extinct, and then even his lifeless remains would be utterly consumed by these agents of destruction. This was the scene to which Christ pointed his hearers to represent the doom that awaits the wicked; that, as they gazed upon the work of complete destruction going on in the valley of Hinnom, the worms devouring what the flames spared, they might learn that in the future Gehenna which awaited them, no part of their being would be exempt from utter and complete destruction, one agent of death completing what another failed to accomplish. As the definition of the word ge-enna throws great light on the meaning of this text, so the definition of another term used is equally to the point. The words for unquenchable fire are pur (long u) asbeston, and this word asbeston, primarily means simply unquenched, that is, not caused to cease by any external means; the idea of eternal is a theological definition which has been attached to it. Ancient writers used it in this sense. Homer, in the Illiad, xvi., 123, 294, speaks of the Trojans' hurling "unquenchable fire" upon the Grecian ships, though but one of them was burnt by it. And Eusebius, who was a learned Greek, employs the same expression in two instances in recounting the martyrdom of Christians. Cronion and Julian, after being tortured in various ways, were consumed in an "unquenchable fire," puri asbesto. The same is also said of Epimachus and Alexander. "The pur asbeston," says Wetstein, "denotes such a fire as cannot be extinguished before it has consumed and destroyed all." Such is the evident meaning of this passage, and the sense in which it must have been understood at that time. Yet commentators, eighteen hundred years this side of that time, presume to turn this whole representation upside down, and give to the terms a meaning exactly opposite from that which they were intended to convey. That sense alone can be the correct one in which they were first spoken; and concerning that there can be no question. There is another text often urged to prove the eternal conscious misery of the wicked. It is one in which fire is mentioned as the instrument used for the punishment of the wicked; and this fire being called eternal, is understood in the same sense as the unquenchable fire of Mark 9:43. It may therefore properly be examined in this connection. Jude 7. "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." This text, when rightly understood, will, we think, like that in Mark 9, be found to convey just the opposite meaning from that popularly given to it. The first great error in the interpretation of this text, lies, as we view it, in a wrong application of the tense employed. It is claimed that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, having been destroyed, were committed to the flames of hell, where they are now (present tense) suffering the vengeance of that eternal fire. But a moment's glance at the text will show that it is the example set forth, and not the suffering, that is in the present tense. There are other facts mentioned in the same tense with the suffering; thus "giving themselves over to fornication," "going after strange flesh," "suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." If one of these expressions denotes something that is now going on, the others also denote the same. If they are now suffering the fire, they are now giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh; for all these declarations are in the same construction. But no one will claim that the Sodomites are now taking the course here described; neither, then, can it be claimed that they are now suffering the pain of fire. The sense of the passage appears to be very evidently this: That the Sodomites, giving themselves up to their wicked practices, and, as a consequence, suffering an eternal overthrow by fire rained down upon them from heaven, are thus set forth as an example to the ungodly of all coming ages, of the overthrow they will also experience if they follow the same course. Peter speaks of the same event, as an example to the wicked, and tells what effect that fire had upon the cities of the plain. It did not preserve them in the midst of the fire in unceasing torture, but turned them into ashes. He says, 2 Pet. 2:6: "And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them with an overthrow, making an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly." This language is too plain to need comment. How are the Sodomites made an example? By being overthrown and turned into ashes for their open and presumptuous sins. It is God saying to the wicked of all coming time, Behold, how your sins shall be visited unless you repent. But those fires are not now burning. Seek out the site of those ancient and abandoned cities, and the brackish waters of the Dead Sea will be found rolling their sluggish waves over the spot where once they stood. Those fires are therefore called eternal, because their effects are eternal, or age-lasting. They never have recovered, nor will they ever recover while the world stands, from that terrible overthrow. And thus this text is very much to the purpose on the question before us; for it declares that the punishment of Sodom is an exact pattern of the future punishment of the wicked; hence that punishment will not be eternal life in the fiery flame, but an utter consumption, even as Sodom was consumed, by its resistless vengeance. U. S. The Character of Believers
THEY that believe, have Christ in their hearts, Heaven in their eye, and the world under their feet. God's word is their teacher; his Spirit their guide; his fear their guard; his providence their inheritance; his people their friends; his promises their cordials; holiness their way; and Heaven their home. What Would Replace Religion?
