Chapter XXIV: Conclusion: From the Foregoing (1)

The conclusions arrived at now are clear and need only to be briefly stated. We have seen that no book of the Old Testament, although all are written and preserved for the instruction of the human race in all ages, contains anything that is of such a nature as to exclude further revelation. Not one single passage, nor all the passages combined, are so written as to exclude the necessity of the revelations contained in the New Testament, for instance. On the contrary, one revelation leads to another, God always giving "line upon line, precept upon precept," imparting knowledge as men are willing and able to receive it. For it is through revelation that God educates His servants and His people; and as in any branch of study we are led on from the fundamental principles and find that each new truth suggests others, so here, each new truth revealed leads us to others, until--were such a case possible--we have been permitted to exhaust the entire fulness of divine knowledge.

We have also seen that the servants of God in the old covenant declare the continuation of revelation. They do not consider the prophetic gift or the gift of receiving revelations as peculiar to their own dispensation. They point to "the last days" as a time in which the Spirit of the Lord is to be poured out more abundantly than in any former period. And His presence is to be manifested through "dreams and visions." The withdrawal of these they designate as a calamity. They speak of the time in which such heavenly gifts are withdrawn, as "night" and "darkness" while consequently, the presence of them indicate day and light. Now, are day and light necessary for the physical welfare of man? If so, revelations are also necessary for his spiritual advancement.

We have further seen that the establishment of new economies requires new revelations. Moses was familiar with the revelations given to the patriarchs before him. But when he was called upon to usher in the dispensation of the law, he could not do this without new revelations. Nor could Zerubbabel re-establish this dispensation after the return from Babylon without the aid of revelation. Through the revelations given to the Prophet Haggai the people "prospered" and were able to complete their work as commanded by the Lord (Ezra vi, 14). {371} Without this, they would not have been able to prosper.

Sometimes we see that revelations are given to faithful servants of God as a special favor to them. In such cases, what is seen or heard must not be recorded--as was the case with some visions of Paul in the New Testament--or, if recorded, is sealed up in mystical expressions, unintelligible to the common reader, until the Spirit of revelation gives the true interpretation thereof. This was the case with some of Daniel's visions, and with at least one of the visions of John (Rev. x, 4, 5).

Are revelations, then, given in order to establish new economies, to preserve the children of God from falling into darkness, to instruct them about things known to God alone, in one word to lead men unto salvation? Surely, there never can be a time when revelation is not necessary.

THE NEW TESTAMENT.

But it will be said, no one (except the Jews perhaps) contend that the Old Testament alone contains all that is necessary to know. The New Testament is a supplement to the Old Testament, and the two together contain the fulness of God's revelations. The prophecies of the Old Testament are fulfilled in the New, and to the volume thus completed nothing must be added.

Is there anything in the New Testament to verify this statement so universally accepted as true among the "Christian" Protestantic world? Or does the New Testament confirm the conclusions we have arrived at in the perusal of the Old?

The New Testament contains five historic books, viz.: the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles; fourteen letters written by Paul; three by John, and two by Peter, one letter by James, and one by Jude, to which collection comes one prophetic book by John.

THE FOUR GOSPELS.

The four Gospels are brief, biographical sketches, records of a few of the works and teachings of our Lord.

It may be supposed that those disciples of Christ that were able to write, like Matthew and John, would keep journals while they followed their master, witnessing his works and listening to his teachings. These journals would, after the {372} crucifixion and ascension, naturally be read in private and in public. They would be copied and distributed in the various branches of the church and form texts for discourses, and thus be augmented with such incidents or sayings which were still retained in the memories of those who had been eye witnesses. In this way several versions of the doings and sayings of our Lord began to circulate, some, no doubt, contradicting others, until the necessity became universally felt to have some authentic record, showing exactly what was reliable of the many circulating reports, and what was not reliable. And the result is the four gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

At what precise time these gospels were completed in their present form is a question not yet settled between the various critics. That they, in their present form, were issued by the apostles, whose names they bear, seems irreconcilable with some facts. There are, for instance, words and phrases found, which could hardly have had any significance until some time after the time of the apostles. The word "kephas" (John i, 43) does not occur in classical Hebrew, but is used by later Talmudistic writers signifying something hard, a rock. "Petra" (Matt. xvi, 18) meaning a "rock," has a strong Latin color, while the Hebrew for "rock" is "zur." And the expression "to take up the cross," or "to bear the cross," is all the more remarkable, as in the Hebrew there was at that time no word equivalent to "cross," which is of Latin origin. Even later Jewish writers found it difficult to adequately express the idea of a cross, and hence used the word _zelem_, which, however, signifies an image, and the translations of the New Testament, both into Hebrew and Arabic, have found no better way out of the difficulty than to adopt the Chaldaic _zeliba_, gallows. Of this a modern form, _zelab_, is made to represent the idea "cross." From these and many other circumstances, we seem justified in the conclusion that the four gospels have been subjected to foreign influences, which have modified their form in various ways. But that they are based upon and contain the "memoirs" of our Lord, as published by the apostles, by mouth and pen, need not be doubted. The testimony of antiquity is conclusive on this point.

GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW.

According to general tradition in the early church, the annotations of Matthew were written in the vernacular tongue of Palestine, Syro-Chaldaic, a tradition very probable indeed. {373} But as Greek at this time was the literary language, the original was soon translated into this tongue, under the supervision of Matthew himself, about thirty years after the crucifixion. It may be safely assumed that our "Gospel According to St. Matthew" is in the main identical with this original document of the Apostle.

The aim of this gospel is dearly to prove to the Jews that Jesus is the promised Messiah. It frequently refers to the prophets, refutes the various Jewish sects, and tries to prepare the Jewish nation for the acceptance of the Gentiles into the Kingdom of God.

GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK.

While Matthew was penning his gospel for the Jews, Mark was preparing his, chiefly for the converts among the Gentiles. This Mark was not an apostle and had not been an eye-witness to the life and deeds of our Lord. But he was a native of Jerusalem and an intimate friend of the apostles. He accompanied Paul on some of his journeys and attended Peter for a considerable period, and during this time he no doubt wrote the gospel that bears his name, according to the dictates of Peter. Some have called this the "Gospel According to St. Peter," and Peter himself, in his second epistle, refers, perhaps, to this gospel when he says: "We make known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE.

The gospel according to Luke was written in Rome by Luke, the physician, one of Paul's most faithful companions and friends. The author states that many had undertaken to collect the facts preached concerning Christ and believed among the Christians, according to the traditions handed down from eye-witnesses, and consequently, in order to secure a collection that would be reliable, he himself had diligently searched out everything that at the time of the writing was available. These data, the result of diligent research, Luke endeavors to put before the readers in chronological order, while the two previous evangelists pay but little attention to chronology. The gospel was written under the supervision of Paul.

GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN.

The latest of the gospels is that of John. It is said to have been written at Ephesus, where John resided, presiding over {374} the branches originated by Paul. John, having before him copies of the three previous gospels, naturally omits many data there recorded, introducing others which he had preserved from oblivion. The chief aim of John is to set forth the divine nature of our Lord. The previous evangelists dwell mostly on the works of our Savior in Galilee. John omits most of that, recording his works in Judea.

Let it be remembered that this book is the last written of all the books of the Bible, about ninety-seven years after Christ, and that its aim is to correct the errors of doctrine, then becoming common among the churches, concerning the true character of Christ.

TESTIMONY OF THE GOSPELS.

We may now ask: When these books were written, were they intended to contain all that would ever be necessary for men to know concerning God's plans and purposes, thus making all further revelation superfluous? What do the gospels teach concerning this question?

The first pages of the gospel confirm the lesson we have drawn from the Old Testament, that revelation is necessary for the establishment of a new dispensation. For the gospel dispensation is ushered in and established through revelation. Zacharias is visited by an angel (Luke i, 11-20). Gabriel appears to Mary (Luke i, 26-38). John the Baptist is commissioned by God to preach and baptize (John i, 6, 33). That Jesus was Messiah is manifest to John through revelation. The Spirit descends and a voice from heaven is heard (John i, 32, 34; Matt. iii, 16, 17). And this point is particularly noteworthy. All the ancient prophets had predicted the coming of the Messiah. Some of them had given details about where He would be born, His parentage, and the precise time of His coming, and yet it was necessary, when He came, to give new revelations, pointing Him out to the most devout servant of God then living. Previous revelations are here clearly seen _not_ to render new revelations useless. And as the gospels thus begin with revelations, so they close with declarations that revelation should continue. For in His farewell address to His disciples, Christ says: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: _and he will show you things to come"_ (John xvi, 12, 13). Christ here expressly states that {375} His ministry did not complete God's revelations. There were _many_ other things to learn than those which he had communicated, and among these were also "things to come," all of which the Spirit should communicate to the Twelve. Revelation, then, was not to be done away with at the departure of our Lord. The last verse of the fourth gospel, the last verse ever written in our New Testament states, moreover, that the things recorded in the gospels are only a small fragment of all that could be written concerning the works of Christ. These works and the lessons to be conveyed were no doubt necessary, and yet we have no record of them. The gospels, therefore, openly admit that they are not intended to be a complete record of all that is necessary for man to know. They claim to be written for the purpose of directing men's hearts to Jesus (John xx, 31), and point out His promise to continue the revelation of truth through the Spirit. This is the important testimony of the gospels. All the works and the teachings of Christ were not enough for the guidance of the first Christians. They needed and were promised further revelation. To us has come a record not of all of Christ's teachings, but only of a very few, merely a fragment. If all the teachings of Christ given during His ministry upon the earth were not sufficient for the guidance of the apostles, how much less can the gospels, which contain only a small part of these teachings, be sufficient for other men? The thought is as irrational as it is without foundation in the Word of God.

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

The only question now remains: Do the Acts of the Apostles and their Epistles supply us with all the teachings that the Spirit of Truth, according to our Savior's promise, was to reveal to the Apostles, and which were necessary for their guidance? If not, continuous revelation will be just as necessary after the New Testament dispensation as it was after the Mosaic economy.

