Page images
PDF
EPUB

number of slain upon whom the Divine breath has come, constitute an exceeding great army” (Ez. xxxvii. 10). And in Jehovah's estimation, “the holy seed is the substance."

Until the God of Israel had accomplished in the history of His people those things of which He had spoken by His servants the prophets, it was not, apparently, His intention that they should recognise their nationality after they were carried captive into Assyria; for He said of them :-“I will hedge up thy way with thorns, and make a wall that she shall not find her paths ” (Hosea ii. 6).

“ For the Lord God shall slay thee-Judah-and call His servantsIsrael-by another name (Isaiah lxv. 15). “ For with stammering lips and another tongue will He speak to this people” (Isaiah xxviii. 11). More terrible by far: “ Call his name LO-AMMI; for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God” (Hosea i. 9).

Ephraim - Israel, then, were for a time UNCOVENANTED, and so remained until redeemed by Messiah, consequently were, essentially, Gentiles. Hence we read (Rom. iii. 9) that both Jews and Gentiles are under sin. The inference derived has been that the term "Jews" here includes the whole twelve tribes. But the prophecies are not to be rendered of none effect by INFERENCES.

Had Ephraim retained her language, the rite of circumcision, the keeping of the seventh day as Sabbath, and other Hebrew characteristics, she could not have “lost her paths,” but would everywhere have been recognised as Israel.

As to the other name by which Jehovah would call His people, and the stammering lips and another tongue with which He would speak to them, neither can apply to the Juhs. They have never been called by another name, nor addressed in another tongue than Hebrew. The “stammering lips," as the Rev. H. Marriott, in his work already referred to, suggests, significantly describe the imperfect Eoglish translation from the Hebrew.

The Juhs have never ceased to be known as God's people ; but Israel 'was Lo-ammi. And what a profound import do the words of Messiah acquire when applied in this sense, which is, doubtless, their only legitimate application. “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. xv. 24). “The house of Israel” and “the house of Judah” are not synonymous and convertible terms in God's account, whatever they may be in the reckoning of those who in our day are unable to discern the distinction His word makes between them, and to arrive at which is but the first step out of the dense fog with which tradition has so long enveloped us, towards the delightful sunshine of REVEALED TRUTH in relation to Israel. Is it anywhere recorded that Jesus was the Redeemer of the house of Judah? or of a Gentile people? It is nowhere so recorded, though no language is more perspicuous than the words of the prophets, when read in the light of the history they create.

He is the SAVIOUR of all who believe in Him as the Son of God, and who rely upon His precious atoning blood and perfect obedience to the law for acceptance with Jehovah; bat He is the Redeemer only of the LO-AMMI Tribes of Israel. He has paid the stupendous price necessary for their redempton from the Gentile state, and to bring them into the bonds of the new covenant. Has it not been too much the habit, while deploring greatly the existing evil, and anticipating the blessedness of the millenial age, to under estimate the great glory of the Triune Jehovah which has, in this dispensation of the Holy Spirit, resulted from the atonement of Messiah ?

But while in times past it was not possible to recognise the identity, because Jehovah had so decreed; yet, when in the exercise of His infinite wisdom, power and love, He produces a nation in every respect answering to the description He has given of the House of Israel PREVIOUS to the RETURN—a perfect photograph, however lightly or however seriously it may by many be repudiated—He claims the ascription of the glory due to His holy name for the performance of His promises. TO RENDER SUCH PRAISE WHEN IT IS MANIFESTLY DUE, MUST, EVIDENTLY, BE OUR PARAMOUNT DUTY. Jehovah “has honoured His word above all His Name;" and just as in the first appearance of Messiah, every prophecy relating to that advent received its exact and literal fulfilment; so, with the same precision, every other prophecy either has been already, or will at maturity, be respected by Him, however obscure or unimportant we may suppose it to be.

