XXXII. THE APOCALYPSE…

XXXII. THE APOCALYPSE

1. The word Apocalypse (Greek Apokalupsis) signifies Revelation, the title given to the book in our English version as well from its opening word as from its contents. Of all the writings of the New Testament that are classed by Eusebius among the disputed books (Antilegomena, chap. 5. 6), the apostolic authorship of this is sustained by the greatest amount of external evidence; so much so that Eusebius acknowledges it as doubtful whether it should be classed among the acknowledged or the disputed books.

It was known to Papias, to Melito bishop of Sardis, and to Theophilus of Antioch; is quoted as a part of Scripture by the churches of Vienne and Lyons in the last quarter of the second century; and is expressly ascribed to the apostle John by Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, the Muratorian canon, Hippolytus, Origen, Jerome, etc. The testimonies may be seen in Davidson's Introduction to the New Test., in Alford, and in the other works already frequently referred to. Eusebius, after giving a list of the acknowledged books, adds: "After these should be placed, if it be thought proper, the Revelation of John, concerning which we shall give the opinions at the proper time." Then, at the end of a list of the disputed and rejected books he adds: "And moreover, as I said, the Revelation of John, if it be thought proper, which some, as I said, reject, but others reckon among the acknowledged books" (Hist. Eccl., 3. 25); and again, after mentioning with approbation the account of those who said that there were at Ephesus two who bore the name of John (John the apostle, and the so-called presbyter John), he adds: "For it is probable that the second, if any one be not willing to allow that it was the first, saw the Revelation current under the name of John" (Hist. Eccl., 3. 39). Those who denied the apostolic authorship of the book generally referred it to this latter, John the presbyter. So Dionysius of Alexandria and others. But for this they adduced no historic proof. Their arguments were drawn wholly from considerations relating to its internal character, especially in the case of some, its supposed millenarian views. Upon any fair principle of judging, we must concede that the apostolic authorship of this book is sustained by a mass of ancient testimony not rebutted by any contrary testimony which rests on a historic basis.

2. In modern, as in ancient times, the main arguments against the apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse have been drawn from its internal character, especially as contrasted with that of the fourth gospel and the first epistle of John. On this ground the assaults upon the book have been many and strong, and they have been met with vigorous resistance. To review the arguments on both sides would exceed our limits. Many of them, moreover, presuppose a knowledge of the original languages of both the Old and the New Testament. We can only indicate some considerations of a general nature.

(1.) No valid argument against the apostolic authorship of this book can be drawn from the fact that the writer specifies his name in the introduction and elsewhere. Chaps. 1:1, 4, 9; 21:2; 22:8. It may surprise us that the man who studiously avoids mentioning his name in the fourth gospel, and who describes himself in his second and third epistles as "the elder," should here directly introduce his name at the beginning and in the progress of the book. But for this difference he may have had a good reason, whether we can discover it or not. The direct command, addressed to him personally, that he should write down his visions and send them to the seven churches of Asia would seem to imply the propriety, if not the necessity, of his connecting his own name with the record of them. He addressed the churches immediately and authoritatively in the name of the risen and glorified Saviour. What more natural and proper than that he should inform them directly who he was that had received this heavenly message.

(2.) The doctrinal views of the Apocalypse afford no argument against its apostolic authorship. The writer, it is true, moves to a great extent in a new and peculiar sphere of truth; but there is nothing in it contradictory to the teachings of John's gospel and epistles. On the contrary, the great central truths that relate to Christ's person and office are in perfect harmony with those teachings.

(3.) The spirit of the Apocalypse is not contradictory to that of the gospel and epistles. A writer in Alexander's Kitto says: "Quiet contemplation has full scope in the evangelist; mildness and love find utterance in affectionate discourse. But the spirit of the apocalyptist is stern and revengeful, with cutting reproofs, calls to repentance, commands and threatenings." The answer to all this is that, just as the human body has bones and muscles as well as fluids and soft tissues, so the mediatorial government of Christ has a stern as well as a mild side; and that the very nature of the visions contained in the apocalypse gives prominence to this side.

(4.) The main objections are based on diversity of style and diction. Notwithstanding all the true points of resemblance in this respect that have been adduced by various writers, the difference between the Apocalypse, on the one hand, and the gospel and epistles of John, on the other, is very striking. But here we must take into account, first of all, the great difference in the subject-matter, which naturally brings a corresponding difference of language. Next, the difference in the mode of divine communication. The gospel and epistles were written under that constant tranquil illumination of the Holy Spirit which all the apostles enjoyed. The subject-matter of the Apocalypse was given in direct vision--much of it, moreover, through the medium of oral address. To one who believes in the reality of the revelations here recorded it is vain that an opponent urge the difference in style between the first epistle of John and the epistles to the seven churches of Asia; since these latter are expressed in the very words of Christ. Inseparably connected with the peculiar mode of revelation in the Apocalypse are the peculiar mental state and circumstances in which the apostle wrote. He composed the gospel and epistles in the calmness of tranquil contemplation and reminiscences of the past. The visions of the Apocalypse he received "in the Spirit" (chap. 1:10; 4:2); that is, in a state of ecstacy; and, according to the plain language of the book, he wrote them down at the time, beginning, as we must suppose, with the second chapter, the introductory chapter and some closing remarks having been added afterwards. The direction: "What thou seest write in a book" (chap. 1:11, 19), does not indeed imply that he should write upon the spot; but that he did so is plainly indicated elsewhere: "When the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not" (chap. 10:4). In entire harmony with this is another passage: "And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth," etc. (chap. 14:13); that is, "Write down now these words of comfort." The apostle, therefore, wrote down his visions one after another immediately after they were received. When he wrote he was not in a state of unconsciousness, but of mental and spiritual exaltation above his ordinary condition. To affirm that he could not have received this series of visions without being deprived of the capacity to record them at the time, would be to limit the modes of divine revelation by our ignorance. If we cannot understand how the apostle could hear "in the Spirit" the voices of the seven thunders, and immediately prepare to write down their utterances, we ought, at least, reverently to receive the fact as stated by him. To expect from one writing in such circumstances careful attention to the rules of Greek syntax and the idioms of the Greek language would be absurd. Undoubtedly Plato in a like situation would have written pure Attic Greek, because that would have been to him the most natural mode of writing. But the Galilean fisherman, a Jew by birth and education, fell back upon the Hebrew idioms with which he was so familiar. Finally we must remember that, after the analogy of the Old Testament prophecies, this prophetic book is expressed in poetic diction. It is full of images borrowed from the old Hebrew prophets, often spiritualized and applied in a higher sense. Looking to the imagery alone, one may well call this book a grand anthology of the old Hebrew poets. But the poetic diction of one and the same writer may differ widely from his prose style, as we see in the case of Moses, Isaiah, and Jeremiah.

If the above considerations do not wholly remove the difficulty under consideration they greatly relieve it. The apostolic authorship of the fourth gospel and the first epistle of John is sustained by a mass of evidence that cannot be set aside. That the same John also wrote the visions of the Apocalypse is attested, as we have seen, by the almost unanimous voice of antiquity. Far greater difficulties are involved in the denial of the ancient tradition of the church than in the admission of it.

3. The date of the Apocalypse has been a matter of much discussion, the great question being whether it was written before or after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. The external testimony strongly preponderates on the side of a late date; for the great body of this tradition represents the banishment of the apostle to the isle of Patmos as having taken place under Domitian who succeeded Titus, and reigned from A.D. 81 to 96. This supposition also agrees with the fact that the recipients of our Lord's seven messages (chaps. 2, 3) are the seven churches of Proconsular Asia, among whom, according to the unanimous testimony of the primitive church, the apostle spent the latter years of his life. The hypothesis of an earlier date is but feebly supported by external testimony. It rests mainly on the alleged reference of the writer to the overthrow of Jerusalem as an event yet future, and as being the main subject of the prophesies contained in the book. But this reference has never been clearly established, and is contradicted by the general analogy of prophecy, by the contents of the book, and by its manifest relation to the prophecies of Daniel. A few only of the briefer prophetic books, as those of Jonah and Nahum, confine themselves to one particular event lying in the near future. All the more extended among them, and many of the shorter, look forward undeniably to the distant future. The book of Daniel can be interpreted only as containing a great scheme of prophecy stretching forward into the distant future, and with this the revelation of John has the closest connection. The place where the revelation was received was the isle of Patmos, one of the group called Sporades in the Ægean sea off the southwestern corner of Asia Minor, where the apostle represents himself to have been "for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ" (chap. 1:9): that is, in accordance with ancient tradition, banished to that isle on account of the gospel.

4. For the interpretation of this book many and very discordant plans have been proposed. Setting aside at the outset all those schemes which do not find in the Apocalypse a view of the conflicts of Christ's people to the end of time and their final victory over their enemies, there remain two general principles of interpretation. The first may be called the generic principle. Those who adopt it inquire only after the general import of the symbols employed, without attempting any particular application of them to the history of the church in connection with that of the world. Thus, the white horse of the first seal (chap. 6:2) denotes in general the conquests of Christ through his gospel; the red horse of the second seal (chap 6:4), war and carnage, as accompanying the progress of the truth; and so on throughout the other symbols of the book. But when we come to the most important part of the prophecies, those concerning the two beasts (chap. 13), and that concerning the woman riding on the scarlet-colored beast (chap. 17), this principle utterly fails. It cannot be that so many specific and very peculiar marks mean only persecuting powers in general. They point with wonderful clearness and precision to that grand combination of the civil with the ecclesiastical power of which papal Rome has ever been the chief representative.

We come, then, for the true key to the Apocalypse, to the other principle, which may be called the historic. This seeks in the history of the church and of the world for the great events foretold in this book. It is no valid objection to this principle, that in the attempt to apply it interpreters find great, and in many cases insuperable difficulties. The mystery of God is not yet finished. It may be that the mighty events of the future can alone throw a clear light on the entire plan of the book. Meanwhile we must wait in reverential expectation, having in the plain fulfilment of that part of its prophecies which describes the rise and character of the combined ecclesiastical and political power which, under the name of Christianity, persecutes the true servants of Christ, a certain pledge that all the rest will be accomplished in due season. Expositors are agreed that the predictions of the book do not run on in chronological order from beginning to end. Most find in chaps. 6:1-11:18 (with an episode, chaps. 10:1-11:13) one series relating more to the outward history of the world in its relations to God's people; while in chap. 12 the writer returns to the primitive days of Christianity, and gives a more interior and spiritual view of the conflicts of God's people along the track of ages and their final triumph, adding at the close various supplementary views of the same mighty struggle and victory.

