Page images
PDF
EPUB

and confidently affirmed, I have never been able to satisfy myself that it is correct. The case of speaking in unknown tongues, as set forth in 1 Cor. xiv., is appealed to as conclusive in favor of the position just mentioned. But this will not sustain the appeal. In 1 Cor. 14: 4, Paul tells us that he who speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself." If so, then he himself, at least, must understand the meaning of what he utters; for what edification can there be in unintelligible words or sounds? The unknown tongue which is spoken of, was unknown only to the hearers, in a case of this nature. Nor is it any solid and satisfactory answer to this view of the case, that the apostle recognizes instances, in which the speaker cannot interpret to others, what he himself has uttered, 1 Cor. 14: 13. To be enabled to utter things in a foreign language, and to possess the power of readily translating that language so as to edify a public assembly, may be, and plainly were, two different gifts. In some cases, as appears from 1 Cor. xiv., the same person possessed both gifts; and the apostle directs him anxiously to seek for both, 1 Cor. 14: 13. In others, another and a different person interpreted, 1 Cor. 14: 26 -28. The exact nature, extent, and modifications of the gift of tongues, are matters now beyond the reach of our thorough investigation. But thus much seems to be quite certain, viz., that he, "who speaketh to God," and "edifieth himself" by speaking (1 Cor. 14: 2-4), must understand what he says. The whole tenor of 1 Cor. xiv. goes to show, that words not understood, and not intelligible, can administer edification to no one.

An appeal is also made to 1 Pet. 1: 11, 12, as declaring that the prophets made diligent search, in order to understand what they themselves uttered. But I can find no such sentiment there. Peter says, first, that they prophesied respecting the gracious dispensation of the gospel,

v. 10; secondly, that "they searched at what [time] and what manner of time, (εἰς τίνα ἢ ποῖον καιρόν), the things would take place which were the subject of revelation," i. e. when Christ would appear, and what would be the form and manner of his dispensation. Tiva I understand here to be an interrogative, agreeing with xaugóv. If the apostle had designed to say, that they searched into what things they had uttered, he would have adopted another form of expression; or, at all events, have expressed himself thus : εἰς τίνα, καὶ ποῖον καιρόν. Even then τίνα would be altogether obscure, when thus separated from xugóv. Nor, in such a case, could it be interpreted as signifying, that they made search in order to know the meaning of what they had uttered, but merely after farther knowledge respecting the subjects of which they had spoken. This was perfectly natural; for the subjects were of the highest importance, and must have excited a deep interest in their minds. As the text now stands, however, nothing more is affirmed, than that the prophets sought to know at what time, i. e. when, the Messianic dispensation would be ushered in, and also to extend their information as to the form and manner of this dispensation; for so εἰς ... ποῖον καιρόν εis. must mean. It follows now very naturally, in the third place, that in answer to their inquiries it was revealed to them, that only the distant future would be the period of development. In all this there is nothing which declares or even intimates, that the prophets did not understand what they had uttered. The passage only shows, that they were anxious to know the time and manner of the new dispensation. These, at first, had not been revealed; and even afterwards, only so much was disclosed as enabled them to see, that a distant period was reserved for the Messianic development, so that it could not take place in their day.

In the books of Daniel, of Zechariah, and of Revelation which are full of symbols, the case not unfrequently occurs where the prophet does not at first know the meaning of the symbols presented. Nothing could be more natural than this. But in each of these books, be it well remembered, the prophet is represented as being accompanied by his angel-interpreter, who explains what was obscure in any symbol. Why this? Why was not the symbol left for future explanation, to be made at some distant period?

