of scriptural wicked. Scriptures continually furnish as a certain fearful expectation of the ungodly. A momentous and eternal truth may be set forth in figure as well as in literal statement, and the force of the Scripture doctrine of the final doom of the wicked lies not more in the terriUtter absence ble suggestions of positive punishment, tribulation, and hope for the anguish, than in the absence of any hope of pardon and salvation in the future. Vain is the appeal to such a text as Matt. xii, 32: "Whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age nor in that which is to come." Here, say some, is an implication that for other sins and blasphemies there may be forgiveness in the age or world to come. But to this it may at once be answered that such an implication is at best a most uncertain hope, while on the contrary the assertion is most positive that the blasphemy against the Spirit shall never be forgiven. Endless perdition, therefore, awaits such blaspheming sinners, and will the opponents of eternal punishment assume that no one ever has committed, or will commit, the blasphemy here meant? In the parallel passage of Mark (iii, 29) we meet with that profound and fearfully suggestive statement, that "whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit has no forgiveness forever, but is guilty of (voxos, is held fast bound by) eternal sin." How futile and delusive, then, to build a hope on the suggestions of such a text, when, for aught the reasoner knows, every wil ful sinner, who deliberately rejects the claims of the Gospel and dies impenitent, commits this blasphemy against the Spirit. prison. to Equally delusive would it be to build a hope of future pardon on what is written in 1 Peter iii, 18-20, and iv, 6. For if Preaching the spirits in we allow the strictest literal construction, and believe that Christ went in spirit and preached to the spirits in prison, we have no intimation as to what he preached, or of the results of that preaching; and the entire statement is confined to those who were disobedient in the days of Noah. There is no intimation that he preached to any other spirits, or that any other such preaching ever took place before, or ever will take place hereafter. Furthermore, if we infer, from 1 Peter iv, 6, that the purpose of this preaching to the dead was that they might be rescued from their prison, and "live according to God in spirit," it is entirely uncertain whether any one of them accepted the offer, and were thus saved. If, however, it be urged that it is altogether presumable that such a preaching of the Gospel by Christ himself would not be without blessed results, and that such grace shown to one class of imprisoned spirits is a fair ground for presuming that like mercy may be extended to many others, if not to all, we have only to answer: All these are presumptions which have too mucn against them in other parts of Scripture to be made the ground of hope to any wilful sinner, or to allow our laying down any universal proposition touching the unknown future.' one class or We repudiate the notion, often asserted by some, that we may not use the figurative portions of Scripture for the pur- Doctrine not pose of establishing or maintaining a doctrine. Figures confined to any of speech, parables, allegories, types, and symbols are portion of the divinely chosen forms by which God has communicated Scriptures. a large part of his written word to men, and these peculiar methods of communicating thought may teach doctrine as well as any thing else (comp. pp. 159, 160). Our Lord has seen fit to set forth his truth in manifold forms, and it is our duty to recognise that truth whether it appear in metaphor, parable, or symbol. Is there no doctrine taught in such metaphors as (Psa. li, 7) "Purify me with hyssop," or (1 Cor. v, 7) "Christ, our passover, was sacrificed”? Can the doctrine of a new creation in Christ (2 Cor. v, 17; Gal. vi, 15), and the renewing of the Holy Spirit (Titus iii, 5), be more clearly or forcibly set forth than by the figure of the new birth (regeneration) as used by Jesus (John iii, 3-8)? Does the allegory of the vine and its branches (John xv, 1-6) teach no doctrine? Was there no doctrine taught by the lifting up of the serpent in the wilderness, or in the symbolism of blood, or in the pattern and service of the tabernacle? And as to teaching by parables, we may well observe with Trench: "To create a powerful impression language must be recalled, minted, and issued anew, cast into novel forms, as was done by him of whom it is said that without a parable (Taρaẞoλn, in its widest sense) spake he nothing to his hearers; that is, he gave no doctrine in the abstract form, no skeletons of truth, but all clothed, as it were, with flesh and blood. He acted himself as he declared to his disciples they must act if they would be scribes instructed unto the kingdom, and able to instruct others (Matt. xiii, 52); he brought forth out of his treasure things new and old; by