5. On the symbolic import of the numbers in the Apocalypse a few words may be added.

Seven is the well known symbol of completeness, and this is the most prominent number in the book. Thus we have the seven churches of Asia represented by the seven golden candlesticks, and their seven angels represented by seven stars (chap. 1:4, 12, 16, 20); the seven lamps of fire burning before the throne which are the seven spirits of God (chap. 4:5); the seven seals (chap. 5:1); the seven trumpets (chap. 8:2); the seven thunders (chap. 10:4); the seven last plagues (chap. 15:1); to which may be added the seven ascriptions of praise--power, riches, wisdom, strength, honor, glory, blessing (chap. 5:12), blessing, glory, wisdom, thanksgiving, honor, power, might (chap. 7:12). Lastly, we have the seven heads of the persecuting beast in all its various forms. Chaps. 12:3; 13:1; 17:3. So far as the number seven has its fulfilment in the history of the world, we are at liberty to suppose that this is accomplished, in part at least, by the manner in which the wisdom of God has been pleased to group together the events of prophecy--a grouping which is always appropriate, but might have been different had the plan of representation so required. The final judgments which precede the millennium, for example, which in chaps. 15 and 16 are set forth under the figure of seven vials full of the wrath of God, might have been, by another mode of distribution, represented under the number two. Many think they are thus represented in chap. 14:14-20. Another prophetic number, occurring in Daniel and the Apocalypse, always as a designation of time, is the half of seven. Thus we have "a time, and times, and half a time," that is, three years and a half (chap. 12:14); or in months, "forty and two months" (chaps. 11:2; 13:5); or in days, "a thousand two hundred and threescore days" (chaps. 11:3; 12:6). Compare Daniel 7:25. Again, answering to these three years and a half, we have the three days and a half during which the two witnesses lie dead. Chap. 11:9, 11. The number six, moreover, from its peculiar relation to seven, represents the preparation for the consummation of God's plans. Hence the sixth seal (chap. 6:12-17), the sixth trumpet (chap. 9:14-21), and the sixth vial (chap. 16:12-16) are each preëminent in the series to which they belong. They usher in the awful judgments of Heaven which destroy the wicked. Here, perhaps, we have the key to the symbolic import of the number of the beast, 666. While it represents, according to the principles of Greek numeration, the number of a man, it seems to indicate that upon him fall all the judgments of the sixth seal, the sixth trumpet, and the sixth vial.

Four is the natural symbol for universality. Thus we have the four living creatures round about the throne (chap. 4:6), perhaps as symbols of the agencies by which God administers his universal providential government (chaps. 6:1, 3, 5, 7; 15:7); the four angels standing on the four corners of the earth and holding the four winds (chap. 7:1); and the four angels bound in the river Euphrates (chap. 9:14). So also in the fourfold enumeration, "kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation," or its equivalent. Chaps. 5:9; 10:11; 11:9; 14:6; 17:15. A third and a fourth part, on the contrary, represent what is partial. Chaps. 6:8; 8:12; 9:18.

Twelve is the well-known signature of God's people. Compare the twelve tribes of the Old Testament and the twelve apostles of the New; the woman with a crown of twelve stars (chap. 12:1); the twelve gates, twelve angels, twelve foundations of the New Jerusalem, the twelve times twelve cubits of its wall, and its tree of life that yields twelve harvests a year (chaps. 21:12, 14; 22:2). We have also the same number combined with a thousand, the general symbol for a great number. From each of the twelve tribes of Israel are sealed twelve thousand (chap. 7:4-8), making for the symbolical number of the redeemed twelve times twelve thousand (chap. 14:1, 3); and the walls of the New Jerusalem are in every direction twelve thousand furlongs (chap. 21:16).

Ten is possibly only a symbol of diversity, as in the case of the ten horns of the beast (chaps. 12:3; 13:1; 17:3); though some take a literal view of it.

6. Dark as are many parts of the Apocalypse and difficult of interpretation, the book as a whole is radiant with the promise to God's people of a final and complete victory in their conflict with the kingdom of Satan. Though long delayed, as we mortals reckon time, it shall come at last with a splendor above the brightness of the sun, and the earth be lighted from pole to pole with its glory. "Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus"!

APPENDIX TO PART III.

WRITINGS OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS, WITH SOME NOTICES OF THE APOCRYPHAL NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS.

1. A wide distinction should be made between the writings of the apostolic fathers which are acknowledged to be genuine, or the genuineness of which may be maintained on more or less probable grounds, and the large mass of spurious works afterwards palmed upon the Christian world as the productions of apostles or their contemporaries. The latter constitute properly the New Testament Apocrypha, though the term is sometimes applied in a loose way to both classes of writings. The writings of the apostolic fathers, though possessing no divine authority, are valuable as showing the state of the Christian churches at the time when they were composed in respect to both doctrine and discipline, as well as the various errors and divisions by which they were troubled. Their testimonies to the genuineness of the New Testament have been already considered. Chap. 2, No. 10. Some of the apocryphal works also, worthless as they are for instruction in the doctrines and duties of Christianity, throw much light on the religious spirit, tendencies, and heretical sects of the times to which they belong. Others of these writings are unutterably absurd and puerile, worthy of notice only as showing the type of the puerilities current in the age of their composition.

I. WRITINGS OF CLEMENT.

2. Appended to the Alexandrine manuscript (Chap. 26, No. 5) is an epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, followed by part of a so-called second epistle to the same church. The first of these epistles is acknowledged to be genuine. It was known to the ancient fathers as the work of Clement of Rome, and highly commended by them. Their quotations from it agree with the contents of the epistle as we now have it, nor does it exhibit any marks of a later age; for the author's reference to the well-known fable of the phoenix as a type of the resurrection (chap. 25), constitutes no real difficulty. It may prove that he was credulous, but not that he belonged to a later than the apostolic age. The ancients represent this Clement to have been identical with Clement bishop of Rome. Whether he was also identical with the Clement named by the apostle Paul (Phil. 4:3), is a question that we may well leave undecided. The epistle was written shortly after some persecution (chap. 1), which Grabe, Hefele, and others suppose to have been that under Nero; Lardner, Cotelerius, and others, that under Domitian. Upon the former supposition it was written about A.D. 68--a supposition apparently favored by the way in which he refers to the temple and service at Jerusalem as still in existence (chaps. 40, 41); upon the latter, about A.D. 96 or 97.

3. The occasion of the epistle, which Clement writes in the name of the church at Rome, is easily gathered from its contents. As in the days of Paul, so now, the Corinthian church was troubled by a "wicked and unholy sedition," fomented by "a few rash and self-willed men," who had proceeded so far as to thrust out of their ministry some worthy men. Chap. 44. It would seem, also, from chaps. 24-27 that there were among them those who denied the doctrine of the resurrection. To restore in the Corinthian church the spirit of love and unity is the grand scope of the epistle. The author commends them for their orderly and holy deportment before their present quarrel arose, traces it to its true source in the pride gendered by the honor and enlargement granted them by God, and urges them to lay aside their contentions by every motive that the gospel offers--the mischiefs that strife occasions, the rules of their religion, the example of the Saviour and holy men of all ages, the relation of believers to God, his high value of the spirit of love and unity, the reward of obedience and punishment of disobedience, etc. Comparing the church to an army, he insists earnestly on the necessity of different ranks and orders, and the spirit of obedience. Comparing it again to the human body, he shows that all the particular members, each in his place, should conspire together for the preservation of the whole.

Clement's style has not the merit of compactness and conciseness. He is, on the contrary, diffuse and repetitious. But a thoroughly evangelical spirit pervades the present epistle, and it is, moreover, characterized by a noble fervor and simplicity. "It evinces the calm dignity and the practical executive wisdom of the Roman church in her original apostolic simplicity, without the slightest infusion of hierarchical arrogance." Schaff, Hist. Christ. Church, vol. 1, p. 460. In its internal character, as in the time of its composition, it approaches the canonical writings of the New Testament more nearly than any other remains of antiquity.

4. The second epistle ascribed to Clement is not mentioned by any of the fathers before Eusebius, who speaks of it doubtingiy: "But it should be known that there is said to be also a certain second epistle of Clement. But it is clear to us that this is not equally known with the first, for we know that the ancients have not made use of it." Hist. Eccles. 3. 38. It is generally acknowledged to be spurious, and is, perhaps, as Hefele suggests, one of the homilies falsely ascribed to Clement. With this supposition its contents well agree; for it does not seem to have, like the first, a definite end to accomplish. It opens with a general exhortation that the Corinthians should think worthily of Christ in view of the great work which he has wrought in their behalf, and urges upon them a steadfast confession of him before men, not by empty words, but by a life of holy obedience. It sets before them the incompatibility of the service of God and mammon, and dwells with especial earnestness on the high rewards of eternity in comparison with the pleasures and pains of the present life; as if the writer had in mind those who were exposed to the double peril of substituting an empty profession for the living spirit of obedience, and of apostatizing from Christ through fear of persecution and martyrdom.

5. Besides the above, there is a mass of writings current in ancient days under the name of Clement which are acknowledged by all to be spurious. Among these are: The Recognitions of Clement; The Clementines, or, according to the Greek title, Clement's Epitome of Peter's Discourses in Travel; Clement's Epitome concerning the Acts and Discourses of Peter in Travel--three forms of substantially the same work. It will be sufficient to give a brief notice of the Recognitions. The author, apparently a Jew by birth and a philosopher of the Alexandrine school, has embraced a form of Christianity mixed up with the dogmas of his philosophy. For the purpose of attacking and overthrowing the false religious notions of his age, he invents an ingenious historic plot. Clement, a Roman citizen, who, as appears in the sequel, has been separated in early life from his father, mother, and two brothers, whom he supposes to be dead, is introduced as sending to James, who presides over the church at Jerusalem, with an accompanying letter, an account of his early education; his acquaintance with the apostle Peter, who chooses him to be his companion in travel; Peter's conversations with himself and the rest of the company; his public addresses and acts; especially his famous encounters with Simon Magus, whom he overthrows and puts to public shame. In the course of their journeying they visit a certain island, where they meet with a poor woman begging alms, who is found, upon the relation of her history, to be the mother of Clement. Upon farther inquiry it appears that two of Peter's company, Nicetus and Aquila, are her sons and the brothers of Clement. Finally, Peter encounters on the sea-shore, whither he had gone to perform for the newly discovered mother and sons the rite of baptism, an old man who is found to be the long lost husband and father. From these recognitions the work receives its title. But this historic plot is only the occasion of introducing the writer's theological and philosophical opinions, with especial reference to the prevailing errors of his day. Any page of the work is sufficient to show that Peter and Clement had nothing to do with its composition. It cannot be placed earlier than the close of the second or the beginning of the third century. Prefixed to these Clementine writings, and having reference to them, are two spurious epistles, one from Peter to James, president of the church at Jerusalem, with the proceedings of James consequent upon the reception of it, and one from Clement to James. These it is not necessary to notice.

The so-called Constitutions of Clement in eight books, embracing, as their name indicates, a system of rules pertaining to church order and discipline, were certainly not the work of Clement. It is not certain that they had their origin as a whole in the same age; but the judgment of learned men is that no part of them is older than the second half of the third century. The eighty-five so-called Apostolic Canons have prefixed to them the spurious title: "Ecclesiastical Rules of the Holy Apostles promulgated by Clement High Priest (Pontifex) of the Church of Rome." The origin of these canons is uncertain. They first appear as a collection with the above title in the latter part of the fifth century. How much older some of them may be cannot be determined with certainty.

