Earlier text: THE SAVIOUR'S COUNSELBattle Creek Bible Class, April 18, 1868.
By J. H. W.
The following questions were first taken up: 1. Is it a right application of the Scripture that represents the people as now being in the valley of decision? Joel iii, 14. R. F. C. A. It is not correct to apply that prophecy to the present time, but to a short period immediately preceding the coming of Christ. Verse 2 brings in a gathering of the people. But as this gathering is under the plagues, and in the day of the Lord, Rev. xvi, this probably gives cause for effect. The day of the Lord has already commenced when this prophecy applies, but its effects, in the plagues and last battle, fall at that time and place. A. It was admitted by all that there are difficulties in Isa. lxv, especially in verse 20, which no version or exposition yet seen has satisfactorily solved. The following seems to be the best light we have at the present time: The subject is the creating of new heavens and new earth, and a very brief description of some of the glories of that state is given. Verse 20 appears to be located at the close of the 1000 years of Rev. xx, when the camp of the saints—the beloved city—has come down, the wicked dead are raised, and judgment about to be executed by fire from heaven, from which the subject of this prophecy—the new earth—will come forth. The contrast between that time and the present is given. The following rendering of the Septuagint is presented; but we are not able to state whether the LXX gives the idea of the original of the prophecy more nearly than the common version. “There shall be no more thence an untimely birth, or an old man, who hath not filled out his days; [i. e. no premature old age, or decrepitude;] for the person of a hundred years shall be a youth, [the Lord’s people have their youth renewed in immortality;] but the hardened sinner of a hundred years, dying shall even be accursed.” [the second death.] This does not state that the righteous will put on the appearance of youthfulness in immortality at that time, but merely gives the condition in contrast with that of the wicked. REMARK.— While we fully believe that all Scripture is profitable, there are some texts, like the above, which, through the faults of transcribers or from some other cause, are exceedingly difficult, and they who have developed by their studies most of present truth and duty have spent the least time on them. 3. If it is wrong to ornament our persons with gold and silver, is it not equally wrong to ornament our horses and carriages with the same? J. B. L. A. It is wrong. With this answer, however, it was moved and voted that some one be requested to make some remarks for the benefit of extremists and faultfinders, who are apt to make a bad use of such answers. We shall expect an article to that effect. A. On 2 Chron. xxii, 2, Matthew Henry says: “Many good expositors are ready to allow that this, with some few more such difficulties, arises from the mistake of some transcriber, who put 42 for 22, and the copies by which the error should have been corrected, might be lost. Many ancient translators here read it 22. Few books are now printed without some errata, yet the authors do not therefore disown them, nor are the errors of the press imputed to the author, but the candid reader amends them by the sense or by comparing them with some other part of the work as we may easily do this.” Dr. Clarke says: “Ahasiah might have been twenty-two years according to 2 Kings viii, 20, but he could not have been forty-two, as stated here. The Syriac and Arabic have 22, and the Sept. in some copies, 20. And it is very probable that the Hebrew text read so originally; for when numbers were expressed by single letters it was easy to mistake mem, 40, for caph, 20. And if this book was written by a scribe who used the ancient Hebrew letters, now called the Samaritan, the mistake was still more easy and probable, as the difference between caph and mem is very small, and can in many instances be discerned only by an accustomed eye.” The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world! Q. What is referred to by “next day?” A. The next day after his interview with the Pharisees. Q. Was this before or after Christ’s baptism? Q. Why is he called the Lamb of God? A. He was the offering God provided for man’s sin. Q. What is meant by his taking away the sin of the world? A. The original means “to take, carry, bear,” &c. He bore our sins. Heb. ix, 28. It may also be rendered, remove, or take away, but it would be most correctly rendered to leave out the word “away.” Whiting’s translation, and Bernard’s, have it, “That beareth the sin of the world.” This is, doubtless, the correct rendering. Q. It is often said that the scape-goat is a type of Christ; does not this seem to favor that idea? A. There are several things to which the words bear or take away might refer; as the scape-goat bearing them to the wilderness; the high priest bearing them from the sanctuary to the scape-goat; or the other goat bearing them as a sin-offering. This text refers to the latter, as it points to Jesus as the lamb, or offering, and Paul said he was “offered to bear the sins of many; Heb. ix, 28; and Peter says: “Who his own self bear our sins in his own body on the tree;” or cross. 