We read in Joel iii. 7, “ Surely the Lord God will do nothing but He revealeth His secret to His servants the prophets,” With such an emphatic assurance on record; with such prophecies as have been quoted, and many others also, and with the further assurance that Jehovah “made known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the LATTER DAYS;” and that the most important of those events was the setting up by Him during the days of those kings-not in the coming AGE as it has been considered orthodox to believe-a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, but which should break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms (Dan. ii.), is it not astonishing the professed students of prophecy should so recklessly assert that “God is not dealing with Israel in mercy in the present dispensation ?” When such teachers tell us, without the shadow of authority, except that the Jews have not been converted—and this is “shadowy" enough-that this kingdom has not yet been set up, but that in some sudden, mysterious, and altogether incomprehensible way it WILL BE created, WITH OR WITHOUT SUBJECTS, during the millenial age, not in the days of those kings, as Jehovah has said, but when they shall have been “gathered in the pit ;” do they not invite us to believe that which directly contradicts the plainest declarations of the “ sure word of prophecy?" For verily, as they themselves teach, that day is at hand when it'" shall come to pass that Jehovah shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth; and they shall be gathered together as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days they shall be found wanting” (Isaiah xxiv, 21 and 22). But Jehovah has said He would establish this kingdom, the subjects of which are, of course, MEN of the tribes of Israel, in or during the days of the kings referred to. Granted, then, that the days of these kings have come to a close, it follows—as the word of Jehovah is true—that the Kingdom has already been “set up"-in embryo, no doubt, but still " set up."

IN

[ocr errors]

"RESPECTING RESURRECTION." the Correspondence of the RAINBOW for October, 1881, there is an

interesting communication, headed, “ Respecting Resurrection," and it concludes with, “I should like to see this subject ventilated in the Rainbow;" but as nine months have elapsed since the article was published, and as none of your well-qualified correspondents have responded to the desire for ventilation, I hope the Editor and readers will excuse any little deficiency of culture that comes from the pen of an old sailor, whose zeal may have outrun his discretion in tackling on to that which others, much better fitted for the work, appear disinclined to grapple with, viz., the defence of one of the most important doctrines in the revealed Word of God; and the question is, Are all the dead to be resurrected ?

Mr. Hammond has stated that “pre-Adamite men are certainly not to be taken into account in the question of resurrection, nor are countless numbers of the Adamic race who have been judged already. Do the multitudes that perished in the flood, in the fires of Sodom, in the Red Sea, in the overthrow of Babylon, and in many other places, come up again for judgment ? Had they not all Divine warning before the sentence was executed ? Their day of judgment is surely past." I consider these views, both expressed and implied, as entirely out of harmony with the teaching of the Scriptures, and submit the following proofs as being more in accordance with their testimony. In Jobn v. 26-29, our Lord distinctly asserts" that all who are in the graves shall hear His voice and come forth : they that have done good to the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil to the resurrection of condemnation;" in fact, the resurrection linked on to the judgment as the means to an end, and we may fairly infer that the two are equal in extent. I also remark that the all who are in their graves can only mean those who are in the death state, for there are many who have never received burial, and the number of those in that state is the measure of those who are to be resurrected and judged. Now, if these connected statements of our Lord do not prove universal resurrection and judgment, then clear, direct evidence is insufficient to prove anything. I also remark that Mr. Hammond refers to judgment preceding death; but oar Lord reverses ibat order of arrangement, for He makes resurrection precede judgment, and is out of harmony with Mr. Hammond's remarks about ancient sinners, “their day of judgment is surely past." In the Epistle to the Hebrews (ix. 27, 28) we have not only the direct testimony that "after death the judgment," but also the extent of the resurrection indirectly but clearly implied. Death and the judgment are here so linked together that, without an expressed limitation, their extent must be held to be the same ; unless violence is done to common sense as a factor of interpretation in the revealed Word of God, given for our instruction, the term “men,” as used here, must be racial, for the other sex are not mentioned; besides, all of both sexes do die the first death, and all that are in the death state must be resurrected if they are to be judged.

A lady has recently written that “truth should be sought, not by the strained construction of separate passages, but by the general tenor of Scripture teaching,” and we may add, because the laiter method of exegesis carries much more weight to our mind; but where there is any doubt about the meaning of terms it is more satisfactory when the Scriptures are made to be their own interpreter.