II. THE EPISTLES OF IGNATIUS.

6. Ignatius was bishop of the church at Antioch, and suffered martyrdom at Rome by exposure to wild beasts A.D. 107, or according to some accounts, A.D. 116. Of the fifteen epistles ascribed to him, it is agreed among biblical scholars that eight are spurious and of later origin. The remaining seven are generally regarded as genuine, but the text of these, as of all the rest, is in a very unsatisfactory condition. There are two Greek recensions, a longer and a shorter, the latter containing approximately the true text, though not without the suspicion of interpolations. There is a Syriac version containing but three of Ignatius' epistles, and these in a much reduced form (which some are inclined to regard as the only genuine epistles); also an Armenian version containing thirteen epistles. See further Schaff, Hist. Chris. Church, vol. 1, pp. 469-471. As the question now stands, we may with good reason receive as genuine the seven mentioned by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 3. 36) and Jerome (De Viris illust. 16). They were all written on his last journey to Rome; four from Smyrna, where Polycarp was the bishop, to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, and Romans; three after his departure from Smyrna, to the churches of Philadelphia and Smyrna, and to Polycarp bishop of Smyrna. The native vigor and energy of Ignatius, as also the depth and sincerity of his piety, shine forth conspicuously in these letters; but they differ from the epistle of Clement in the manifestation of an intense ecclesiastical spirit, by which, indeed, they are marked as belonging to a later era of the church. If we except the epistle to the Romans, they all abound in exhortations to render implicit obedience to their spiritual rulers as to Christ himself. To these precepts he adds exhortations to maintain unity, and to avoid false doctrines, specifying particularly Judaizing teachers and such as deny our Lord's proper humanity.

We cannot read his letter to the Romans, among whom he expected shortly to lay down his life for Christ's sake, without deep interest. But it is marred by the manifestation of an undue desire to obtain the crown of martyrdom, which leads him to protest against any interposition of the Roman brethren in his behalf. "I beseech you," says he, "show no unseasonable good-will towards me. Suffer me to be the food of wild beasts, by means of which I may attain to God. I am the wheat of God, and am ground by the teeth of wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of God." Chap. 4. His letter to Polycarp, a fellow bishop, abounds in precepts for the right discharge of his duties. It is interesting as showing Ignatius' idea, on the one side, of the office with its high responsibilities, and, on the other, of the duties which the churches owe to those who are set over them in the Lord.

7. There are some spurious epistles ascribed to Ignatius which it is sufficient simply to name. These are: A letter to one Maria a proselyte of Cilicia in answer to her request that certain young men might be sent to her people as their spiritual guides; epistles to the church of Tarsus, of Antioch, and of Philippi--theological dissertations mostly made up of texts of Scripture; a letter to Hero a deacon, containing precepts for the right discharge of his office, and abounding, like those just named, in quotations from Scripture: two pretended letters of Ignatius to the apostle John; one to the Virgin Mary, with her reply.

Finally, there are some fragments of Ignatius' writings preserved to us in the quotations of the ancients, which it is not necessary to notice.

III. THE EPISTLE OF POLYCARP.

8. Polycarp was a disciple of the apostle John, and presided over the church in Smyrna. He suffered martyrdom about the year 166. Of his writings only one short epistle remains, addressed by him to the Philippians soon after the martyrdom of Ignatius, who passed through Smyrna on his way to Rome. This we gather from the letter itself; for in this he assumes that Ignatius has already suffered (chap. 9), and yet he has not heard the particulars concerning his fate and that of his companions. Chap. 14. This brief epistle is marked by a fervor and simplicity worthy of an apostolic man. The writer commends the Philippians for the love manifested by them towards the suffering servants of Christ, exhorts them to steadfastness, reminds them of Paul's precepts in his epistle to them, and proceeds to unfold and inculcate the duties belonging to the officers and several classes of members in the church. The immediate occasion of the letter seems to have been his transmission to the Philippians, in compliance with their request, of Ignatius' epistle to himself, with such others of his epistles as had come into his hands. Chap. 13. The preservation of the present epistle is probably due to this its connection with the epistles of Ignatius forwarded by him to the Philippians.

IV. THE WRITINGS OF BARNABAS AND HERMAS.

9. The writings current under the names of Barnabas and Hermas have by no means the outward testimony in their favor by which the preceding epistles of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp are supported; nor the inward evidence arising from the consideration of their contents. We will consider them briefly in the order abovenamed.

10. Until recently the first part of the Epistle of Barnabas existed only in a Latin version. But in 1859 Tischendorf discovered at Mount Sinai the Sinai Codex (Chap. 26, No. 5), which contains the entire epistle in the original Greek. That the writer was the Barnabas mentioned in the New Testament as the companion of Paul in preaching the gospel, cannot be maintained on any firm basis of evidence. As to the date of its composition learned men differ. Hefele places it between the years 107 and 120. Apostolic Fathers, Prolegomena, p. 15.

The writer was apparently a Hellenistic Jew of the Alexandrine school, and he wrote for the purpose of convincing his brethren, mainly from the Old Testament, that Jesus is the Messiah, and that in him the rites of the Mosaic law are done away. His quotations from the Old Testament are numerous, and his method of interpretation is allegorical and sometimes very fanciful, as in the following passage, for the right understanding of which the reader should know that the two Greek letters [Greek: IÊ], which stand first in the name [Greek: IÊSOUS], JESUS, and represent that name by abbreviation, signify as numerals, the first ten, the second, eight; also that the Greek letter [Greek: T] (the sign of the cross) denotes as a numeral, three hundred. "The Scripture says," argues Barnabas, "that Abraham circumcised of his house three hundred and eighteen men. What was the knowledge communicated to him [in this fact]? Learn first the meaning of the eighteen, then of the three hundred. Now the numeral letters [Greek: I], ten, [Greek: Ê], eight, make eighteen. Here you have Jesus (Greek [Greek: IÊSOUN], of which the abbreviation is [Greek: IÊ]). And because the cross, which lies in the letter [Greek: T], was that which should bring grace, he says also three hundred." Chap. 9. The Rabbinic system of interpretation in which the writer was educated furnishes an explanation, indeed, of this and other like puerilities, but no vindication of them.

11. The Shepherd of Hermas, as the work current under the name of Hermas is called, consists of three books--his Visions, his Commands, and his Similitudes. The four visions are received through the ministry of an aged woman, who is the church of Christ. The twelve commands and ten similitudes are received from one who appears to him "in the habit of a shepherd, clothed with a white cloak, having his bag upon his back, and his staff in his hand," whence the title The Shepherd of Hermas. All these are intended to unfold the truths of Christianity with its doctrines and duties. The writer has a most luxuriant imagination. In reading his books, particularly the first and the third, one sometimes finds himself bewildered in a thicket of images and similitudes, some of them grotesque and not altogether congruous. Yet the work throws much light on the religious ideas and tendencies of its age.

The ancients speak doubtingly of the authority of this work. Origen, whom Eusebius and Jerome follow, ascribes it to the Hermas mentioned in the epistle to the Romans (chap. 16:14); though it does not appear that he had any other ground for this than the identity of the name. The Muratorian canon names as its author Hermas the brother of Pius bishop of Rome. According to this, which is the more probable view, the date of its composition would be about the middle of the second century.

V. THE APOSTLES' CREED.

12. We put this among the remains of the apostolic fathers, not because there is any doubt as to its containing the substance of the doctrines taught by the apostles, but because, as is generally admitted, it did not receive its present form at their hand. "Though not traceable in its present shape before the third century, and found in the second in different longer or shorter forms, it is in substance altogether apostolic, and exhibits an incomparable summary of the leading facts in the revelation of the triune God from the creation of the world to the resurrection of the body; and that in a form intelligible to all, and admirably suited for public worship and catechetical use." Schaff, Hist. Chris. Church, pp. 121, 122.

VI. APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS AND ACTS.

13. These are very numerous. Under the head of Apocryphal Gospels. Tischendorf has published twenty-two works; under that of Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, thirteen. To the student of church history they are not without value; for they illustrate the origin of many ancient traditions and some ritual observances. But if we look to their intrinsic character, they may be described as a mass of worthless legends abounding in absurd and puerile stories. The contrast between the miracles which they relate and the true miracles recorded in the canonical gospels and Acts is immense, and such as makes the darkness of these spurious writings more visible. The miracles of the canonical books have always a worthy occasion, and are connected with the Saviour's work of redemption. But the pretended miracles of the apocryphal writings are, as a general rule, wrought on trivial occasions, with either no end in view but the display of supernatural power, or with a positively unlawful end, whence it not unfrequently happens that their impiety rivals their absurdity. Many samples of both these characters could be given, but the general reader may well remain ignorant of them.

PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.

* * * * *

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XXXIII. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

1. The term Hermeneutics (Greek, hermeneuo, to interpret) is commonly employed to denote the principles of scriptural interpretation. The Greek word exegesis--that is, exposition--denotes the actual work of interpretation. Hermeneutics is, therefore, the science of interpretation; Exegesis, the application of this science to the word of God. The hermeneutical writer lays down general principles of interpretation; the exegetical writer uses these principles in the exposition of Scripture. The terms epexegesis and epexegetical are used by expositors in a special sense to denote something explanatory of the immediate context.

2. The expositor's office is, to ascertain and unfold the true meaning of the inspired writers, without adding to it, subtracting from it, or changing it in any way. Here we may draw an instructive parallel between his work and that of the textual critic. The textual critic aims to give, not what some one might think the inspired penman should have written, but what he actually did write. So the true expositor, taking the very words of Scripture, seeks not to force upon them a meaning in harmony with his preconceived opinions, but to take from them the very ideas which the writer intended to express. It is pertinent, therefore, to consider at the outset the qualifications which belong to the biblical interpreter. These include high moral and intellectual qualities, as well as varied and extensive acquirements.

3. Foremost among the qualities that belong to the interpreter is a supreme regard for truth. A general conviction and acknowledgment of the duty of truthfulness will not be sufficient to guard him against all the seductive influences that beset his path. Though he may be a sincere Christian, he will still be in danger of being misled by the power of preconceived opinions and party connections. He will need a constant and vivid apprehension of the sacredness of all truth, more especially of scriptural truth, which God has revealed for the sanctification and salvation of men. "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." These words of the Saviour he will do well to ponder night and day, till they become a part of his spiritual life; and to remember always that, if such be the divine origin and high office of scriptural truth, God will not hold guiltless any who tamper with it in the interest of preconceived human opinions, thus substituting the folly of man for the wisdom of God.