1 Pet. ii, 24. Q. Did he bear the sins of the whole world? A. He did; the original of the world is Kosmos, which Robinson defines: “Genr., the world, the universe, the heavens and earth. Meton., the universe, for the inhabitants of the universe,” &c. It is often used in the N. T. for the world or creation, and representatively for the inhabitants of the world. But it would certainly be incorrect to use it thus if it were designed to represent or express only a small part of the inhabitants of the world. Q. Did Christ bear the sins of the wicked as well as the righteous? A. “He died for all;” and on the cross he bore the sins of all, without distinction of character. Q. Does that show that all will be saved? A. It does not; Christ was unconditionally offered for all, to open a way for their pardon and salvation; but we must accept the offering and bring it to the Father by faith, or we shall not receive the benefit of it. This is shown by such expressions as the following: Whosoever believeth in him, might not perish; ye will not come that ye might have life; how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation? work out your salvation with fear and trembling; give all diligence to make your calling and election sure; &c., &c. Q. We are said to be bought with a price, the blood of Christ; how far does that purchase extend? A. Some say only to his church; but 2 Pet. ii, 1, shows that it extends to all. Q. Did Christ die for all in the sense of suffering the full penalty of their sins? On this question much discussion arose. It was held that he did not, as the penalty is eternal death, while Christ was dead but three days. But they will eventually fall back on Satan who will suffer eternal death and so suffer the full penalty. To this it was replied that the penalty is death; not temporal, eternal, first, nor second; but simply death, that Christ died, and of course suffered the penalty; that he bears sin in our behalf. But the scape-goat, or Satan, is never said to bear our sins; die for us; purchase us with his life; be made sin for us; nor be an offering for us; because the judgment of the saints is passed, and they are acquitted before the sins are put upon the scape-goat. As the investigation assumed more the form of conversation than of question and answer it is not possible to report it, unless at length, which is not admissible. There are many points of great interest to us as a people on this subject, some of which need much and careful study. A tract will soon be issued from the Review Office, which will doubtless be examined with care, and criticised as the case may demand. WHY GROVES WERE FORBIDDEN.
JUDGES iii, 7. And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord, and forgat the Lord their God, and served Baalim and the groves. [Baalim and the groves.] The same as Baal and Ashtaroth. Probably the word rendered groves, is erroneous, or wrongly translated, for the groves were not worshiped, but the gods to whom they were consecrated.—Dodd. Some take groves literally for trees, which were anciently consecrated to heroes, their sepulchers being sometimes among them, and the trees trimmed with ribbons, adorned with lights, and hung with the spoils of conquered enemies; but Selden thinks they mean images of gods in the groves, as it is certain they must in some places. It is evident these deities, whatever they were, were different from Baalim; for the prophets of Baalim and the prophets of the groves were distinct. 1 Kings xviii, 19.—Patrick. As the word is used in place of Ashtaroth, which, in chap. ii, 13, is found in connection with Baalim, the conclusion is very clear, that groves are consecrated to this goddess.—John. The worship of a male and female principle of the universe, has been in all ages and still is astonishingly prevalent. Gibbon thus describes it, as it was in a later age: “Five miles from Antioch, the Macedonian kings of Syria had consecrated to Apollo one of the most elegant places of devotion in the pagan world. A magnificent temple rose in honor of the god of light; and his colossal figure almost filled the capacious sanctuary, which was enriched with gold and gems, and adorned by the skill of the Grecian artists. The deity was represented in a bending attitude, with a golden cup in his hand, pouring out a libation on the earth; as if he supplicated the venerable mother to give to his arms the cold and beauteous Daphne; for the spot was ennobled by fiction; and the fancy of the Syrian poets had transported the amorous tale from the banks of the Peneus to those of the Orontes. The ancient rites of Greece were imitated by the royal colony of Antioch. A stream of prophecy, which rivaled the truth and reputation