“Men speak against the religion of the Bible, and try to talk it down. Suppose they were to succeed, and that, in consequence, all the church buildings were turned into warehouses, and that all our present religious services were broken up, what has any one suggested that we should take in the place of what we should lose?”—Christian Index. Lesson Comments for February 11.
“AND one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me. And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?” In denying this request, Jesus acted consistently with his principle not to meddle with purely secular affairs. Although he could in a moment have decided as to the justice of the claim, and his decision would, doubtless, have been accepted by both parties, he would not do anything that would strengthen the popular idea of the Messiah—a civil ruler. His doing so might have given the Pharisees an occasion for making an accusation against him. Jesus and the apostles always taught respect to the magistrates, and never confounded the purely secular with the religious. There were men appointed by law to decide disputes of this kind; his work was of more importance. The great reason, however, why Jesus could not act as umpire in this case, is doubtless because the request sprung wholly from selfishness. This is shown by his admonition which followed: “Take heed, and beware of covetousness; for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.” The parable which follows enforces this idea. Scott, in his notes on this passage, draws the following lessons from this parable:— “To illustrate and enforce this caution, he spoke a parable, replete with instruction. The ‘rich man,’ described in it, is not said to have obtained his wealth by fraud or oppression, or to have been a penurious miser. He had an estate; and, by skillful and diligent culture, it yielded him large crops, so that his affluence increased rapidly; at length, however, he found difficulty about storing his treasures, seeing he had no longer room for them. He therefore determined to build larger barns, and granaries; and, having thus secured his abundance, to have done with the encumbrance of business, and to give himself up to ease and indulgence, in the liberal use of his riches. “The character here drawn, is exactly that of a prudent worldly man, who rises from inferior circumstances to great affluence, by assiduous industry and good management; and then retires from business, to spend the latter part of his life according to his own inclinations. But there was no grateful regard to the bountiful providence of God, ‘who gave him power to get wealth;’ no consideration of his accountability for the use of it; and no respect to the authority, commandment, favor, or glory of God. There was no proper sense of the instability of human affairs, the uncertainty of life, the vanity of earthly pleasure, the worth of his soul, or the importance of eternity; no thought of happiness to be found in communion with God, in peace of conscience, and the hope of glory! But the man spake ‘within himself,’ as if ‘eating, drinking, and being merry’ had constituted the chief good of a rational creature; and as if it might be enjoyed here forever. Neither did he express any regard to his neighbor; his wealth was his own, and he would hoard it for himself, and spend it on himself; for if he had inquired how many poor persons were destitute of food and raiment, and in various ways needed relief, he might have found a far better way to dispose of his superfluity, and have enjoyed a far superior satisfaction, than what he proposed to himself: ‘What shall I do?’ The whole was the language of a selfish ungodly man, and was intended to expose men of this character, even when not chargeable with gross immorality. However, therefore, this man might glory, that ‘the might of his hand had gotten him this wealth,’ and deem himself wise and happy; or however he might be envied, respected, or commended by his neighbors; he was in the judgment of God ‘a fool,’ and as such God addressed him. He hath foolishly reckoned on many years to come, when he had not a single day to live! He had provided a large superfluity for a future continuance on earth, which was never to be granted him; but he had made no provision for the world to come. On that very ‘night his soul was required of him,’—and he must give an account of his ungodliness, selfishness, and covetousness; ‘and then whose would those things be, which he had provided,’ to the neglect of his soul, and to his everlasting ruin? He could not tell into whose hands his wealth would pass: nor would it be any comfort to him, even for his children or friends to possess it, when he was torn from all which he loved and idolized, and plunged into the pit of destruction; and perhaps they, too, were preparing by it for the same dreadful end. “To this parable our Lord added, that ‘so is every one, who layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich towards God.’ All those persons ‘lay up treasure for themselves,’ who seek wealth either for its own sake, or for the influence and consequence which it bestows, or to spend in the pride of life and luxurious indulgence; or in order to aggrandize their families; but who are not rich in faith, in wisdom, and grace, in good works, and a heavenly treasure. Every man of this character is in God’s account ‘a fool;’ his life is vanity and vexation; his success an empty bubble, or a destructive delusion; and his end most miserable.” Following this, our Lord showed them the folly of undue care and worry for the things of this life, repeating some of the instruction which he had given in the sermon on the mount. A skillful teacher will always repeat again and again those things which are of most importance. Christ was a pattern for teachers, and it need occasion no surprise that he should repeat his former words on this point, because, (1) nothing is more necessary to be impressed on the minds of men, than that “the things which are not seen” are of more importance than the “things which are seen;” and (2) the teaching of the scribes and Pharisees had always been that a man’s wealth determined the degree of his favor with God, thus making wealth the chief object of life. Under this teaching the disciples had been brought up, and Christ took every opportunity to counteract it. The lesson is as much needed now as then. Let us bear it in mind. “Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.” On this passage, Scott has the following appropriate remarks:— “His disciples are a small flock of harmless, defenseless sheep, in the midst of the vast multitudes of this wicked world; but they are dear to him, who has purchased them, and brought them back to his fold: and, as their Father intends to give them the kingdom of heavenly glory and felicity, and greatly delights in doing this; so he will certainly provide for them during their passage through this world to it. They ought therefore to dismiss their fears, and to cast all their cares upon him. ‘It is a foolish thing, not to look for small things at his hands, who freely giveth us the greatest things.’—Beza. Instead of burdening themselves in endeavors to accumulate wealth, Christ’s disciples ought, when properly called to it, to part with their possessions, and distribute to their needy brethren. When this is done in faith and love, it insures to them a treasure, of which God himself is the Guardian. In this manner they are secured from putting their ‘money into a bag with holes,’ or into one liable to wear out (which is an apt emblem of the uncertainty of all earthly possessions); for their treasure is laid up in Heaven, out of the reach of change or danger; and their hearts also become more and more heavenly. Probably, this instruction influenced the primitive converts, after the day of Pentecost, to sell their estates for the support of their poor brethren.” Christ then gave a warning which shows that his teaching on this subject is not only of general importance, but has a special application to our own time: “Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning, and ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their Lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they open to him immediately.” “Let your loins be girded about.” A striking figure is this. The ancients wore a long, flowing, outer garment. When taking their ease, this was allowed to be loose, for greater comfort; but when work was to be done, or a journey to be made, this was fastened tightly about them, so as not to impede their movements. So the Christian, especially when he is looking for his Lord, should so hold the means that has been given him, that it may not be a hindrance to him. And again the warning is made more emphatic: “Be ye therefore ready also; for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not.” THERE is a real art in knowing where, when, and how to put a good question, that shall quicken the memory, set the mind to thinking, and call back the reflective faculties. Such are the possibilities of a question. A large proportion of all the good teaching in our Sabbath-schools is brought about by the simple process of questions and answers. "A question unveils the soul. Nothing can escape a question. A question reveals a decision." Hence the skill required. Mr. J. G. Fitch says: "The success and efficiency of our teaching depend more on the skill and judgment with which we put questions than on any other single circumstance." This art is to be learned, like any other art, by much study and patient practice, for we best learn the art of questioning by questioning. Augustine says: "A boy can preach, but a man only can catechise," and Lord Bacon says: "A wise question is the half of knowledge. Therefore the great skill in teaching, consists mainly in the right forming and asking of questions. If this be true, it follows that this subject should be regarded as of special importance by every teacher. Teachers often say that they cannot succeed in asking questions without the book; that they do not know what to ask. To this I reply, 1. There is never any difficulty in forming the question where there is an interest to obtain the answer. 