4. The interpreter further needs a sound judgment, combined with the power of vivid conception. These two qualities are named together, because they mutually supplement each other. A large part of the Bible is occupied with description. Here the interpreter needs the power of conception, that he may bring before his mind a vivid picture of the scenes described, with the relations of their several parts to each other. Another large part of the Bible contains the language of poetry and impassioned feeling. In the interpretation of this, the faculty of conception is especially necessary, that we may place ourselves as fully as possible in the circumstances of the writers, and form a true idea of the emotions which filled their minds and gave form and complexion to their utterances. Pure cold logic, with the addition of any amount of human learning, will not enable us to comprehend and expound aright the forty-second Psalm. By the power of imagination, we must go with the poet, in his exile from the sanctuary at Jerusalem, across the Jordan to the land of the Hermonites; must see his distressed and forsaken condition; must hear the bitter taunts of his enemies; must witness the inward tempest of his feelings--a continual conflict between nature and faith--before we can have a true understanding of his words. The same might be said of innumerable other passages of Scripture.

But this power of vivid conception, when not held in check by a sound judgment, will lead the expositor of Scripture into the wildest vagaries of fancy. Disregarding the plainest rules of interpretation, he will cover up the obvious sense of Scripture with a mass of allegorical expositions, under color of educing from the words of inspiration a higher and more edifying meaning. That high natural endowments, united with varied and solid learning and indefatigable zeal for the gospel, do not of themselves constitute a safeguard against this error, we learn from the example of Origen and many others. Not content to let the simple narratives of Scripture speak for themselves and convey their proper lessons of instruction, these allegorical expositors force upon them a higher spiritual sense. In so doing, they unsettle the very principles by which the spiritual doctrines of Scripture are established.

Origen, for example, in commenting on the meeting between Abraham's servant and Rebecca at the well in Haran, says: "Rebecca came every day to the wells. Therefore she could be found by Abraham's servant, and joined in marriage with Isaac." Thus he gives the literal meaning of this transaction. But he then goes on to show, among other things, that Rebecca represents the human soul, which Christ wishes to betroth to himself, while Abraham's servant is "the prophetic word, which unless you first receive, you cannot be married to Christ." See in Davidson's Sacred Hermeneutics, pp. 103, 104.

5. Another indispensable qualification of scriptural interpretation is sympathy with divine truth; in other words, that harmony of spirit with the truths of revelation which comes from a hearty reception of them, and a subjection of the whole life, inward and outward, to their control. "If any man," said our Saviour, "will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." John 7:17. In these words our Lord proposed to the unbelieving Jews the true remedy for their ignorance and error respecting his person and office, which had their ground not in the want of evidence, but in their perverse and guilty rejection of evidence. Their moral state was one of habitual rebellion against the truth of God; and they could not, therefore, have sympathy with the Saviour's doctrine. They hated the light, and would not come to the light, because their deeds were evil. John 3:20. What they needed was not more light, but that obedient spirit which loves the light, and allows it to shine through the soul. The man who would be a successful interpreter of God's word must begin where the Saviour directed these Jews to begin. So far as he knows the truth, he must give it a hearty reception not in theory alone, but in daily practice. Then he will be prepared to make further progress in the knowledge of it, and to unfold its heavenly treasures to his fellow-men. But if he comes to the study of God's word with a heart habitually at variance with its holy precepts, and an understanding darkened by the power of sinful affections, no amount of scholarship or critical sagacity will avail to make him a true expositor of its contents. Having no sympathy with the great foundation doctrines of the gospel, but regarding them with positive aversion, he will neither be able to apprehend them in their true light, nor to explain them aright to his fellow-men. In the work of interpretation, a good heart--good in the scriptural sense--is not less important than a clear understanding and well-furnished mind.

6. How extensive and varied should be the acquirements of the able interpreter will be manifest to any one who considers the extent and variety of the fields of knowledge covered by the Holy Scriptures.

The languages in which they are written are no longer spoken. The knowledge of them, like that of all dead languages, is locked up in books--grammars, lexicons, ancient versions, and various subsidiary helps--and can be mastered only by severe and protracted study. It is not indeed necessary that the great body of Christians, or even all preachers of the gospel, should be able to read the Bible in the original languages. But it is a principle of Protestantism, the soundness of which has been confirmed by the experience of centuries, that there should always be in the churches a body of men able to go behind the current versions of Scripture to the original tongues from which these versions were executed. The commentator, at least, must not take his expositions at second hand; and a healthy tone of feeling in regard to the sacredness and supreme authority of the inspired word will always demand that there should be a goodly number of scholars scattered through the churches who can judge from the primitive sources of the correctness of his interpretations.

The Scriptures are crowded with references to the cities, mountains, plains, deserts, rivers, and seas of Palestine and the surrounding regions; to their climate, soil, animals, and plants; to their agricultural products and mineral treasures; to the course of travel and commerce between the different nations; in a word, to those numerous particulars which come under the head of geography and natural history. The extended investigations of modern times in these departments of knowledge have shed a great light over the pages of inspiration, which no expositor who is worthy of the name will venture to neglect.

And if one collect and illustrate the various allusions of Scripture to the manners and customs of the ancient Hebrews, to their civil institutions and their religious rites and ceremonies, he will compose a volume on biblical antiquities.

The connection, moreover, which the covenant people had with the surrounding nations, especially the great monarchies which successively held sway over the civilized world--Egypt, Assyria, Chaldea, Greece, Rome--requires an extended knowledge of ancient history, and, as inseparably connected with this, of ancient chronology. Biblical chronology constitutes, indeed, a science of itself, embracing some very perplexed and difficult questions, the solution of which has an important bearing upon the passages of Scripture to which they have reference.

7. We do not affirm that all the above-named qualifications are necessary to a saving knowledge of God's word. Its great essential doctrines and precepts are so plain that the unlettered reader, who brings to the work an honest heart, cannot fail to understand them. In this respect God has made the vision so plain "that he may run that readeth it;" and the road to heaven so direct that "the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein." But the interpreter of Scripture is expected to unfold the meaning of the difficult passages also, as far as human investigation will enable him to do so. They are a part of "all Scripture given by inspiration of God," which the apostle affirms to be "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." He should spare no effort, therefore, to ascertain their exact sense, and to expound this sense to others with all possible fidelity and clearness.

8. There is a human and a divine side to biblical interpretation--a human side, because the Scriptures address men in human language, and according to human modes of thinking and speaking; a divine side, because they contain a true revelation from God to men, and differ in this respect from all other writings. The neglect of the human side leads to visionary schemes of interpretation, in which the writer's fancy is substituted for the sober rules of criticism, and the word of God accommodated to his preconceived opinions. The rejection, open or covert, of the divine side, manifests itself in a cold, skeptical criticism, which denies or explains away all that is supernatural in the Bible; which, instead of seeking to discover and unfold that unity of plan and harmony of parts which belong to every work of God, delights rather in exaggerating the supposed inconsistencies and contradictions of the sacred writers, and in arraying one part of Scripture against another; and which, having no faith itself in the Bible as containing a revelation from God, infuses doubts respecting its divine origin into the mind of the reader. It is only by keeping steadily in view these two sides of revelation, which mutually supplement each other, that we can attain to a true knowledge of the inspired word.

FIRST DIVISION.

INTERPRETATION VIEWED ON THE HUMAN SIDE.

* * * * *

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XXXIV. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION

1. Since the Bible addresses men in human language, and according to human modes of thinking and speaking, the interpreter's first work is to ascertain the meaning of the terms employed. Here he must proceed as in the case of other writings, seeking by the aid of grammars, lexicons, cognate languages, ancient versions, ancient interpreters, and whatever other outward helps are available, to gain a thorough knowledge of the language employed by the Holy Spirit in his revelations to men. To these external sources of knowledge he will add all the internal light which comes from a careful consideration of the context, of the author's known use of terms, of parallel passages, etc.

In the case of the New Testament, a knowledge of classical Greek will not be sufficient. The interpreter must superadd a thorough acquaintance with the peculiar dialect of the New Testament (Chap. 24, No. 5), and also the special usages of particular writers. The apostle John, to adduce a single instance, applies the term Logos, Word, to the Son of God. But we cannot argue from this for a like usage by other writers; as, for example, in the well-known passage: "The word of God is quick and powerful," etc. Heb. 4:12.

Usage alone is often insufficient to determine the meaning of a word in a particular passage; for (1) the term may occur nowhere else, (2) it may have in current usage two or more different significations. In the former case, the interpreter must avail himself of all the external helps above specified, and especially of the light shed upon the meaning of the term in question by the context. In the latter case, the context must be his chief guide. The same Greek word, for example, signifies stature (Luke 19:3) and age (Heb. 11:11). In the interpretation of Matt. 6:27, where our version reads: "Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?" the question may naturally enough arise in which of these two senses the Saviour employed it. Whatever may be the decision, it must have for its basis not simple usage, which is ambiguous, but the connection of the word in the context. Many like examples might be adduced.

It has been already remarked (Chap. 24, No. 5) that in New Testament usage many words have a technical and therefore peculiar meaning. We are not at liberty, however, to determine such technical meanings at random, or in accordance with any preconceived opinions. It can only be done, as in the case of all other writings, in accordance with the acknowledged laws of interpretation. The general result, then, at which we arrive is, that in determining the meaning of scriptural terms we must be guided by the same rules which we follow in the interpretation of other writings.

2. From the signification of particular words we proceed to the consideration of the sense embodied in the language of the sacred writers. A knowledge of the words which enter into the composition of a sentence does not of itself give us a true apprehension of the sense which the writer seeks to convey. We must know the writer's aim, the shape and course of his argument, the ideas which he is combating as well as those which he seeks to establish, the emphatic words of the sentence, whether he wishes to be understood literally or figuratively, and various other particulars; all which are to be ascertained by the same rules which we employ in the interpretation of language generally.

3. The scope or design of the inspired writer may be general or special; the former being his design in writing the whole work in question, the latter, his design in particular sections of it. "The scope," it has been well observed, "is the soul or spirit of a book; and, that being once ascertained, every argument and every word appears in its right place, and is perfectly intelligible; but if the scope be not duly considered, every thing becomes obscure, however clear and obvious its meaning may really be." Horne's Introduct., vol. 2, p. 265, edit. of 1860. This language is not too strong. It is by a neglect or perversion of the scope that the meaning of the inspired writers is perverted, and they are made to contradict one another.