The book called the Acts of the Apostles was written by Luke, and may be considered as a continuation of his Gospel. In this book we can trace the growth of Christian churches during the greater part of the first century after Christ. It covers the period from the time of the crucifixion to the second year of the first imprisonment of Paul in Rome, A. D. 63, and there it breaks off even without recording the issue of the trial. The book may be divided in two parts. The first twelve chapters describe the growth of the Church of Christ {376} among the Jews in Palestine, chiefly through the labors of Peter. The last sixteen chapters treat of the spread of the Gospel among other nations, chiefly through the labors of Paul. Of the works of the rest of the Apostles we have no account.

Tradition has it, that Matthew suffered martyrdom in Ethiopia; Philip in Phrygia; Thomas in India, and so on. But of their work for the promulgating the gospel in the different parts of the world we have no record. What they taught, what difficulties they encountered, how they preached, suffered and endured may be conjectured. But it has not reached us in any historic record.

Nor is the Acts of the Apostles a complete record of the works of the two servants of God, whose ardent labors are noticed. It is as fragmentary as are the gospels. Many important transactions, referred to elsewhere, are omitted. There is no account whatever of the branch in Jerusalem after the imprisonment and deliverance of Peter. Nothing is told of the introduction of the Gospel in Rome, the capital of the world at that time. Nor does it say anything of Paul's many voyages, which he incidentally mentions (II Cor. xi, 25).

Considering all this, it seems as if the Spirit of Truth had been anxious to guard against the impression that this book was intended to conclude God's revelations to mankind.

Let us consider the facts. Christ had promised to send the Spirit of Truth to His chosen Twelve. What this Spirit was to reveal was, of course, as essential and necessary to salvation as anything that our Savior had revealed Himself. But of all this that the Spirit, according to the promise, has revealed to the Twelve, only a small part has been recorded. How can this small part be sufficient to us, since it was not sufficient to the first Christians?

But, besides this, the book of the Acts shows plainly the necessity of continuous revelation; for wherever the gospel is being accepted, the gift of receiving revelation is being imparted through faith. Peter, in his first sermon, declares that the time has now come when the Spirit shall be poured out upon all flesh. Prophecy, visions, dreams were to attend the believers (Acts ii, 17, 18); and, accordingly, whenever the gospel is preached and believed, these manifestations follow. The heavens are opened to Stephen, and he is permitted to see the Son of God on the right hand of the Father (Acts vi, 55, 56); an angel of the Lord appears and directs Philip (Acts viii, 26); Christ appears to Saul (Acts ix, 3-6); through the vision of an angel Cornelius is led to send for Peter, and {377} he receives supernatural gifts (Acts x, 148); an angel delivers Peter from prison (Acts xii, 7, 8); the Holy Ghost reveals to the brethren in Antioch that they should send Paul and Barnabas on a mission (Acts xiii, 1-4); through the Spirit the apostles and elders are able to settle the dispute about the doctrine of circumcision (Acts xv, 1-31); twelve men in Ephesus receive the Holy Ghost through the administration of Paul, and prophesy and speak in tongues (Acts xix, 1-7). Wherever the gospel message is delivered and believed, in Palestine, in Greece, in Asia Minor, the results are the same. The Holy Ghost is given, and His presence is manifested through these gifts.

The Acts of the Apostles has taught us this important lesson--that the gift of receiving revelations was not confined to the Twelve nor was the gift to cease with them. The gift itself was inseparable from the gospel. Where there is no gospel there are no revelations, but where the true gospel of Jesus Christ is, there is revelation also. The promise of receiving the Holy Ghost, the promised Spirit of truth that was to lead into all truth and to reveal things to come, is a universal promise: "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call" (Acts ii, 39).

THE EPISTLES.

The epistles of the apostles confirm most emphatically the necessity of constant revelations from God. The apostolic churches could not do without such revelations. Hence the necessity of the churches communicating with the apostles and the apostles writing their epistles, embodying the will of God.

For instance, an error arises, as was the case in Colossae. Paul was at the time in Rome, but the church in Colossae sent a special messenger to Paul, viz.: Epaphras, who explained the situation to the apostle and caused the letter to the Colossians to be written as a refutation of that peculiar error. The Scriptures were not sufficient for the guidance of the Colossians. The new emergency required a new communication from God, a new revelation, and God gave it through Paul, his servant.

So with all the epistles. Each has a particular object. None is a treatise on theology, putting forth all that is necessary to know for all ages and all men. There is not one written for that purpose.

The first epistles of Paul, I and II Thessalonians, 52 and {378} 53 A. D., express the joy and satisfaction of the apostle on account of the manner in which the people of Thessalonica had received the gospel. He cautions them against the sins prevalent in that great city, and comforts those who mourned over the loss of dear relatives. The "dead in the Lord" will be resurrected at the coming of the Lord, and this event is more fully explained, in accordance with the prophecy of Daniel concerning the "little horn" (Dan. viii).