the help of the old he made intelligible the new; by the aid of the familiar he introduced them to that which was strange; from the known he passed more easily to the unknown. And in his own 'It scarcely accords with the true spirit of calm theological inquiry to obtrude dogmatical assertions as to any possibilities of grace beyond this life. What may be the future development and opportunities of those who die in infancy, or what may be allowed in another state of being to such as may be supposed never to have had suitable opportunities of accepting salvation in this life, are questions which God alone can answer, and the presumption of those who, in the absence of specific revelation, dogmatize on such themes, is only equalled by the folly of those who would rest their hopes of the future on such unknown and uncertain possibilities. manner of teaching, and in his instruction to his apostles, he has given us the secret of all effectual teaching—of all speaking which shall leave behind it, as was said of one man's eloquence, stings in the minds and memories of the hearers." 1 figurative But when we come to study the doctrines of biblical eschatology, Eschatology how little do we find that is not set forth in figure or in mostly taught symbol? Perhaps the notable confusion of modern language. teaching on the subjects of the parousia, resurrection, and judgment is largely due to a notion that these doctrines must needs have been revealed in literal form. The doctrine of divine judgment with its eternal issues is none the less positive and sure because set forth in the highly wrought and vivid picture of Matt. xxv, 31-46, or the vision of Rev. xx, 11, 12. "The judgment seat of Christ" (Rom. xiv, 10; 2 Cor. v, 10) is a metaphorical expression, based on familiar forms of dispensing justice in human tribunals (comp. Matt. xxvii, 19; Acts xii, 21; xviii, 12, 16; xxv, 6, 10, 17), and the expositor who insists that we must understand the eternal judgment of Christ only as executed after the forms of human courts, only damages the cause of truth. The resurrection of the body. How, also, has the doctrine of the resurrection become involved in doubt and confusion by overwise attempts to tell how the dead are raised up, and with what body they come forth! That the body is raised is the manifest scriptural teaching. Christ's body was raised, and his resurrection is the type, representative, and pledge that all will be raised (1 Cor. xv, 1-22). Many saints who had fallen asleep arose with him, and it is expressly written that their bodies (owμara) were raised (Matt. xxvii, 52). Paul's doctrine clearly is that "he who raised up Christ Jesus from the dead, shall also make alive your mortal bodies" (Rom. viii, 11; comp. Phil. iii, 21). He does not entertain the question, on which so many modern divines have wasted speculation, as, wherein consists identity of body, and may not the dust of different bodies become mixed, and will all the particles of matter be restored? But he does employ suggestive illustrations, and by the figure of the grain of wheat shows that the body which is sown is "not the body that shall be" (1 Cor. xv, 37). He calls attention to the varieties of flesh (σápš), as of men, beasts, birds, and fishes, and to the great difference between the glory of heavenly and earthly bodies, and then says that the human body is sown in corruption, dishonour, and weakness, but raised up in incorruption, glory, and power (verses 39-45). "It is sown a natural (Þvxikóv) body; it is raised a spiritual body." The interests of divine truth 1 Notes on the Parables, p. 27. have not been helped by dogmatic essays to go beyond the apostle in the explanation or illustration of this mystery. Freedom from and presump prepossessions In the systematic presentation, therefore, of any scriptural doctrine, we are always to make a discriminating use of sound hermeneutical principles. We must not study them in the light of modern systems of divinity, but tions. should aim rather to place ourselves in the position of the sacred writers, and study to obtain the impression their words would naturally have made upon the minds of the first readers.' The question should be, not what does the Church say, or what do the ancient fathers and the great councils and the œcumenical creeds say, but what do the Scriptures legitimately teach? Still less should we allow ourselves to be influenced by any presumptions of what the Scriptures ought to teach. It is not uncommon for writers and preachers to open a discussion with the remark that in a written revelation like the Bible we might naturally expect to find such or such things. All such presumptions are uncalled for and prejudicial. The assumption that the first chapter of Genesis describes a universal cosmogony, and that the Book of Revelation details all human history, or that of the Church, to the end of time, has been the fruitful source of a vast amount of false exegesis. Texts not to be tum. The teacher of