The apostle Paul says, for example: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Rom. 3:28. The apostle James: "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." James 2:24. If one insists on leaving out of account the separate and distinct design which each of these two writers had in view respectively, he can easily bring their words into contradiction. Had the scope of Paul's argument been to show that faith in Christ releases men from the obligation of obeying the divine law, and thus makes good works unnecessary; or had James been laboring to prove that good works are the meritorious ground of men's forgiveness, then the doctrines of the two apostles would have been irreconcilably at variance. But we know that neither of these suppositions is true. Paul was combating the error of the Pharisees "who trusted in themselves that they were righteous"--righteous on the ground of "the deeds of the law"--"and despised others." His aim was to show that men receive forgiveness and salvation neither wholly nor in part on the ground of the supposed merit of their good works, but wholly through faith in Christ; as he elsewhere argues that "if it be by grace, then it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace." Rom. 11:6. We know also, from the whole tenor of his writings, that he condemned as spurious that pretended faith which does not manifest itself in good works. In this very epistle, where the question is not concerning the meritorious ground of justification, but concerning that character which God will accept, the apostle lays down the great principle: "Unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil; of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; but glory, honor, and peace to every man that worketh good; to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: for there is no respect of persons with God." Rom. 2:8-11. If now we turn to the epistle of James, we find that the faith without works which he condemns as dead is one of mere empty notions--an inoperative belief about Christ instead of that hearty trust in him which brings the heart and life into subjection to his authority. In a word, Paul condemns, as dead, works without faith; James, faith without works. The one rejects dead works (Heb. 9:14); the other, dead faith. Between these two judgments there is no contradiction. We have dwelt somewhat at large upon this example of alleged contradiction for the purpose of full illustration. The same mode of reasoning might be applied to many other passages, where a knowledge of the writer's design is essential to the true apprehension of his meaning.

Such being the importance of the scope, the question arises: How shall it be ascertained? Here mechanical rules will be of little avail. The attentive and judicious reader will be able, in general, to gather it from the various indications given by the writer himself, or from the known circumstances in which he wrote, just as in the case of other writings.

Sometimes an author directly states his general end, or his design in writing a particular section of his work. An example of the former kind is John 20:31: "These things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name;" of the latter kind, 1 Cor. 7:1: "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me," etc.; whence we learn that in this particular chapter the apostle's design is to answer certain inquiries of the Corinthian Christians in regard to the relation of marriage. More commonly the writer's scope is indicated indirectly by various inferential remarks, as in the passage already quoted: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law," which is in fact a statement of the apostle's design in the preceding argument. See Horne's Introduct., vol. 2, pp. 266, 267, where the author follows Morus, Hermeneutica, 1.2.2.

Sometimes a clear light is shed upon the design of a writer or speaker by a knowledge of historical circumstances; especially, of his own position and that of his opponents. The twenty-third chapter of Matthew, in which the Saviour exposes the wickedness and doctrinal errors of the scribes and Pharisees, and denounces upon them the judgments of heaven, cannot be thoroughly understood without a knowledge of the system of Pharisaism, and the high position of authority and influence which the Pharisees held; sitting, as they did, in Moses' seat, imposing upon the people their human traditions in place of God's commandments, substituting a religion of outward forms for one of inward faith, love, and obedience, and thus taking away from the people the key of divine knowledge. It was necessary that the Son of God, to whom the church belonged, who came to shed his blood for her redemption, and to establish her in the principles of truth and holiness, should expose with unsparing severity the wickedness and ignorance of these scribes and Pharisees, for the instruction of his people in all coming ages. A knowledge of the same historical circumstances throws a strong light on the apostle's aim in writing to the Romans and Galatians. Had we fuller information respecting the false teachers referred to in the epistle to the Colossians and the pastoral epistles, we should understand more clearly the apostle's arguments against them.

But the surest means of ascertaining a writer's scope is the repeated and careful perusal of his words. The biblical student should early form the habit of reading over with earnest attention a whole book at a sitting--the epistle to the Romans, for example, or that to the Hebrews--without pausing to investigate particular questions; his aim being to throw himself as fully as possible into the general current of thought, and to be carried forward by it to the writer's final conclusions. When he has thus made himself familiar with the scope of the work as a whole, he will be better prepared for the examination of the particular difficulties that offer themselves in the course of the author's argument.

4. The word context (Latin, contextus) signifies literally a weaving together; and is appropriately used, therefore, to denote the web of a writer's discourse. The scope is the end which a writer proposes to accomplish: the context gives the form and manner of its accomplishment. With reference to a given passage, the context has been loosely defined to be that which immediately precedes and follows. More accurately, it is the series of statements, arguments, and illustrations connected with the passage whose meaning is sought, including all the various connections of thought. The sober interpreter, then, must have constant reference to the context, as well for the signification of particular terms as for the general sense of the passage under consideration. To interpret without regard to the context is to interpret at random; to interpret contrary to the context is to teach falsehood for truth.

The necessity of having constant reference to the context for the determination of the sense, as well as of the particular terms employed, admits of innumerable illustrations. From these we select a few examples:

In Rom. 14:23 the apostle lays down the following maxim: "He that doubteth is damned [literally, condemned] if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." The context relates not to the Lord's supper, but to scruples in respect to the use of particular kinds of food: "One believeth that he may eat all things; another who is weak"--over-scrupulous in respect to distinctions of food--"eateth herbs" (ver. 2). Consequently there is no reference here to the personal qualifications requisite for partaking of that ordinance, or to the consequence of eating unworthily. The apostle means to say that whoever has scruples about the lawfulness of using a particular article of food is condemned if he eat it, "because he eateth not of faith." He acts contrary to his persuasion of duty. Thus he violates, in this particular case, that general law of faith which requires that in all things we keep a conscience void of offence towards God and man, subjecting ourselves in loving confidence to Christ's authority, and doing in all things what we believe to be right in his sight.

Again we read in Gal. 5:4 the words: "Ye are fallen from grace." Taken out of their connection, these words are ambiguous in their application. But the context makes all plain. The apostle is addressing those who are inclined to substitute a system of justification by works for the grace of the gospel: "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace"--fallen away from grace, as the original word means. Ye have abandoned the system of grace revealed in the gospel for one of works.

The psalmist says: "My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God: when shall I come and appear before God?" Psa. 42:2. Taken out of their connection, these words might be understood of his desire to enjoy the beatific vision of God in heaven. But the context shows that the writer had in mind God's earthly sanctuary, from which he was banished: "My tears have been my meat day and night, while they continually say unto me, Where is thy God? When I remember these things, I pour out my soul in me: for I had gone with the multitude, I went with them to the house of God, with the voice of joy and praise, with a multitude that kept holy-day" (ver. 3, 4).

Again the psalmist says: "The king's daughter is all glorious within" (Psa. 45:13); words that have more than once been applied directly to the inward spiritual beauty of the church, the bride of Christ. This is, indeed, the idea that we gain from a true interpretation of them. But it comes not directly, but through a beautiful figure. The primary meaning of the words is, that the royal bride appearing within the palace in raiment of wrought gold is all glorious to the beholder's view. Undoubtedly she represents the church espoused to Christ; dwelling, so to speak, in his kingly mansion, and gloriously adorned with his righteousness. Rev. 19:8.

The question may naturally occur to the reader: Within what limits is the context to be consulted? The answer must be, that no definite limits can be prescribed. The entire web of discourse must be carefully studied, including the more remote as well as the nearer context; for the inspired writers do not, as a general rule, proceed according to formal divisions and subdivisions. The train of argument is often interrupted by parenthetical remarks, particularly in the writings of the apostle Paul, or it is resumed in an informal way after extended digressions. The true connection of thought, then, is to be gathered not so much from our modern notions of what logical accuracy would require, as from the repeated and careful perusal of the writing in question. In this way alone can we place ourselves in the author's position, and look at the subject under discussion from his point of view; that is to say, in this way alone can we enter into his modes of thinking and reasoning, and thus qualify ourselves to be the expounders of them to others.

In some cases no context exists, and none is to be sought. In a large part of the book of Proverbs, for example, each separate aphorism shines by its own light. If it have any connection with what precedes or follows, it is only casual or superficial. In some books, again, like that of Ecclesiastes, the transitions are rapid, and often difficult to explain. Here we should be careful not to force upon the author a logical connection of which he never thought. Systematic arrangement is good in its place; but the Holy Spirit did not think it needful to secure it in the case of all who spake as he moved them.

Some religious teachers are fond of employing scriptural texts simply as mottoes, with little or no regard to their true connection. Thus they too often adapt them to their use by imparting to them a factitious sense foreign to their proper scope and meaning. The seeming gain in all such cases is more than counterbalanced by the loss and danger that attend the practice. It encourages the habit of interpreting Scripture in an arbitrary and fanciful way, and thus furnishes the teachers of error with their most effective weapon. The practice cannot be defended on any plea of necessity. The plain words of Scripture, legitimately interpreted according to their proper scope and context, contain a fulness and comprehensiveness of meaning sufficient for the wants of all men in all circumstances. That piety alone is robust and healthful which is fed, not by the fancies and speculations of the preacher who practically puts his own genius above the word of God, but by the pure doctrines and precepts of the Bible, unfolded in their true connection and meaning.

It is important to remark, however, that when the general principle contained in a given passage of Scripture has been once fairly explained, it admits of innumerable applications which are in the highest sense legitimate and proper. The principle, for example, that "whatsoever is not of faith is sin," which the apostle Paul announces in connection with the question of using or abstaining from particular kinds of food, may be applied to the settlement of cases of conscience arising in widely different relations and spheres of action. The preacher's power lies very much in the ability of unfolding to the understanding and applying to the conscience the general principles involved in the passage of Scripture which he undertakes to expound.

5. We may next consider the help to be derived from parallel passages. The ordinary division of parallelisms is into verbal and real: verbal, where the same word or phrase occurs; real, where the same thought is expressed or the same subject discussed. Verbal parallelisms often shed much light on the meaning of particular words or phrases, because what is obscure in one passage is made plain in another by some explanatory addition.

An example is the use of the expression my glory (English version, my honor), in Gen. 49:6: "O my soul, come not thou into their secret" (their secret conclave); "unto their assembly, my glory, be not thou united." A comparison of the parallel passages, Psa. 7:5; 16:9; 30:12; 57:8; 108:1, leads to the conclusion that in such a connection the expression is substantially equivalent to my soul, the soul being made in the image of God, and thus the seat of man's glory. By a like process of comparison, we arrive at the true signification of the phrase, "the righteousness of God," or more fully, "the righteousness which is of God by faith" when used with reference to the way of salvation through Christ; at the meaning of the Greek terms translated "propitiation," etc. In the same way, as already remarked (No. 1, above), the interpreter ascertains the different significations in which words are employed, and determines which of these is appropriate to any given passage.

Real parallelisms are subdivided, again, into doctrinal and historic; doctrinal, where the same truth is inculcated; historic, where the same event or series of events is recorded. The supreme importance of doctrinal parallelisms will appear most fully when we come to look at revelation on the divine side, as constituting a grand system of truth harmonious in all its parts. At present we regard them simply as among the means of ascertaining the sense of a given passage. Presuming that every author means to be self-consistent, it is our custom to place side by side his different statements which relate to the same subject, that they may mutually explain each other. The same reasonable method should be pursued with the writings of Isaiah and Jeremiah in the Old Testament, and of Paul and John in the New. What is obscure is to be interpreted by what is clear; what is briefly hinted, by what is more fully expressed. Different writers, moreover, belonging to the same age, animated by the same spirit, and confessedly governed by the same general rules of faith and practice, mutually explain each other. Thus the prophets Isaiah, Hosea, Joel, Amos, and Micah, who belong to the same century, and in a less degree Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the other prophets of a later age, shed each a light on the pages of all the rest. The same is true of all the epistolary writers of the New Testament, notwithstanding their marked differences of style, and the different aspects also in which they respectively contemplate Christian doctrine and duty.