The next epistle, that to the Galatians, A. D. 53 or 57, is a warning to the churches in that district not to mix up the rites of the Mosaic law with the ordinances of the gospel, as the two were so different from each other as Ishmael and Isaac, Sinai and Zion. And to give this admonition force, the writer proves that his knowledge of Christian truth was derived not from human teaching, but from God through immediate revelation, wherefore the apostles of the Lord had recognized him as their equal (chap. i, 2).

The epistles to the Corinthians were written A. D. 57 in reply to a letter received by Paul from the branch in Corinth, requesting his advice on certain points (ch. vii, 1); also to correct some errors of which he had heard by report (i, 11; v, 1; xi, 18). The state of the branch was, however, such that the Apostle deemed it necessary to send Timothy there also, thus imparting both by letter and by verbal preaching communications from God. Mark how special emergencies require special revelations!

The epistle to the Romans (A. D. 58) is the most systematic of all the writings of Paul, and one that by Protestants is considered the basis of gospel theology. The scope of this epistle is to reconcile the Jews and the Gentiles in the church of Christ, by placing all on one level in the sight of God. "All have sinned; all must be saved by the same means." This is the whole epistle in one sentence. Now, it is instructive to notice how the apostle in this important letter to the Romans illustrates the question under consideration. In the very first chapter he says he is constantly praying that God may give him an opportunity of visiting Rome, not indeed as a tourist and sightseer, but "that I might impart unto you some spiritual gift" (ch. i, 11). What "spiritual gifts" are, we learn in I Cor. xii, viz.: "Word of wisdom," or "knowledge," "faith," "healing," "miracles," "prophecy," etc. So that it was not enough, according to Paul, for the Christians in Rome to have all the sacred Scriptures, including this letter, but they needed something more. They needed "spiritual gifts" continued among them. It has been reserved for later {379} "Christians" to discover that Paul was wrong, and that "spiritual gifts" were of no account as long as the Scriptures were to be had at a cheap price.

To have the Spirit of God is, further, put forth as the necessary condition of a "child" of God. "If Christ be in you the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." "As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God" (chap. viii). Such is the importance given to the possession of the Spirit of God. But we have already seen that the very office of the Spirit is to "lead into all truth, and to reveal things to come." He who has the Spirit has, therefore, the Spirit of revelation, and the apostle contends that man without the Spirit of revelation is a stranger and an enemy to God (chap. viii, 5-9). The apostle further states that at the time when the fulness of the Gentiles has been gathered in, direct communication from God will still continue. "For there shall come out of Zion the deliverer and turn away ungodliness from Jacob" (chap. xi, 26). How could this be possible if all communication with God had ceased with the close of the New Testament? But they have not ceased, "for the gifts and calling of God are without repentance" (chap. xi, 29).

This may suffice to show that the great Apostle of the Gentiles never meant his letter to the Romans nor any other letter to close the channels of revelation.

Let us remind ourselves of one more fact. The writers of the New Testament themselves state that they had not _written_ all that was necessary for instruction. In writing to the Corinthians about the partaking of the Lord's supper Paul gives some general directions, but concludes by saying: "The rest will I set in order when I come" (I Cor. xi, 34). Now, what instructions or arrangements are here left out? We do not know. But we see that the written word was not meant to convey all that was necessary to know. The same expression we find in the second letter of John. "Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face" (II John, 12). See also (III John, 13). Who can then say that we in the books of the Bible have all that written which God ever intended to convey to mankind, and that revelation has ceased? The idea is in direct contrast to the word of the apostles.

It is instructive to notice how theologians have been compelled {380} to turn their own reasons upside down, and to stretch the various passages of Scripture on their learned racks in order to make them fit for all occasions. Luther's explanation of our Lord's prayer is a curious instance. "Daily bread" means, according to that noted reformer, not only what you eat and drink, but "bread" means also a house and a wife, obedient children, good neighbors and "other such things." Whether in "daily bread" was included the beer-keg that Luther received among his wedding presents, the reformer does not state, but in the "other such things" is room for a considerable quantity of "bread." Of course, that kind of exegesis fills everything into the Bible. By it anything can be got of anything or of nothing, but God never put it there. Man did it, and, by so doing, proved himself to be on the wrong track, to say the least.

In order to gain a sound understanding of the word of God, the various books must be read as Mr. Locke says the Epistles ought to be read. He requires you to read through one epistle at a sitting, and observe its drift and aim. "If," says he, "the first reading gave some light, the second gave me more; and so I persisted on reading constantly the whole epistle over at once, till I came to have a general view of the writer's purpose, the chief branches of his discourse, the arguments he used, and the disposition of the whole. This, I confess, is not to be obtained by one or two hasty readings; it must be repeated again and again, with a close attention to the tenor of the discourse, and a perfect neglect of the divisions into chapters and verses." If this plan be adopted, and the books of the Bible be read with a humble, prayerful heart, a heart in unison with the authors that wrote, the true meaning of the word will be grasped.