As an illustration of the above method of interpretation, we refer to the Apostle Paul's defence before Felix, the Roman Governor, as related in Acts xxiv., where, in ver. 15, the apostle declared that “thore shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." Now, the most likely impression that the term, “ the dead,” would have upon the mind of Felix, would be that they mcant the dead as a whole; but how much more firmly must he have been convinced of the apostle's meaning the extent of the resurrection to be racial when he declared it to be “ both of the just and unjust,” and we need not bave any hesitation in stating that if the apostle did not mean the whole of the dead, his definitions were of a most misleading character, not only to the governor, but also to those who look to the Scriptures for their instruction, and on this point they do not leave us in doubt as to the meaning of the terms, “ the just and unjust.” In Matt. v. 45, our Lord informs us that God “makoth His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” Now here is a Scriptural estimate by which we can easily compute the extent of those who will be resurrected, for the benevolence of God in the bestowal of sun. shine and rain includes the Adamic race as recipients, and as comprised within the limits eitber of “good and evil or just and unjust.” And we may pertinently remark that this unmistakable evidence of our Lord and His Apostle ought to be held as of much greater value than the testimony of honest, but uninspired theorists, whatever their strength of judgment or force of imagination may amount to. Another clear proof of the resurrection of the Adamic race may be deducted from Revelation of Jesus Christ," given to the Apostle John, who distinctly informs us that there is a first resurrection. The Apostle Paul also teaches the same important truth, which appears to have been given to him by special revelation for the comforting of "the church of the Thessalonians," a resurrection from the dead which Paul was anxious to attain to. John in Rev. xx. 4-6 refers to certain martyrs who are “ to live and reign with Christ a thousand years," but that the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.” This statement is very important: first it informs us that the dead are not alive ! thereby denying the truth of the absurd theological contradiction with which both Popish and Protestant churches are saturated; and it also confirms the truth of there being a final resurrection (verses 11, 12) when “the dead, small and great, stard before God,” at the judgment of the great white throne. Now, as there is to be more than one resurrection, and the last one described as being “ the rest of the dead,” it appears to me most clearly demonstrated that the whole of mankind must be resurrected, for whatever portion or portions of the dead may have been raised previous to the last resurrection, it extends to “ the rest of the dead,and with its numbers added to a previous portion or portions, the sum must amount to a whole mankind; for we cannot conceive of a whole being composed of less than all its parts. If such Scriptural evidence as the foregoing does not prove the truth of the re

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

DD

surrection of the whole Adamic race, it may then be doubtful whether that proposition is capable of proof, and were we to add to the above evidence, many incidental references of the same tenour that are to be found in the Scriptures, and if the whole of both the direct and indirect evidence is held to be deficient as proof positive, we may then without any discourtesy to the holders broadly hint to them that Mystification instead of Revelation was the more definite term to apply to the Scriptures, and to refer to the Bible as the proper standard of appeal in Christian controversy seemed very like going to a system of delusion for the final settlement of differences that are closely connected with man's eternal destiny. We are well aware that there are a few passages in the Scriptures that seem to be out of harmony with the views which we advocate, but it may be found on a close examination that they are not so ipharmonious as they appear to be. A strict attention to their contexts, to the times with which they are connected, may greatly reduce the difficulties they present, even although it may not remove the whole of them; but we agree with what Mr. Moncrieff has written—" There are difficulties-things which reason cannot master-in connection with the revival of the dead; but better Scripture, with its difficulties, than a theory that pays a sort of respectful obeisance to the Divine testimony in passing with a burden of fancies and conjectures and none of its celestial lore.”

Mr. Hammond's theory about the non-resurrection of the Antediluvians, Sodomites, Babylonians, etc., ought to be replied to, but we fear to trespass too much on the valuable space in the Rainbow ; perhaps your kindness and well-known love of truth may furnish a further opportunity for some one to do so. If what we have advanced has any claim to be considered “Ventilation,” we feel sure that Mr. Hammond will cheerfully join us in wishing that its effect may produce a more healthy train of thought in Christian minds that are troubled with doubts about the integrity of the Scriptures "Respecting Resurrection."

By a singular coincidence, when finishing the above our attention was drawn by a friend to this month's Rainbow, and an article in it by G.E." of the same tenour as Mr. Hammond's, another proof of the need of reply to those who advocate limited resurrection views. “G. E." finishes with Certainly it seems much more accordant with the character of God to disbelieve the resurrection of the heathen than to believe with some missionaries and missionary directors that the heathen are raised to endure for ever the pangs of unrelieved misery."

We may sympathise with the above hypothesis without assenting to the dogma of eternal conscious suffering to which it is opposed, but we fail to see in the hypothesis how a resurrection and future judgment of the heathen may not take place quite in accordance with the character of God, who is love, without favouring in the least degree the unscriptural dogma " of their having to endure for ever the pangs of unrelieved misery.” Besides, if undue weight is given to hypothesis, the advocates of Universalism can use it with as great force and feeling, and with more apparent Scripture proof for their leading doctrine than “G. E." has given for the non-resurrection of the heathen; the character of a Father who is love, and Almighty in power, can be strongly contrasted with the idea that He will allow any of His children to perish for ever.

66

« PreviousContinue »