of the Delphic oracle, flowed from the Castalian fountain of Daphne. In the adjacent fields a stadium was built, by a special privilege which had been purchased from Elis; the Olympic games were celebrated at the expense of the city; and a revenue of £30,000 was annually applied to the public pleasures. The perpetual resort of pilgrims and spectators insensibly formed, in the neighbourhood of the temple, the stately and populous village of Daphne. The temple and village were deeply embosomed in a thick grove of laurels and cypresses, which formed, in the most sultry summers, a cool and impenetrable shade. A thousand streams of the purest water, issuing from every hill, preserved the verdure of the earth, and the temperature of the air; the senses were gratified with harmonious sounds and aromatic odors; and the peaceful grove was consecrated to health and joy, to luxury and love [or rather lust]. The vigorous youth pursued, like Apollo, the object of his desires; and the blushing maid was warned by the fate of Daphne, to shun the folly of unseasonable coyness. The soldier and the philosopher wisely avoided the temptation of this sensual paradise; where pleasure, assuming the character of religion, imperceptibly [note Ex. xx, 14.] dissolved the firmness of manly virtue. But the groves of Daphne continued for many ages to enjoy the veneration of natives and strangers; the privileges of the holy ground were enlarged by the munificence of succeeding emperors; and every generation added new ornaments to the splendor of the temple.” While we justly blame, pity, and despise the Israelites for being so often led away from the pure and simple worship of God, by such allurements to impure rites, are we watchful to keep our own hearts free from the dominion of our lower propensities—from the lust of the flesh—the lust of the eye—and the pride of life—which so often debased them, and brought them to misery?—Jenks. A FEW THOUGHTS FOR THE SKEPTIC.
By Adolphus Smith
“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Cor. ii, 14. O thou unbeliever, this word is to you, to you who do not believe the testimony of Paul, that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” 2 Tim. iii, 16; nor of Peter, that “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, 21. “I do not believe,” say you, “that there is a God.” But, my friend, does your unbelief strike God out of existence? Is there any less a God because of your unbelief? Do you behold no evidence without or within you that an Almighty God exists, and rules over all? “All things came by chance.” How wonderful! Why does it not happen, then, that, on awakening some morning, you find, it may be, the miserable hovel in which you close your eyes, were exchanged for a palace, and your poverty for untold millions? or why do you not awaken, and find yourself a calf not half as valuable as that which the Hebrews worshipped in the wilderness of Sinai? This a world of chance? Read the story of Hafed who happened to see a man that chanced to have one good eye in the top of his head, and you may be able to see as he did, that all things in this world are governed by fixed, unalterable laws, as beneficent as they are wise. You profess to believe that there is no God; but, if there is a God, notwithstanding your unbelief, is your attitude toward that God conciliatory? If not conciliatory, are you prepared to meet the issue? “Agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou art in the way with him.” “But admitted,” say you, “that there is a God, I do not believe that the Bible is a revelation from God, or that it was given, as is claimed, by inspiration of his Spirit. It was written and printed by man, and the different books of which it is composed, were voted into the canon of scripture at certain councils, some of them receiving a small majority of votes. If they were of God, would he allow them to be thus disposed of, at the pleasure of man?” In regard to your objection to the Bible, I may say that God has created us social beings, making it our duty each to contribute somewhat to the well being of others; and that God, had he seen fit, could have so revealed his will that to believe were compulsory; but he has created us, not machines, but free, moral agents. We can, therefore, choose, or refuse; we can exercise faith (without which it is impossible to please God), or unbelief; either of which will receive its just recompense of reward. In revealing his will to man, God has employed holy men as instruments, endowing them with the spirit of wisdom. And whether in dictating, or writing, the Scriptures, as corporate bodies, or as individuals, holy men spake and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. But, granted that the books of Scripture were received by vote, and that some of them received a very small majority, nay, only one majority, are they, therefore, any less authentic? Suppose a civil magistrate were elected by only one majority, is he, therefore, any less a magistrate? Has