And the clearer this true meaning becomes, the more it will appear that nothing short of continued communication with God can satisfy the heart. For it is the very purpose of the written word of God to lead men to seek this communication with God, to guide, in other words, the straying child to its loving father.

PROPHECIES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

Without entering into a more minute examination of the remaining epistles, we will proceed to consider some of the prophecies of the Gospel dispensation.

Prominent among these prophecies are those which predict the establishment of a new dispensation in the last days. {381} Our Savior calls it "the regeneration," and says that in that dispensation "the Son of man shall sit on the throne of His glory," and the Twelve "shall sit upon twelve thrones" (Matt. xix, 28).

Peter says that Christ is to be in heaven until this new dispensation, "the times of the restitution of all things" comes (Acts iii, 21).

Jude quotes a prophecy delivered by Enoch about this dispensation: "Behold the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his Saints to execute judgment upon all." (Jude 14, 15).

Paul (II Thess. ii.) is very clear and minute concerning the events that had to transpire between his own time and the dispensation of the last days. (1) A "falling away"--a general apostacy was to take place first, and (2) "that man of sin, the son of perdition, be revealed." It is further pointed out that the power of apostacy was already, at the time of the writing of Paul, secretly at work, only there was something that hindered this power from appearing openly. But as soon as this obstacle (the Roman imperial power) had been removed, the "man of sin," i.e., the embodiment of the spirit of apostacy, would boldly appear, and, this "man of sin" would hold his sway over the world until destroyed by the "brightness of the coming" of the Lord (_v_. 8). And this apostate power is further described as one opposing and exalting himself above every other authority, or "god," both on earth and in heaven. He is "lawless" and "sitteth in the temple," that is, he is a "Christian" not an infidel power; his coming is the work of Satan, and is accompanied by "powers, signs and lying wonders," deceiving all that would not believe the truth. Among the doctrines that should be advanced by this apostate power is noted particularly as a departure from the faith, "doctrines of devils," also a prohibition of marriage, which was a revival of heathenism (see I Timothy, iv, 1-5), all of which was fulfilled to the letter in the evolution from Christianism to Romanism. Nothing can be clearer, from these prophecies of Paul than this: Shortly after his own time, a period of apostacy would follow, during which all kinds of lies were to be promulgated in the name of God. But this period of apostacy would again be followed by a new dispensation of truth and light, the coming of the Son of God in glory.

John was the last of the apostles. He lived to see the spirit of apostacy still more developed than did Paul. In speaking of it he says that "many anti-Christs" had already come (I John ii, 18, 19; iv, 3). To him it was given to see, in {382} his apocalyptic visions, the calamities that crushed the Roman empire, thus making way for the "man of sin," or the "little horn" of Daniel or the anti-Christ, namely the great church of the world with her pontifical "image" in Rome. He was permitted to see the subjugation and flight to the wilderness of the Church of Christ and the subsequent darkness that followed. But he also, like the former seers and prophets of the Lord, was permitted to behold in the future the first rays of the new dispensation, the millennial kingdom, to be established, never to be overthrown.

Let us pause for one moment and reflect. If the word of God is sure, this fact is surely established, that the reign of anti-Christ shall be followed by a new, glorious dispensation, the millennial reign of the Son of God. There is scarcely an event in the Scriptures more frequently predicted than this. All the previous dispensations of God are only preparations for this the last and most glorious of all, at the commencement of which the hosts of heaven join the Saints below in shouting, "Hosannah! Hosannah! Hosannah! The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever" (Rev. xi, 15).

But it has before been proved that God never established a new dispensation without renewing revelations. During the Adamic dispensation, which continued while man was yet without sin, God revealed himself. So also during the patriarchal dispensation. God taught man how to offer sacrifices and to conduct worship. The Mosaic dispensation was established through revelation continued through centuries until four hundred years before Christ. The New Testament dispensation or Gospel dispensation was wonderfully rich in revelations, until the Priesthood was taken away "unto God" (Rev. vii, 5); and now, can we believe that revelation then and there ceased? Shall the last dispensation, the most glorious of all, the millennial reign of Christ, be established without revelation, only through the wisdom of man, which, by the way, is foolishness to God? No! Such a view is madness. It may be sound, worldly theology. But it is not the word of God. All the prophecies that have been fulfilled so far, have in that fulfillment been accompanied by divine revelation.

Those prophecies that remain to be fulfilled will as surely be accompanied by revelations. When Christ first came, His coming was heralded by angels, and by the Spirit of God operating on men; His ministry was followed by revelations {383} on the mount, in Gethsemane, and the Spirit was poured out upon His followers. And yet, at His first coming, He appeared in humility, despised by men in general. What will not His second coming, judging from this, bring with it? Surely revelations _cannot_ cease as long as God has promised to send His Son in glory to visit this earth and its inhabitants. Preparations _on_ the earth are necessary for such an event, preparations that no man can make without the aid of divine revelations.