In one case, Dan. 12: 8, the prophet declares that “he heard and understood not." But to what does this relate? Evidently to what was suggested to his mind by the declarations in v. 7, where it is said, that the end of the wonders shall be "after a time, times, and a half," and subsequent to the complete scattering of the holy people. Daniel now does not inquire, like the angel in v. 6, how long (2) it shall be to the end of the wonders named, but he asks what () the end of those things would be, i. e. to what state or condition of things they will lead, or, in other words, what will be the sequel, . If, with one class of interpreters, we make the word (latter end, after part) to signify the same as end (†) in v. 6, then the interrogative what (7) is inappropriate. The question of Daniel, therefore, must have respect to the state of things at the close of "the time, times, and a half," v. 7. All this is made clear by the answer which is given to the question of Daniel in v. 8. That answer is, that the result will be, to try and purify the righteous, to exasperate and blind the wicked, to destroy after a few days "the abomination that maketh desolate" (Antiochus Epiphanes), and to confer great happiness on those who shall wait for that period and live to see it. At the close of all, Daniel is bidden to depart in peace or satisfied with what has been disclosed, until the end (ppb), i. e. until his end or the termination of

his life; just as the Psalmist says: "Make me to know mine end (p), Ps. 39: 5. In p, the article supplies the place of the pronominal thy. And why in peace or satisfied? Because "he shall rest," viz. in his sepulchre; "and stand up for his lot," viz. be raised up (avaotηoɛtai, the opposite of 7) at the resurrection of the just, in order to enter upon the glorious reward of his fidelity; and all this 7, at the end of the days, i. e. at the end of time. So the best interpreters agree in explaining this verse; and the very nature of the case shows them to be in the right. The reward of Daniel was not dependent on the end of Antiochus' days, or of any of the particular times which the prophet had designated. In other words; the rest in his sepulchre, (which is obviously meant by

here), was not to bè interrupted or ended by a resurrection when Antiochus should perish. The end of the days means evidently the same thing as the rò tilos of Paul, in 1 Cor. 15: 24.*

The declaration of Daniel, then, that "he understood not," has respect mainly to consequences connected with

* All the difficulty in this last paragraph of Daniel, results from the different meanings of the word, translated end. All that needs to be noted by an experienced interpreter, is, that this word, like many others in the Scriptures, is employed in the way of antanaclasis, i. e. the same word has somewhat different meanings attached to it in different clauses. In vs. 6 and 9, it designates the close of the period mentioned in v. 7; in the first clause of v. 13 it designates the end of Daniel's life; and in the last clause of the same verse, it signifies the end of time, i. e. of the world-period. To an attentive and intelligent reader there can be no difficulty in deciding upon this, because the context speaks imperiously for such an interpretation. Parallels enough of such antanaclasis might be offered; but this is not the proper place to pursue a discussion of such a nature. These remarks have been made in compliance with the wishes of some friends, who have found difficulty in interpreting Dan. 12: 6—13.

the events predicted. that he was astonished and filled with wonder. Very naturally does he say, therefore, that he does not know what they can mean, i. e. what they can betoken; a declaration the like of which we are always prone to make, whenever any thing extraordinary fills us with consternation and surprise.

So extraordinary were the events,

These are the most striking examples to which appeal is made, in order to show that the prophets were sometimes themselves ignorant of what they uttered. I am not able to see, how any sound argument can be built upon them. The prophets might be, and very often were, ignorant of either the time, or the manner, or the circumstances, or the consequences, etc., of things or events which they predicted. No one can for a moment doubt this; for almost all prophecies are the mere outlines of future occurrences, not minute likenesses. With the exception of some two or three passages, even the Messianic prophecies in general are of this character. How then can we reasonably suppose, that more was revealed to the prophets than they have expressed? I know of no proof that can be adduced, which will show that they possessed or professed any more knowledge of such events than they have developed. To attribute to the prophets all the knowledge of the gospeldispensation which may now be acquired, would not be walking in the path which Jesus has pointed out, when he declared, in reference to the ancient dispensation: “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath revealed him,” John 1: 18. Nor would it be giving due heed to the declaration of Paul (2 Tim. 1: 10), who says, that "life and immortality are brought to light through the gospel." And if the prophets themselves possessed only a partial knowledge of the things in question, even when inspired, surely it was not

« PreviousContinue »