Our Saviour says of those who claimed to be, before his advent, the shepherds and leaders of God's spiritual fold: "All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers; but the sheep did not hear them." John 10:8. Yet according to this same evangelist he honored Abraham, Moses, and the prophets, as true leaders and teachers of God's people. Chaps. 8:39, 40, 56; 5:45-47; 12:38-41. We know, then, that the Saviour's words must be restricted to such spiritual thieves and robbers as the scribes and Pharisees of his day, who under the leadership of Satan (chap. 8:41, 44) climbed up some other way into the fold.

The apostle Paul says (Rom. 2:7) that God shall render "to them who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory, and honor, and immortality, eternal life." We know at once, without reference to the context, that he does not mean, in opposition to the whole tenor of his epistles, to affirm that men can obtain eternal life by their own well-doing, without respect to "the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe." But if we examine the context, this shows that here the apostle is not speaking of the meritorious ground of justification, but of God's impartial regard to a righteous character in both Jews and Gentiles.

Historical parallelisms hold of necessity a prominent place in the interpretation of both the Old and the New Testament. In the Old Testament we have the two parallel histories of the Hebrew commonwealth, first in the books of Samuel and the Kings, then in the books of Chronicles. In the New, the four gospels are four parallel accounts of our Lord's life and teachings. Then there are several parallelisms of less extent; as, for example, Isaiah's account of Sennacherib's war upon Hezekiah, and Hezekiah's sickness (Isa. chaps. 36-39, compared with 2 Kings 18:13-20:21, and the briefer notice of 2 Chron. chap. 32); the three accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1-22; 22:1-21; 26:1-20); and other passages which will readily occur to the reader. To the work of comparing and harmonizing these parallel histories biblical students have with reason devoted much labor, since they mutually supplement and illustrate each other in many ways. We understand the books of Samuel and Kings more fully by comparison with the books of Chronicles, and the reverse. Each of the four gospels sheds light on the other three. It is by placing the three accounts of Paul's conversion side by side that we gain the most perfect knowledge of this event. The numerous coincidences between the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline epistles, give us a fuller idea of the apostle's inward life and outward labors than we could otherwise gain. Without the epistles the biographical notices of the Acts would be very incomplete; without the narrative of the Acts many references in the epistles would remain obscure.

Yet these same historic parallelisms, which are the source of so much light, are the occasion of difficulties also, which require for their adjustment a comprehensive view of the spirit of inspiration. In respect to all essential matters of faith and practice, a divine unity pervades the Holy Scriptures. But this essential unity does not exclude diversity of conception and representation. Though all the "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," it pleased the divine Spirit to leave them free to speak each in accordance with his individual peculiarities of thought and language. A page from the writings of the apostle John, taken anywhere at random, can be at once distinguished from a page of Paul or Luke. In relating the same transaction, two inspired writers often select different materials, or handle them in a different way. The narrative of each is truthful, but not exhaustive. It gives a correct view of the thing related, but not all the particulars connected with it. The omission from two or more parallel narratives of concomitant circumstances, or the neglect of exact chronological order, sometimes makes the work of harmonizing them a very difficult matter. We feel confident that each separate narrative is correct, and that, had we all the accompanying circumstances in the true order of time, we could see how they are consistent with each other; but for want of this light the exact mode of reconciliation remains doubtful. Such difficulties are incident to all parallel histories. Had the Holy Spirit seen good, he could have excluded them from the pages of inspiration; but herein he chose to deal with us not as children, but rather as men "of full age, even those who, by reason of use, have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." It is worthy of special notice, that where two or more evangelists record the same words of our Saviour, they are solicitous only about their substance.

In the three parallel accounts of the storm on the sea of Galilee, the disciples say according to Matthew (8:25): "Lord save us, we perish;" according to Mark (4:38): "Master, carest thou not that we perish?" according to Luke (8:24): "Master, master, we perish." And the Lord answers according to Matthew (v. 26): "Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith?" according to Mark (v. 40): "Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith?" according to Luke (v. 25): "Where is your faith?" On the variations in the words of the disciples Augustine well remarks (and the same remarks hold good of our Lord's answer): "The disciples have one and the same meaning in thus awaking the Lord and desiring salvation. Nor is it necessary to inquire which of these addresses, rather than the others, contains the exact words spoken to him. For whether they uttered one of the three, or other words which no one of the evangelists has mentioned, which yet have the same force in respect to the truth of the thought, what matters it?" Harmony of the Gospels 2.24, quoted by Alford on Matth. 8:25.

On the relation of the books of Chronicles to those of Kings and the difficulties connected with them, see Chap. 20, Nos. 21, 22. On the relation of the four gospels to each other, see Chap. 29, Nos. 4-10. We cannot here go into particulars. It must suffice to indicate the general principle by which the harmonist must be guided.

6. The external acquirements necessary to constitute the well-furnished expositor of God's word--the "scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven"--have been already briefly noticed. Chap. 33, No. 6. Not only are the Scriptures in their original form locked up in dead languages which the interpreter must thoroughly master, but they are, so to speak, embedded in ancient history, chronology, and archæology.

Illustrations of this point are so numerous that the only difficulty is in the selection. The servitude of the Israelites under the Egyptians, their captivity in Babylon, their deliverance under Cyrus, and their subsequent history till the time of our Lord's advent, connect themselves immediately, as all know, with the general history of the ancient heathen world. But there are many illustrations of a more special character. The difficulty of the position in which our Lord was placed by the ensnaring question of the Pharisees and Herodians respecting the lawfulness of paying tribute to Cæsar, and the divine wisdom of his answer (Matt. 22:15-22: Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:20-26) cannot be perfectly understood without a knowledge, on the one hand, of the political condition and feeling of the Jews as subjected to the dominion of the Romans, which they thoroughly detested, and of which dominion the tribute money daily reminded them; and, on the other, of the hatred which both Pharisees and Herodians bore towards Christ, and their anxiety to find a pretext for accusing him to the people or before this same Roman government.

To apprehend the force of our Lord's argument from the Pentateuch against the error of the Pharisees: "Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living" (Matt. 22:31, 32), we must understand the form in which the Sadducees denied the doctrine of the resurrection. They denied, namely, the existence of spirits separated from bodies. Acts 23:8. To them, consequently, the death of the body was the annihilation of the whole man, which made the very idea of a future resurrection an absurdity. Our Saviour showed from the writings of Moses, whose authority they acknowledged, the error of their assumption that the spirit dies with the body. Thus he demolished the ground on which their denial of a future resurrection rested.

The psalmist says of those who hate Zion: "Let them be as the grass upon the house-tops, which withereth before one plucketh it" (Eng. version, "before it groweth up"): "wherewith the mower filleth not his hand, nor he that bindeth sheaves his bosom." Psa. 129:6, 7. For the illustration of these words we need a double reference, (1) to the oriental custom of constructing flat roofs covered with earth, on which grass readily springs up; (2) to the division of the year into two seasons, the rainy and the dry, upon the commencement of which latter such grass speedily withers. Another reference to the same oriental roofs we have in the words of Solomon: "The contentions of a wife are a continual dropping;" "a continual dropping in a very rainy day and a contentious woman are alike" (chaps. 19:13; 27:15), where we are to understand a continual dropping through of water from the roof, which makes every thing within uncomfortable.

Our Lord's parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13) requires for its illustration a knowledge of the oriental customs connected with marriage: the transaction recorded by Luke, where a woman came behind Jesus as he reclined at the table, washed his feet with her tears, and wiped them with her hair (Luke 7:37, 38), and the position of John when at the last supper he leaned on Jesus' bosom (John 13:23, 25), cannot be made intelligible without a knowledge of the reclining posture in which meals were then taken: one familiar only with the use of glass or earthen bottles cannot comprehend the force of our Lord's maxim respecting the necessity of putting new wine into new bottles (Matt. 9:17), till he is informed that oriental bottles are made of leather. We might go on multiplying illustrations indefinitely, but the above must suffice. We may affirm, without fear of contradiction, that the study of the Holy Scriptures has contributed more than all other causes to the diffusion among the masses of the community of a knowledge of ancient history and antiquities. To say that a congregation has a thorough knowledge of the Bible is equivalent to affirming that it has an enlarged acquaintance with the ancient world in its spirit as well as in its outward institutions and forms.

7. That the interpreter may make a wise and effective use of all the helps that have been enumerated, he needs especially that sound and practical judgment which is called in ordinary discourse good sense. Investigations respecting the meaning of terms, inquiries concerning the scope, reasonings from the context, the comparison of parallel passages, the use of ancient history, chronology, and archæology--that any one or all of these processes combined may lead to valuable results they must be under the guidance of that sound judgment and practical tact by which the interpreter is enabled to seize the true meaning of his author and unfold it with accuracy, or is at least kept from far-fetched and fanciful expositions where the author's real sense is involved in obscurity.

(1.) This quality of sound judgment will preserve the interpreter from inept expositions for which a plausible reason many be assigned.

Thus, when the Saviour says to Martha, who "was cumbered about much serving:" "One thing is needful," these words have been interpreted to mean one dish--not many and elaborate preparations, but a single dish. A sound judgment rejects at once this interpretation as below the dignity of the occasion, and not in agreement with what immediately follows: "Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her." The one thing needful is such a devotion of the soul to Christ as Mary manifested. So the words: "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?" (John 21:15), have been explained to mean: more than these fish, or the employment and furniture of a fisherman--an ingenious substitution, one must say, of a low and trivial meaning for the common interpretation: more than these thy fellow-disciples love me, which accords so perfectly with Peter's former profession: "Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended." Matt. 26:33; Mark 14:29.

Interpreters who ordinarily manifest sound judgment and skill are sometimes betrayed into inept expositions through the influence of some preconceived opinion. The psalmist says, for example (Psa. 17:15): "As for me, in righteousness shall I behold thy face: I shall be satisfied upon awaking with thy likeness;" that is, with the contemplation of thy likeness, with apparent reference to Numb. 12:8: "The likeness of the Lord shall he behold." This passage is ordinarily interpreted correctly of the vision of God upon awaking in the world to come. And this view is sustained by other like passages: "In thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore" (Psa. 16:11); "Truly God shall redeem my soul from the power of Sheol; for he shall take me," (Psa. 49:15), where Tholuck well says: "He who took an Enoch and a Moses to himself, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, will also take me to himself;" "Thou shalt guide me by thy counsel, and afterwards take me to glory. Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire besides thee. My flesh and my heart faileth: God is the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever" (Psa. 73:24-26)--words that are inexplicable except as containing the anticipation of a blessed immortality with God in heaven; "The wicked is driven away in his wickedness; but the righteous hath hope in his death" (Prov. 14:32); etc. But there is a class of interpreters who, having adopted the maxim that the Old Testament, at least in its earlier writings, contains no anticipations of a blessed life with God after death, are constrained to give to the passage in question the frigid meaning: I shall be satisfied with thy likeness when I awake to-morrow, as if the psalm were intended to be an evening song or prayer; or, whenever I awake, that is, from natural sleep.