2. It is generally unwise to ask any question unless we have an interest in obtaining the answer. Do not tantalize the little ones. Says Mr. Hassell: "A question under some circumstances will merely produce an exercise of the memory; under others an exercise of reasoning; and under others again it will stimulate inquiry," and we may add, awaken curiosity. Mr. Groser says: "The true scope of questioning power is as follows: To awaken curiosity or the desire to know; to arouse the memory or the recollection of what is already known; or to point out something unknown, which may be inferred from that which is known." A question skillfully put will arouse, will fix attention, concentrate the thoughts, and so discipline the mind of the pupil. There are, however, many bad and indifferent questions put, in religious teaching, which a little knowledge of the correct rules of the art of questioning will enable us to avoid. Frequently a slight variation in the form changes a bad question into a good one. For instance: "Moses was a good man, was he not?" is a bad question. "What kind of a man was Moses?" is a good question, as it awakens thought. "What do you understand by faith and repentance?" is a bad question, for it is ambiguous and indefinite, and perplexes the child. "Will you tell me what is faith?" is a good question, for it compels the child to think and to inquire—it puts into his hand the laboring oar and he must row. "Did David kill Goliath with a stone or with a sword?" This is a bad question. It is involved and suggestive. Ask the child simply, "With what did David kill Goliath?" and the question is a good one, in strict conformity to the laws of questioning and of the child-mind. Another class of questions is very common, but well nigh useless, namely, leading questions, such as, "Was David a good man?" "Was Goliath a wicked man?" These are mostly bad or indifferent questions, and are almost a total loss to the teacher. Slightly vary them in the following way, and you make them at once, in every respect, good questions. "What kind of a man was David?" "What kind of a man was Goliath?" Teachers will remember, therefore, to avoid ambiguous or indefinite, involved or suggestive, and leading questions, which latter are answered "Yes" or "No," for they are generally of little avail.—S. S. Index. A CLERGYMAN, writing to the N. Y. Independent, complained that, as a result of modern Sunday-school teaching, children "lose all confidence in the piety of a man, unselfish, benevolent, and devout though he be, if in the privacy of his own house, he rests himself with the aid of a cigar." To this the S. S. Times responds: "A minister must be pretty tough who would hold on to the use of tobacco, when its indulgence clearly destroyed all confidence in his piety among the children of his pastoral charge." It is a great mistake to think that our scholars Teaching Young Sabbath-School Scholars
It is a great mistake to think that our scholars are too young to appreciate a well-prepared lesson or a well-governed school. It is a great mistake for Sabbath-school teachers ever to teach Bible truth without being really in earnest—calmly, cheerfully, seriously in earnest. The Return of the Jews.
By Editor
PERHAPS no one subject has been so much talked of which is yet so little understood, as that of "the return of the Jews." It is a stereotyped theological phrase, representing various and indefinite views. Some time since we promised to publish an article on this subject, in reply to the Anglo-Israelites, and we now fulfill the promise. We believe in the gathering of Israel to their own land; but we must apply the same New Testament rules here which we apply to other classes of promises, to wit, allow that the true Israel are of faith, whether Jew or Gentile by birth. There are two classes of Old Testament prophecies on this subject; one, agreeing with the history of the past; the other, agreeing with New Testament declarations, to be fulfilled in the future. Those who advocate the return of the Jews in the Age to Come, do so on the assumption that there has never been a gathering of Israel since the Babylonian captivity. But that this is only assumption and an error can be shown by history, both sacred and profane. All chronologists agree that all the prophets, except Malachi, wrote before the return of the Jews from Babylon. They date about as follows: Isaiah, 758 B. C.; Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Obadiah, 588; Daniel, 534; Hosea, 725; Joel, 761; Amos, 787; Jonah, 800; Micah, 758; Nahum, 720; Habakkuk, 605; Zephaniah, 608; Haggai and Zachariah, 518; Malachi, 400. These dates are designed to cover the latest periods of their prophecies, and the decree of Cyrus was B. C. 536, and that of Artaxerxes, which gave efficiency to, and really complemented, the original decree, Ezra 6:14, was in 457. Hence, quotations from their writings, to sustain the theory in question, have the full weight of chronology against such an application. In Isa. 44, the Lord declares himself as their Redeemer, "that saith to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be inhabited; and to the cities of Judah, Ye shall be built, and I will raise up the decayed places thereof." The instrumentality used in fulfillment of this promise is also shown: "That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid." Verses, 26, 28. By turning to the record, we find that the decree for the return of the children of Israel was very liberal, giving permission to all to return who would. And no prophecy contemplates anything more than full permission and voluntary acceptance. "Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, Thus saith Cyrus, king of Persia, The Lord God of Heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he, hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord God of Israel (he is the God), which is in Jerusalem. And whosoever remaineth in any place where he sojourneth, let the men of his place help him with silver, and with gold, and with goods, and with beasts, besides the free-will offering for the house of God that is in Jerusalem." Ezra 1:1-4. Again, in the decree of Artaxerxes, chap. 7:13: "I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites, in my realm which are minded of their own free will to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee." Jeremiah, speaking of the return of Israel from all the nations and from all the places whither they had been driven, introduces the same condition that Artaxerxes does in his decree—they shall go up voluntarily. "For thus saith the Lord, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place. For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end. Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you. And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. And I will be found of you saith the Lord: and I will turn away your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations and from all the places whither I have driven you, saith the Lord; and I will bring you again into the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive." Jer. 29:10-14. He also places this general gathering after the seventy years' captivity. These plain declarations are sufficient to cut off the assumption of the Anglo-Israelites, or Age to Come theorists who teach that only two tribes returned, while the ten remained scattered. There is no evidence that all of any tribe returned, while we have evidence that some of each tribe returned, even all that were willing. Josephus proves conclusively that twelve tribes were restored after this captivity. He says that Ptolemy Philadelphus sent a request to the Jews to "send six of the elders out of every tribe," for the purpose of translating the law into the Greek. When they were sent, word was returned to Ptolemy thus: "We have chosen six men out of every tribe, whom we have sent and the law with them." Josephus says they sent seventy-two. Thus the twelve tribes were represented. See Josephus' "Antiquities" B. 12, chap. 2, sec. 4-7. This testimony is corroborated by Scripture. That the tribe of Levi was represented in the return is evident, for the priests were all of that tribe. But Ezra says further, "So the priests and the Levites, and some of the people, and the singers, and the porters, and the Nethinims, dwelt in their cities, and ALL ISRAEL in their cities." Ezra 2:70. "And when the seventh month was come, and the children of Israel were in the cities, the people gathered themselves together, as one man to Jerusalem." Chap. 3:1; Neh. 7:73. When the temple was built, it was dedicated as related by Ezra. "And the children of Israel, the priests and Levites, and the rest of the children of the captivity, kept the dedication of this house of God with joy, and offered at the dedication of this house of God an hundred bullocks, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs; and for a sin offering for all Israel, TWELVE he-goats, according to the number of the tribes of Israel." Ezra 6:16, 17; 8:35. If ten tribes were lacking, it would be truly singular that it should not be mentioned in such a connection as this. There is another gathering of Israel spoken of in both Testaments, which we will briefly notice. Isa. 27 evidently refers to it. Notice in verse 11, the expression parallel to Rom. 11. "When the boughs thereof are withered, they shall be broken off; the women come and set them on fire; for it is a people of no understanding; therefore he that made them will not have mercy upon them, and he that formed them will show them no favor. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall beat off from the channel of the river unto the stream of Egypt, and ye shall be gathered one by one, O ye children of Israel. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the great trumpet shall be blown, and they shall come which were ready to perish in the land of Assyria, and the outcasts in the land of Egypt, and shall worship the Lord in the holy mount of Jerusalem." Verses 11-13. This we think is easily identified as the gathering of the New Testament. When the Saviour comes, "he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." Matt. 24:31. That this is the gathering of Israel referred to in the prophets is proved by reference to Eze. 37. After relating the vision and the revivifying of the dry bones, the Lord said, "Son of man, these bones are THE WHOLE HOUSE OF ISRAEL: behold, they say, our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts. Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God: Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and WILL GATHER THEM on every side, and bring them into their own land." Verses 11, 12, 21. Comp. vs. 20-28, and Rev. 21. This gathering is coincident with that of Matt. 24, above referred to, as the graves of the house of Israel will be opened when the Lord sends his angels with a sound of a trumpet to gather his elect. The various points referred to in Isa. 27, Eze. 37, and Matt. 24, are united in 1 Thess. 4:16, 17. "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air." In 2 Thess. 2, the subject is also introduced of "the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together unto him." This we firmly believe is the only gathering of Israel that remains to fulfill the prophecies.