he any less authority to dispense justice? Abraham, when old and his wife past age, became a father (by promise) of many nations. Was he any the less the father of many nations, because he came near not being a father at all? Even so the Scriptures are no less authentic because they may have narrowly escaped extinction by the “Father of lies”? Here let me express a solemn thought suggested by the above. To be almost saved, is to be lost forever; and almost to reach Heaven, is to be thrust down to hell. “I believe,” say you, “that a part of the Bible teaches excellent morality, which, if obeyed, would make men virtuous; but that there are certain other parts that are unfit for perusal, and tend to immorality.” To your first proposition, I agree; but to the last, I would offer a few serious objections: 1. That certain scriptures are unfit for perusal, I deny, because that, first, a person who is so morally corrupt as to receive unchaste impressions from every seeming deviation from what he, in his moments of self-righteousness, expresses as his belief as to what constitutes true chastity, can never be injured by such scriptures, but, on the contrary, he may be benefited; for, being convicted of sin, the word of God, as the pointed steel, cuts to his heart; but, to hide his own guilt, he cries, “Shame! shame!” and second, one whose mind is pure, and who is honestly seeking after the truth, can behold in such portions of Scripture a faithful record of past unchastity and sin, from which they, as a faithful guide-board, warn him to turn away his unwary feet. 2. That such portions of Scripture tend to immorality is not legitimately true; for, though, on a cursory glance, certain isolated passages have the appearance of unchastity, and certain recorded transactions are seemingly inexplicable, yet, if with the text we also read the context, and could we become acquainted with the manners and customs of the people to whom such scriptures were addressed, our unbelief would be dispelled as the dew before the sun. That there are passages of Scripture unfit to be read publicly on all occasions, I admit; but that every passage has had, or will have, its proper place in the great testament of the Almighty Father to the children of men, I earnestly contend. To illustrate, a wife receives a letter from her absent husband. It contains a message to the children, and one to the neighbors. She calls them all together, and reads the last aloud and in the presence of her children. She dismisses the neighbors, and then reads the children’s message to them alone. The letter contains also a message to herself. This she reads in silence; for it contains words of endearment, of counsel, of advice, unfit for vulgar ears; yet no one would question the virtue of the husband for writing, nor that of the wife for reading, the communication. Even so, give to the Scriptures a time and place for each message, each passage; and I think the whole will appear as one harmonious chain of truth, whose beginning is co-eval with God’s, and whose end reaches through to the glory that is to be revealed. The Scriptures contain numerous records of transactions that were wrong, and because the Infidel does not immediately discover that they protest against such transactions, he cries out against the purity of the word. The insanity of such an objector might be fitly illustrated thus: A. calls upon B. who relates that C. had, the night previous, in cold blood, murdered his whole family. A. immediately goes out and loudly proclaims that B. is a villain, a knave, that he approves of homicide, parricide, and infanticide. “How do you know?” says D. “Why,” says A., “I heard him say that C. murdered his family, and, as I did not hear him pronounce against the atrocity of the deed, I conclude that he sanctions it.” When, in the Bible, an idea is advanced, or an incident noted, which is seemingly inexplicable, it should be followed in its chain of reasoning to its legitimate conclusion, before judgment is pronounced upon its merit or demerit. You say that “David was a man after God’s own heart;” that “he was a polygamist, and therefore the Bible sanctions polygamy.” The Bible sanctions no such thing. In the beginning God created them male and female; therefore “shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife [not wives], and they twain shall be one flesh.” It is true that David and Solomon both had a plurality of wives; but the former suffered greatly because of it, and the latter, through the influence of his wives, incurred the wrath of God, which, however, was suspended in its execution because of his sincere repentance. David was a man who sorrowed greatly whenever he discovered that he had sinned against God. Do you know, my friend, that David bitterly repented of his polygamy, and that God did not declare him a man after his own heart, while in the practice of polygamy? Search the Scriptures. Polygamy in those days was the general rule; now, in Bible lands, it is the exception. God, in