(2.) A sound judgment will also keep the biblical scholar from interpretations that are contrary to the known nature of the subject.

A familiar example is the declaration made by Moses of God's view of man's wickedness: "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." Gen. 6:6. The robust common sense of any plain reader will at once adjust the interpretation of these words to God's known omniscience and immutability; just as he will the prayer of the psalmist: "Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my thoughts; and see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting." Psa. 139:23, 24. The immutable God does nothing which is not in accordance with his eternal counsels. The omniscient God, to whom all truth is ever present, does not literally institute a process of searching that he may know what is in man. But in these and numberless other passages, he condescends to speak according to human modes of thought and action.

When it is said, again, that "the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh;" that "God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem" (Judg. 9:23); that he sent a lying spirit to deceive Ahab through his prophets (1 Kings 22:21-23); that he sent Isaiah with the command: "Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes" (Isa. 6:10); that he made the covenant people to err from his ways, and hardened their heart from his fear (Isa. 63:17), we instinctively interpret these and other like passages in harmony with the fundamental principle announced by the apostle: "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted of evil, neither tempteth he any man. But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed." Jas. 1:13, 14. The Scriptures ascribe every actual event to God in such a sense that it comes into the plan of his universal providence; but they reject with abhorrence the idea that he can excite wicked thoughts in men, or prompt them to wicked deeds.

When it is said, once more, that men are drawn to Christ (John 6:44), or driven to worship the heavenly bodies (Deut. 4:19), we understand at once a drawing and a driving that are in accordance with their free intelligent and responsible nature. Other illustrations of this principle will be given in the following chapter, which treats of the figurative language of Scripture.

(3.) The same quality of good sense will enable the interpreter to make those limitations in the language of the sacred writers which are common in popular discourse. In the language of daily life many statements are made in general terms that require for their exact truthfulness various qualifications which the readers or hearers can readily supply for themselves. Honest men, addressing honest men, are not in the habit of guarding their words against every possible misconstruction. It is enough if they speak so that all who will can understand them.

It is said, for example (Gen. 41:57), that "all countries (literally, all the earth) came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because the famine was sore in all the earth." It would be only trifling to ask whether "all the earth" included the people of Europe and India. The reader naturally understands all the lands around Egypt, since they only could come thither for corn. So when it is said in the account of the deluge that "all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered" (Gen. 7:19), it is straining the sacred writer's words to give them a rigid geographical application, as if they must needs include the mountains about the North pole. "All the high hills under the whole heaven" were those where man dwelt, and which were consequently known to man. "The Holy Ghost," says John, "was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified." John 7:39. Yet David prayed ages before: "Take not thy Holy Spirit from me" (Psa. 51:11); Isaiah says of ancient Israel that "they rebelled and vexed his Holy Spirit" (Isa. 63:10); the Saviour, long before his glorification, promised the Holy Spirit to all that should ask for him (Luke 11:13); and it is a fundamental article of our faith that from Abel to the archangel's trump all holiness is the fruit of the Spirit. But John's readers, who lived after the plenary gift of the Holy Spirit from the day of Pentecost and onward, could not fail to understand him as referring to the gift of the Spirit in that special sense. The apostle Paul says (1 Tim. 2:4) that God "will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." Yet the same apostle teaches that some will remain in ignorance of the truth, and thus perish. 2 Thess. 1: 8, 9; 2:11, 12. The reader's good sense readily reconciles the former with the latter passages. He understands God's will to have all men saved as the will of benevolent desire; just as God says of ancient Israel (Psa. 81:13). "Oh that my people had hearkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my ways!" but because they would not do this, he "gave them up to their own heart's lust, and they walked in their own counsels" (ver. 12). Many like illustrations might be added.

(4.) Hence we readily infer the office of a sound judgment in reconciling apparent contradictions, since these arise mainly from the neglect, in one or both of the passages between which the contradiction is said to exist, of reasonable qualifications and limitations.

A striking illustration of this is found in the two accounts of the creation. Gen. chaps. 1-2:3 and chap. 2:4-25. In the former narrative the order of time is an essential element. Not so in the latter, where man is the central object, and the different parts of creation are mentioned only as the writer has occasion to speak of them in connection with him. Hence we have in this latter passage the creation of the man (ver. 7), the planting of the garden for his use with its trees and rivers (ver. 8-14), the placing of the man in the garden and the law imposed upon him (ver. 15-17), the defective condition of the man (ver. 18), the notice in connection with this of the creation of beasts and fowls and their being brought to the man to receive names (ver. 19, 20), the creation of the woman and the primitive condition of the pair (ver. 21-25). This simple statement of the course of narration sufficiently refutes the allegation that the second account is inconsistent with the first.

In the first account of Paul's conversion it is said that "the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no man." Acts 9:7. In the second Paul says: "They that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me." Acts 22:9. There is no valid ground for doubting that the first narrative, as well as the other two, came from the lips of the apostle himself, and the assumption of any essential contradiction is unreasonable and unnecessary. In regard to the light, it is certain that Paul saw the person of the Saviour, and was made blind by the glory of the vision (Acts 9:17, 27; 22:14; 1 Cor. 9:1), while his companions saw only the light that shone around them, which did not make them blind. In regard to the voice, it is a fair interpretation that they heard a voice only, but no intelligible words. How this difference of perception between Paul and his companions in regard to both the light and the voice was effected we do not know, nor is it necessary that we should. The first account, again, represents Paul's companions as having "stood speechless," while in the third the apostle says: "When we were all fallen to the earth," Acts 26:14. The most natural explanation here is that the third narrative gives the posture with accuracy, while the first lays stress only upon the amazement which fixed them in a motionless attitude. The apparent discrepancies in these three parallel histories are peculiarly instructive, because they all proceed from the pen of the same author, and must all have been derived from the same source. Such circumstantial differences have the stamp of reality. Instead of throwing any discredit upon the transaction, they only establish its truth upon a firmer basis. Many like illustrations might be added.

(5.) Finally, where the means of reconciling discrepancies are not apparent, the same quality of a sound judgment will keep us from the two extremes of seeking, on the one hand, forced and unnatural explanations, and, on the other, of discrediting well-attested transactions on account of these discrepancies. In the scriptural narratives there are some difficulties (relating mostly to numbers, dates, and the chronological order of events) which we find ourselves unable, with our present means of knowledge, to solve in a satisfactory way. It is the part of sober reason to reserve these difficulties for further light, not to set aside, in view of them, facts attested by irrefragable proof.

Nothing in the evangelic record is more certain, for example, than the fact of our Lord's resurrection. Yet to harmonize the four accounts which we have of it in all their details is a work of extreme difficulty. "Supposing us to be acquainted with every thing said and done, in its order and exactness, we should doubtless be able to reconcile, or account for, the present forms of the narratives; but not having this key to the harmonizing of them, attempts to do so in minute particulars carry no certainty with them." Alford on Matt. 28:1-10. The same general principle applies to other difficulties--in the Old Testament, that respecting the duration of the sojourn in Egypt, and other chronological questions; in the New, that of the two genealogies given of our Lord by Matthew and Luke, that of the day when our Lord ate the passover with his disciples, etc. See further in Chaps. 19, Nos. 6 and 8; 20, No. 22; 29, Nos. 8-10.

8. In bringing this chapter to a conclusion, we add a few words on the office of reason in the interpretation of Scripture. It is admitted by all that we have certain primitive intuitions which lie at the foundation of all knowledge. That an immutable obligation, for example, rests on all men to be truthful, just, benevolent, and grateful, is a truth which we see by the direct light of conscience. There are certain moral axioms, also, outside of the direct sphere of conscience, which shine by their own light. Such is that fundamental truth of theology thus announced by the apostle John: "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5); where light and darkness are both taken in a moral sense, as the context shows; and thus by the apostle James: "God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man" (Jas. 1:13); and thus, ages before, by Moses: "He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he" (Deut. 32:4); and still earlier by Abraham: "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Gen. 18:25). We are sure that no declaration of God's word, properly interpreted, will contradict these necessary and universal convictions. But there are many weighty truths that lie wholly above the sphere of our direct intuitions on which the infinite understanding of God is alone competent to pass an infallible judgment. Such are the following: If it be God's will to create a race of intelligent beings, what shall be the compass of their faculties, moral, intellectual, and physical? In what circumstances and relations shall he place them, to what probation shall he subject them, and what scope shall he allow to their finite freedom? If they sin, what plan shall he devise for their redemption, and by what processes shall he reveal and execute this plan? These, and many other questions involving man's highest interests, lie above the sphere of simple intuition. God alone, who looks through eternity at a glance, can fully comprehend them, for they are all constituent parts of his eternal plan. That human reason, which cannot see the whole of truth, should affect to sit in judgment upon them, and to pronounce authoritatively what God may, and what he may not do, is the height of presumption and folly.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XXXV. THE FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE OF SCRIPTURE

1. When the psalmist says: "The Lord God is a sun and shield" (Psa. 84:11), he means that God is to all his creatures the source of life and blessedness, and their almighty protector; but this meaning he conveys under the figure of a sun and a shield. When, again, the apostle James says that Moses is read in the synagogues every Sabbath-day (Acts 15:21), he signifies the writings of Moses under the figure of his name. In these examples the figure lies in particular words. But it may be embodied in a sentence, thus: "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks" (Acts 26:14), where Saul's conduct in persecuting Christ's disciples is represented under the form of an ox kicking against the ploughman's goad only to make the wounds it inflicts deeper. Figurative language, then, is that in which one thing is said under the form or figure of another thing. In the case of allegories and parables, it may take the form, as we shall hereafter see, of continuous discourse.

A large proportion of the words in all languages, in truth all that express intellectual and moral ideas, were originally figurative, the universal law being to represent immaterial by material objects. Examples are the words exist, existence, emotion, affliction, anguish, etc. But in these, and innumerable other words, the primitive physical meaning has become obsolete, and thus the secondary spiritual meaning is to us literal. Or, what often happens, while the original physical signification is retained, a secondary figurative meaning of the word has become so common that its use hardly recalls the physical meaning, and it may therefore be regarded as literal; as in the words hard, harsh, rough, when applied to character. In the first of the above examples: "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks," the transfer of the word hard from what is physically hard to what is painful or difficult, is so common that it can hardly be regarded as figurative. But the expression that follows is figurative in the fullest sense of the word.

Rhetoricians divide figures into two general classes, figures of words, and figures of thought, and they give elaborate definitions, classifications, and rules for their use. The interpreter of Scripture, however, need not encumber himself with any rhetorical system. The general rules of interpretation already considered will be, for the most part, a sufficient guide to the meaning of the rich variety of figures contained in the Bible, especially in its poetical parts. It is only necessary to add a few words in reference to the ascertaining of figurative language; the most prominent classes of figures; and some principles to be observed in their interpretation.