During the ages past God has tried the human race in every respect. The patriarchal dispensation ended in a corruption which even the deluge could not check. The Mosaic dispensation ended in the rejection and the dispersion of the covenant people. The Gospel dispensation ended in the apostacy of the apostolic churches and the reign of anti-Christ. But God is prepared to gain the victory yet. He promised in the end of time to establish that kingdom which shall stand forever, never to be overthrown, and hence the necessity of continuous revelation.

DIFFICULTIES IN ASCERTAINING THE MEANING OF THE SCRIPTURES.

In considering the question whether the Bible is sufficient for the guidance of men to salvation, it becomes a matter of great importance to ascertain whether the language employed by the sacred writers is sufficiently clear to be understood, in all main points at least. If the Spirit of God, in directing the composition of the books of the Bible, intended to make these books a code of divine laws whereby further revelation should be rendered superfluous, we may reasonably expect to find in the Bible clear language conveying the ideas in a manner to be easily understood by the earnest reader. We may expect to find no ambiguity, no indistinctness.

Human laws are written with the greatest possible care. Lawmakers aim at clearness, seeing that this is indispensable when laws are made for the guidance of the citizen. Yet with all possible care in framing laws, it has been found that no law ever was framed, however carefully worded, that could not be construed in more than one way. Hence the necessity of a supreme court to which all cases can be appealed, the meaning of any disputed paragraph of the lay authoritatively given. No human law would ever be a complete guidance for the citizens without such a supreme court.

{384} Now, the question is simply this: Is the Bible clear enough so that it undoubtedly can be understood in only one way? If it be, then there may not be any need for the "supreme court" of divine revelation to appeal to in order to ascertain its meaning, since this is in no instance doubtful. But if the Bible is not clear enough; if it is so worded that, in many instances, the same passage may be understood in more than one way, then further revelation is necessary in order to settle these points. If every passage of the Bible does not convey only one meaning and this unmistakably; if many passages can be, and have been, construed in various ways, and if divine revelation be abolished then we are exactly in this position: We have a code of laws and a collection of doctrines; but for the right understanding of those laws and doctrines we are entirely at the mercy of the sagacity or the stupidity of the (theological) lawyers with whom we happen to be connected. There is, then, no appeal, no authority, no certainty.

Let us honestly consider some of the facts in the case, without shrinking from the inevitable conclusion.

First, we are met by the sad fact that mankind has not yet been able to decide exactly how many and which of the ancient books really belong to the Bible. The Protestant churches now accept sixty-five books in all, viz., thirty-eight in the Old Testament and twenty-seven in the New. But Luther was not quite certain about the canonicity of all of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament. The Revelation of John was always suspicious to him, because he did not understand it, and the Epistle of James, he thought, was more fit to be burned than to be read. As to the books of the Old Testament, a much later and better informed critic, Michaelis, has proposed to exclude the two books of Chronicles from the canon, while others have had their grave doubts concerning the Song of Songs. But the Catholic church, so far from being disposed to diminish the number of books, has added all those which by Protestants have been called apocryphal. The whole apocryphal collection was by the Council of Trent, 1545, declared to be holy Scripture, and the council did so with some antiquity in support of the decision, too. For the book of Baruch is quoted as canonical by Origen, Athanasius, Cyril, and Ephihanius. Tobith, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus and the Maccabees are quoted as canonical by the great Augustine. Whether, then, the Bible should consist of seventy-nine books (including the fourteen apocrypha) or of sixty-five, or only sixty-one, excluding the two Chronicles {385} and James and the Revelation, is yet a question awaiting its final decision. And it would seem but reasonable not to abolish the immediate revelations from God until this problem has been satisfactorily solved.

Secondly, accepting any of the above mentioned books as canonical, a great difficulty presents itself in determining the precise text. What the first authors wrote is in some cases impossible to determine. Let it be remembered that our present Bibles, with their divisions of charters and verses, are by no means exactly such as the first authors left them. Much is the work of uninspired men. The original manuscripts were copied in numerous editions, and it was always possible in copying to drop a letter, to misspell a word, to leave out a word, etc. Translations and paraphrases have been made. These were not always correct in every particular. In the case of the Old Testament the original authors did not write the vowels, but only the consonants. It was the work of later men to insert all the vowels, but whether these later men in all instances, or even in most, inserted the right vowels is another open question. At all events, if it were possible to prove that all the consonants of the Old Testament are identical with those written by the original authors, and therefore inspired, yet all the vowels, which are added many years afterwards by uninspired men, cannot be proved to be of divine origin or such as God originally intended them to be.

A few instances may be quoted to illustrate the nature of such easily recognized changes as the sacred text has suffered. In Jonah 1, 9, the prophet says: "I am a Hebrew," where the original reading probably was (as the Septuagint has it): "I am a servant of Jehovah." The difference is between _Ivri_, Hebrew, and _Ivdi_, the servant of Jehovah. In I Peter ii, 3, it will always be dubious whether the correct reading is: "If ye have tasted that the Lord is _gracious_," or "that the Lord is _Christ_." The fact is that both these words were sometimes written with the letters _Chs_, standing for both _Christos_ and _Chrestos_, gracious. In Genesis i, 8, the words: "God saw that it was good" is wanting at the end of the second day's creation, but it is found in verse 10, in the middle of the third day's work, indicating a transposition. Sometimes verses have been added by later copyists. Such variations amount to many thousands in all, leaving the present text very far from satisfactory in its details.