his wisdom, has never seen fit to eradicate general and public evils by one great stroke of his almighty power; but, by the sword of his Spirit, which is the word of God, he has sought to subdue the heart of man; correct moral conduct following, as a natural consequence. “The Bible,” you say, “sanctions divorce.” It permits it under certain circumstances, because of the depravity of the human heart, and to prevent greater evils. “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so.” “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away, doth commit adultery.” A man has broken his leg; gangrene has set in; he sends for a surgeon, whose knife severs the offending member from his body, that his life may be saved. But had his leg been sound and healthy, would he have had it amputated? Not by any means. So the Bible suffers divorce in certain cases, to prevent greater evils. The nearer we approach to holiness of heart and life, the less need there will be of divorce. Gold, fancy, or passion, are, in far too many cases, the chief incentives to matrimony. Taking a husband or wife is popularly regarded as the same as taking a ticket in a lottery. This is not true; for “whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” “Whoso findeth a wife, findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favor of the Lord,” and, vice versa, she that getteth a husband of the Lord, doeth well. God can look down through the long vista of our mortal years, and he knows just what sort of a companion we need, best to secure our sacred, secular, and social interests. “In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.” We should then ask God to guide us in selecting the consort of our earthly joys and sorrows. Thus guided, we should never have reason to repent our choice, and no occasion of divorce be ever found. But to return: Are you sure, my friend, that the Bible is not a revelation from God? Nay, do you know it is not? Oh! if it should at last prove to be the word of God, how sad your fate! “For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble; and the day that cometh, shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.” Mal. iv, 1. “And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.” Rev. xx, 15. Reader, if, on the one hand, the Bible be not true, yet to follow its teachings, as you yourself admit, would make you a better man or woman; but, on the other, if it is true, your unbelief consigns you to perdition. Then, can you any longer afford to disbelieve? Resolve, in the strength of Jesus, no longer to be led captive of Satan, who “hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” 2 Cor. iv, 4. Begin in earnest to serve God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, the great head of the church, give you grace to forsake your sins by righteousness, and your iniquities by turning to the Lord. ADOLPHUS SMITH.
Ottawa Co., Mich. YOUR bags of gold should be ballast in your vessel to keep her always steady, instead of being topsails to your mast to make your vessel giddy. THE JOYS OF A RELIGIOUS LIFE.
By P. Beechcroft
A LIFE of sound religious principle has its joys. It is not the cold, dreary, inanimate tract of country which it is so often described to be. Let the picture be drawn with candor and impartiality, and, amidst a few fleeting clouds, there will be much sunshine to gild the scenery. The evening more particularly of a religious life, must ever be painted in glowing colors. And if the life of a Christian could be analyzed, it would be found to contain more particles of satisfaction than the life of any other man. But make, I entreat you, the experiment for yourselves; and you will find that the “ways of religion are ways of pleasantness and all her paths are paths of peace.” And if they be so in this world, what joys will they not lead you to in the world to come! There every cloud will be dispelled, every mist dispersed; the vail will be drawn aside; we shall no longer see through a glass darkly, but shall see God face to face. We shall rest from our labor; all tears will be wiped from all faces; and nothing will be heard but thanksgiving and the voice of melody. Then we shall look back upon the many trials, temptations, and vicissitudes of this life, as the Israelites, when arrived in the earthly Canaan, looked back upon the bondage of Egypt, the terrors of the wilderness, and the passage of the Red Sea. We shall commune together of these things which have happened. Did not our hearts burn within us while our great Leader, the Captain of our salvation, talked with us by the way, and opened to us the Scriptures? Did we not anticipate that which we now actually enjoy? Blessed forever be God the Father, who hath given us this glorious inheritance! For ever blessed be the Son, who hath purchased it with his own blood! Blessed through all eternity be the Holy Ghost, who hath sanctified us, and made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance with the saints in light!—Rev. P. Beechcroft.