Scripture doctrine should not cite his proof-texts ad libitum, or at random, as if any word or sentiment in harmony with his purpose, if only found in the Scrip- cited ad libitures, must needs be pertinent. The character of the whole book or epistle, and the context, scope, and plan are often necessary to be taken into consideration before the real bearings of a given text can be clearly apprehended. That doctrine only is theologically sound which rests upon a strict grammatico-historical interpretation of Scripture, and while all divinely inspired Scripture is profitable for doctrine and discipline in righteousness, its inspiration does not require or allow us to interpret it on any 'In order to be able to explain any one's words to others, one must understand them himself, otherwise he cannot render them intelligible to others. One understands another's words when by means of them he thinks as did the speaker or writer, and as he wished one should think. Thus one explains another's words rightly to others when he enables them to think precisely what the speaker or writer thought or wished to be thought. In the interpretation of any writing, it has not to be inquired what the readers for whom it was destined thought, but what, according to the intention of the writer, they should have thought in reading it. The object of the interpretation is the thoughts of the writer or speaker, in as far as he has expressed them in words for others. This does not take away that it often is of great importance to the interpretation of one or more sayings to inquire how the hearers understood them.-Doedes, Manual of Hermeneutics, pp. 2, 3. Edinb., 1867. other principles than those which are applicable to uninspired writings. The interpreter is always bound to consider how the subject lay in the mind of the author, and to point out the exact ideas and sentiments intended. It is not for him to show how many meanings the words may possibly bear, nor even how the first readers understood them. The real meaning intended by the author, and that only, is to be set forth. New Testament clear without Old. There is much reason for believing that the habit, quite general since the time of Ernesti, of treating the hermeneutics doctrine not of the New Testament separately from the Old, has octhe help of the casioned the misunderstanding of some important doctrines of Holy Writ. The language and style in which certain New Testament teachings are expressed are so manifestly modelled after Old Testament forms of statement, that they cannot be properly explained without a minute and thorough apprehension of the import of the older Scriptures.' We cannot, therefore, accept without qualification the following words of Van Oosterzee : “We have no right for a use of these (O. T.) Scriptures, in which we do not take heed to their peculiar character, as distinguished from those of the New Testament. The Old Testament revelation must always be regarded first in relation to Israel, and has only value for our dogmatics in so far as it is confirmed by the gospel of the New. The letter of the Old Testament must thus be tested by the spirit of the New, and whatever therein stands in opposition 1 Take for illustration the following passage from one of our most recent and able works on theology. Speaking of the lawless one mentioned in 2 Thess. ii, 8, Pope says: "Prophetical theology has its many hypotheses for the explanation of the symbols of Daniel and the Apocalypse, and the plain words of St. Paul. But there has not yet been found on earth the power or the being to whom all St. Paul's terms are applicable."-Compendium of Chr. Theology, vol. iii, p. 394. The critical student of Daniel's description of the little horn (Dan. vii, 8, 25; viii, 9-12, 23-25; comp. xi, 36-38), will note that the words of Paul in 2 Thess. ii, 3-10, are no plainer than those of Daniel, from whom they are so evidently copied. And if Daniel's symbols and language were fulfilled, as most of the leading Old Testament exegetes admit, in the lawless Antiochus Epiphanes, how can it be said, in view of the equally lawless and blasphemous Nero, that "there has not yet been found on earth the power or the being to whom all St. Paul's terms are applicable?" We might fill volumes with extracts showing how exegetes and writers on New Testament doctrine assume as a principle not to be questioned that such highly wrought language as Matt. xxiv, 29–31; 1 Thess. iv, 16; and 2 Pet. iii, 10, 12, taken almost verbatim from Old Testament prophecies of judgment on nations and kingdoms which long ago perished, must be literally understood. Too little study of Old Testament ideas of judgment, and apocalyptic language and style, would seem to be the main reason for this one sided exegesis. It will require more than assertion to convince thoughtful men that the figurative language of Isaiah and Daniel, admitted on all hands to be such in those ancient prophets, is to be literally interpreted when used by Jesus or Paul. |