Theologians, in admitting this, as they are compelled to do by the facts, generally smooth the disagreeable impression over with the assurance that none of all these variations in {386} the text affect the meaning in the least degree. "The most inaccurate text ever written," they say, "leaves the truths of Scripture substantially unchanged." But this is evidently said more for the sake of the effect than for the sake of truth. For the theologians themselves--particularly the Protestants--_always_ insist on the very letter of the text. The little words "this is" were sufficient in the quibble between Luther and Calvin to cut the Protestantic party in two halves, each wishing to roast the other in hell. Yes, the theologians build doctrines not only on words but on _forms_ of words, discriminating between the meaning of the same words when used in this form or the other. In a text where words are so important, it is ridiculous to say that many thousand variations are of no importance. And besides, since we know there are many thousand variations, how do we know that there are not many thousand more which have not yet been detected?

This question must be solved before we are prepared to admit that the Bible is a sufficient guide, and has done away with the necessity of further revelation.

But we will pass by the difficulties thus far pointed out. We will suppose that we have settled beyond doubt the number of books to be accepted as canonical. We will suppose that the original text has been preserved, and that the translations thereof in our vernacular tongues are correct. All this we suppose, for the sake of the argument, and yet we will find the greatest difficulty still exists--that of understanding the sacred volume correctly. Indeed, this difficulty is so great that probably not one single man now living can understand it all, and those that understand part of it right do so by the aid of the Spirit of God.

Some of the difficulties in understanding even the translations of the Bible may now be pointed out.

It is admitted that the words used in the Scriptures are sometimes to be used in a figurative sense and sometimes in a literal sense. What words are, in each case, to be understood strictly literally and what figuratively must be left to the judgment of the reader. And from this fact numerous errors have arisen.

People have sometimes allegorized where no allegory was intended, as Origen in reading that Abraham in his old age married Keturah. Now, he says, the word Keturah means "sweet odor;" and "sweet odor" refers to the fragrance of righteousness: Hence he concludes that Abraham in his old age became very pious or righteous, and that this fact is meant when Moses states that the patriarch married Keturah. {387} Equally absurd is the following _a la_ Swedenborg: "Adam represents the intellect and Eve the feeling. That Adam and Eve begat sons and daughters means, therefore, that the union between intellect and feeling is what produces knowledge in man." These instances are extremely absurd and the errors of this kind of interpretation are easily perceived. But sometimes the errors are not so palpable, although equally absurd. As for instance, when it is contended that the "kingdom" of Christ means a religion and not a real kingdom, or that "the first resurrection" means a revival of the principles for which the martyrs were killed. In such cases the errors are great, and hundreds of Bible readers commit just such errors, in many instances without even knowing it.

Then, sometimes words that are really used figuratively are understood literally. You will see pictures, occasionally, where Lazarus is enjoying his heavenly bliss by sitting in the lap ("the bosom") of Father Abraham, the artist having misunderstood the figurative expression used by our Lord.

This kind of error is more easily committed in reading the prophetical portions of the Bible. The prophets borrow words denoting natural objects in order to represent what is spiritual and abstract. Their books are hieroglyphical, although they do not draw their hieroglyphic pictures, as did the Egyptian priests, but describe them in words. Hence the great difficulty in interpreting prophecy. It is not less difficult than to interpret many ancient Egyptian records. The prophets, for instance, talk of a "horn" and mean a "crown" or a "kingdom." "Beast" is a usurping tyrannical power. "Key" stands for lawful authority. "Virgins" are faithful worshippers, not defiled by idolatry.

Generally it must be borne in mind that every word should be understood as it was commonly understood at the time the Bible was written. Much minute inquiry, in fact more than most people are prepared to give, is needed in order to avoid errors arising from a violation of this rule.

Sometimes a knowledge of Hebrew and Greek is absolutely necessary for the right understanding of a passage. In I Kings ii, 8, 9, David is made to say concerning Simei: "Hold him not guiltless, * * but his hoary head bring down with blood to the grave." This is, of course, a contradiction. And, besides, David had sworn not to kill Simei. It seems therefore as if one of the last acts of David was to break his oath and his royal word. But a knowledge of Hebrew idioms clears this up; for the word "not" refers to both clauses: "Hold him not guiltless, * * but bring not his {388} hoary head down with blood." That is the meaning, and Solomon understood it so. "The end of the world" spoken of in Matt. xxiv, 3 a Greek scholar will discover to be not the end of the physical world (_telos tou kosmou_) but the termination of the then existing economy; for the words are _synteleia tou aionos_. The interpretation of the whole prophecy of our Lord hangs upon this one word. Matthew (xii, 40) makes Christ say: "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly," whereas the fact is, that there is not, and probably never was, a whale in the Mediterranean. The Hebrew has "a great fish" (Jonah i, 17) which the translator of the Septuagint made into a whale, and the misleading quotation slipped into the New Testament from the Septuagint.

Sometimes people put a mystical sense into the most plain expressions. Christ says: "But one thing is needful" (Luke x, 42) and many an edifying sermon has been preached upon this one "needful thing," and much curiosity has been needlessly excited to know what that one needful thing is that in itself is necessary and sufficient to salvation. People have been so eager to make a mystery that they have forgotten the fact that Christ for the time does not refer to salvation at all, but is speaking of a much more trivial subject, yet not less interesting or noteworthy. Christ has called on His friends, Lazarus, Martha and Maria. The two ladies are both anxious to entertain Him to the best of their ability. But Martha seems to have had an idea that lots of things were necessary in order to make a comfortable meal. In order to be ready in a hurry Martha wanted her sister to help her, upon which the Savior politely remarks that "only one thing is needful." There was no cause for so much serving. He would not enter their house as a stranger for whom they would have to prepare so many extra dishes. He would come as their friend and be entertained as such. This would give both sisters time to sit down and listen to His instructions, which after all was the "good part" of the entertainment. Stripping this narrative of the mysteries of theologians and letting common sense be common sense, we have a beautiful incident at once pleasing and instructive.

Sometimes the reader will be misled by the numbers of the Bible, because he does not know how they originally were used. "Ten" sometimes stands for "several." In Gen. xxxi, 7, Jacob says that Laban had changed his wages "ten times," meaning of course "several times." Perhaps the division of the Roman Empire into "ten" as predicted by Daniel ought to be understood in the same way, since so far no one has {389} been able exactly to tell in what "ten" (the word taken literally) kingdoms that empire on its downfall was divided. If understood to mean "several" kingdoms, there is no difficulty. "Forty," in the same way, often means "many." "Seven" and "seventy" denote a large and complete number, although uncertain to the speaker.

Sometimes a knowledge of history is required for the right understanding of passages. (Acts ix, 31): "The churches had rest throughout all Judea and Galilee" has sometimes been understood to have been the consequence of the conversion of Paul, whereas the real cause of this temporary rest was that at this time Caligula attempted to raise a statue of himself in the "Holy of holies" in the temple. The consternation which this caused among the bloodthirsty Jews made them for a time forget the Christian churches.

Nor less important is a knowledge of ancient chonology, geography, of botany, of mineralogy, zoology, and archaeology in its various branches. But we cannot here multiply instances.

To understand the Bible, even the plainist translation, all these things are necessary as helps, and yet, without the Spirit of God to lead into all truth, not all of these helps are sufficient; so numerous and so vast are the difficulties to be encountered in ascertaining the true meaning of the Bible.

Nor need we be surprised at this. The various books are written in the remote antiquity. Language changes like all that is human. Words do not remain stationary in their significations. Every word has its own history, and antique literature always requires a knowledge of the history of the words. The authors of the Bible write each from his own standpoint. Some are lawyers, as Moses. Others are humble shepherds, as Anos. Some are learned men, as Paul and Luke. Others are uneducated fisherman, as Peter and John. Some are statesmen like Daniel. Others follow more lowly occupations of life, as Jeremiah. Some write poetry, others history, others letters and others visions. Some write in the deserts of Arabia, some by the banks of the rivers in Babylon, some in the palace in Jerusalem, some in prisons in Rome. Each has his own peculiarity of style, and to understand it all, you would have to be conversant with almost every branch of human learning. It is no figure of speech when Locke says that theology is the direction of all knowledge to its true end, or when Parley P. Pratt says: "It is the science of all other sciences and useful arts, being in fact, the very fountain from which they emanate. It includes philosophy, {390} astronomy, history, mathematics, geography, languages, the science of letters, and blends the knowledge of all matters of fact in every branch of art or research" (Key to Theology, p.2).

Seeing now that such requirements are made upon us in order to understand the Bible, and that lack of knowledge necessarily involve misunderstanding of many of the sacred passages, we ask every reasonable being, Can it be supposed that the Bible ever was intended to be a substitute for immediate divine revelation? If it were intended for this purpose it has signally failed in its purpose; and if the Bible alone be intended to be the guide to heaven, it is to be feared that a majority of people will be led to hell for the simple reason that they never had an opportunity of mastering the difficulties attending their attempts at understanding what the Bible doctrines really are.

"CHRISTIAN" SECTS AN EVIDENCE.

If further proofs for the necessity of continuous revelation were needed, the deplorable state of the Christian world, where "each goes his own way," furnishes those proofs in abundance.

The object God had in view in giving to His people men through whom He could reveal His plans and purposes was to "perfect the Saints" and preserve "unity of faith" (Eph. iv, 11-14). As long as the church had apostles and prophets, there was no necessity for the churches breaking up into factions or sects. Differences could arise, and did arise, but when referred to the inspired men, God, through His Holy Spirit always settled the difficulties, preserving the unity.

Some instances, illustrating this, have been recorded for our information.