2. The question may arise whether a writer is to be understood literally or figuratively. For the ascertaining of figurative language, a few simple rules will be, in general, sufficient.

(1.) Multitudes of cases can be decided at once by considering the nature of the subject.

Thus, when the apostle calls Jesus Christ a "foundation," and speaks of building upon this foundation "gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble," adding that "every man's work shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is;" and, further, that "if any man's work abide" this fire, "he shall receive a reward," but "if any man's work be burned he shall suffer loss" (1 Cor. 3:11-15), we know at once, from the nature of the subject, that he speaks figuratively. He compares the church of God to a temple, of which Jesus Christ is the foundation, while her teachers and preachers are the builders. The "gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble," represent primarily the materials with which they build; that is, the character of their doctrines and precepts, and secondarily, the character of those whom they bring into the Christian fold. The "fire," again, is the trial and judgment of the last day.

The apostle says of the ancient Israelites that "they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them; and that Rock was Christ." 1 Cor. 10:4. So also Christ is called to believers "a chief corner-stone, elect, precious;" but to unbelievers "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence" (1 Pet. 2:6-8); "the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David" (Rev. 5:5); "the Lamb of God" and simply "the Lamb" (John 1:29, 36; Rev. 5:12; 6:1; etc.); "the door of the sheep" (John 10:7, 9); "the true vine" (John 15:1); and "the living bread which came down from heaven" (John 6:51). He himself says: "Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:54. There is no more ground for understanding the last of these passages literally than the preceding, that is, there is no ground whatever. The dogma of the Romish church, which teaches that the consecrated bread and wine are literally converted into the body and blood of Jesus, violates alike sound reason and every sound principle of interpretation. "As the words, 'This is my body,' and 'This is my blood,' were spoken BEFORE Christ's body was broken upon the cross, and BEFORE his blood was shed, he could not pronounce them with the intention that they should be taken and interpreted literally by his disciples. He could not take his body in his hands, nor offer them his blood in the cup; for it had not yet been shed." Horne, vol. 2, p. 319.

(2.) In ascertaining figurative language, the interpreter will naturally take into account the scope, the context, and the general analogy of scriptural teaching. If the literal sense, though possible in the nature of things, is inept or contrary to the general tenor of Scripture, it must be rejected.

The prophet Isaiah tells us that, under the future reign of the Messiah, the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, the leopard lie down with the kid, the lion eat straw like the ox, and the child play with impunity on the hole of the asp. Isa. 11:6-8. It is possible to conceive of this state of things as effected by a change in the physical nature of all noxious animals. But the writer immediately adds: "They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea" (ver. 9). Since then the change is effected by the universal diffusion of "the knowledge of the Lord," it must be a moral change--a transformation of the character of wicked men figuratively described as wolves, leopards, bears, lions, and vipers. The general analogy of prophetic language, which, as will be hereafter shown, abounds in figurative forms of representation, strengthens this conclusion.

By the prophet Haggai, again, God says: "Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land." Chap. 2:6. The key to the meaning of these words is given in the following verse: "And I will shake all nations, and the Desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of hosts." In such a connection, and with such a result, nothing could be more vapid than to understand this shaking of heaven and earth, sea and land, in a physical sense. It is the mighty overturnings among the nations, social, moral, and political, that are here predicted, as Jehovah says by Ezekiel: "I will overturn, overturn, overturn it, and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is, and I will give it to him." Chap. 21:27. Compare Isa. 13:13; Jer. 4:24; Ezek. 38:20; Joel 3:16. So when God announces that he "will cause the sun to go down at noon, and darken the earth in the clear day" (Amos 8:9), we understand at once that under this figure he forewarns the covenant people of the sudden approach of great calamity. Compare Deut. 28:29; Job 5:14; Isa. 13:10; Jer. 4:23-28; Ezek. 32:7, 8; Joel 2:31; 3:15; etc. This subject will be further discussed under the head of the interpretation of prophecy.

In the sermon on the mount, the Saviour says: "Whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matt. 5:39); but the preceding context gives the scope of this and the other particular precepts that follow, which is that Christ's followers should "resist not evil," that is, by rendering evil for evil. It is the spirit of meekness and forbearance that he inculcates, not a slavish regard to this and that particular form of manifesting it. So when he says: "Give to him that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away" (ver. 42), he cannot mean, consistently with the scope of the passage and his teachings elsewhere, that we should stultify ourselves by literally giving to every asker and borrower, without regard to his necessities, real or alleged. He means rather to inculcate that liberal spirit which never withholds such help as it is able to give from those who need it.

When the Saviour says again: "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee," etc., both the preceding context and the general tenor of the Scriptures teach us that he means what is expressed by the apostle in another form: "Mortify, therefore, your members which are upon the earth." Col. 3:5. To mortify is to deprive of life, make dead. We mortify our members which would seduce us into sin, not by destroying them, but by keeping them in subjection to "the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus."

(3.) If the interpreter is liable to err by taking figurative language in a literal sense, so is he also by regarding as figurative what should be understood literally. A favorite expedient with those who deny the supernatural character of revelation is to explain the miraculous transactions recorded in the Bible as figurative or mythical. When David says that in answer to his prayer "the earth shook and trembled, the foundations also of the hills moved and were shaken, because he was wroth;" that God "bowed the heavens also and came down, and darkness was under his feet;" that "the Lord thundered in the heavens, and the Highest gave his voice, hailstones and coals of fire;" that "he sent out his arrows and scattered them, and he shot out lightnings and discomfited them," all acknowledge that the language is to be figuratively taken. Why then, an objector might ask, not understand the account of the giving of the law on Sinai amid thunderings and lightnings as figurative also? The answer of every plain reader would be--and it is the answer of unsophisticated common sense--that the former passage occurs in a lyric poem, where such figurative descriptions are entirely in place; the latter in a plain narrative, which professes to give throughout historic facts with names and dates; that no reader, who had not a preconceived opinion to maintain, ever did or could think of interpreting the passage in Exodus in any other than a literal way, while every reader understands at once that the poetic description in the eighteenth psalm is to be taken figuratively. The attempt has been made to interpret the gospel history as a myth--the embodiment of a system of pure ideas in the garb of history. It is difficult to refute an assumption which has no foundation to rest upon. This mythical theory may, nevertheless, be disposed of in a very short and simple way. The great central truth of the gospel history is the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. If any one would know how the apostle Paul regarded this, let him read the fifteenth chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians, where he pledges his veracity as a witness on its historic reality (ver. 15). If, now, Paul so regarded it, Luke, his companion in travel and labor, cannot have taken a different view of it, nor any other of the evangelists. But if the death and resurrection of Jesus are recorded as true historic events, the whole mythical theory vanishes at once into thin air.

(4.) In regard to those prophecies which relate to the distant future, it may sometimes be difficult to determine whether we are to look for a literal or a figurative fulfilment of them. But this subject will come up for consideration in another place.

3. In regard to the different kinds of figures a few words may be in place.

(1.) The term trope (Greek, tropos, a turn) is applied, in a general sense, to figures of words and speech of every variety; but, in stricter usage, to a word or sentence turned from its literal signification to a figurative sense. Quintilian adds (Inst. Orator. 8. 6. 1) that this must be with good effect (cum virtute); that is, it must add clearness, force, or beauty to the thought.

The principal varieties of the trope are the metonymy and the metaphor. The metonymy is founded on the relation of one thing to another. Thus when Abraham says to the rich man: "They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them" (Luke 16:29), Moses and the prophets are put for their writings; that is, the authors for their works. "A soft tongue," says the wise man, "breaketh the bone." Prov. 25:15. Here the word tongue is put for speech, the instrument for the thing effected, and this metonymy is joined with a metaphor. (See below.) The synecdoche, in which a part is put for the whole, as the sword for war, is in its nature essentially a metonymy. Rhetoricians give elaborate classifications of metonymies, but they are of little value to the scriptural student, since all are interpreted according to the few simple principles given in the preceding chapter.

The metaphor is founded on the resemblance of one thing to another; as in the examples already given: "The Lord God is a sun and shield" (Psa. 84:11); "I am the true vine and my Father is the husbandman." John 15:1. It may lie not in a single word, but in an entire expression, thus: "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks" (Acts 26:14); "I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eye-salve, that thou mayest see." Rev. 3:18. The metaphor and metonymy may be joined, as in the words already quoted: "A soft tongue breaketh the bone;" or they may blend themselves with each other, as when Nahum says of the princes of Nineveh: "The sword shall devour thy young lions." Chap. 2:13. In this last example, as often elsewhere, personification, which is properly a figure of thought, is added, the sword being represented as a beast of prey. The grand and gorgeous personifications of Scripture naturally clothe themselves in tropical language of inimitable beauty and exhaustless variety. "O thou sword of the Lord," says Jeremiah, "how long will it be ere thou be quiet? put up thyself into thy scabbard, rest, and be still. How can it be quiet, seeing the Lord hath given it a charge against Ashkelon, and against the sea-shore? There hath he appointed it." Chap. 47:6, 7. The prophet Habakkuk represents God as coming forth in his glory for the salvation of his people: "The mountains saw thee," says he, "and they trembled: the overflowing of the water passed by: the deep uttered his voice, and lifted up his hands on high: the sun and moon stood still in their habitation." Chap. 3:10, 11. God's promise to his redeemed is: "Ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands." Isa. 55:12. Metonymies, metaphors, and sometimes personifications--the books of the New Testament sparkle with these figures, and they are used always for effect, not empty show. They are like the flaming bolts of heaven, which rend and burn as well as shine. "Beware of false prophets," says the Saviour, "which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits: do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles?" Matt. 7:15, 16. How effectually does he by these metaphors strip off the mask from false teachers! "If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?" 1 Cor. 12:15, 16. Here is personification without a trope. "O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?" (1 Cor. 15:55), here is a majestic personification in metaphorical form.

As resemblance lies at the foundation of the metaphor, it may be called an abbreviated form of comparison, the thing with which the comparison is made being directly predicated of that which is compared. Thus, when we say: A sluggard is vinegar to the teeth and smoke to the eyes of those who send him, we have a metaphor, the sluggard being directly called vinegar and smoke. But if we say: "As vinegar to the teeth, and as smoke to the eyes, so is the sluggard to them that send him" (Prov. 10:26), we have a comparison, and the language ceases to be tropical. The metaphor is thus a more vivid form of expression than the comparison.

A common mode of comparison in the book of Proverbs is simply to put together the object compared and the thing or things with which it is compared, thus: "A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool's back" (chap. 26:3); that is, As a whip is appropriate for, the horse, and a bridle for the ass, so is a rod for the fool's back. Again, "Where there is no wood the fire goeth out, and where there is no tale-bearer the strife ceaseth" (Prov. 26:20); "Charcoal to live coals, and wood to fire; and a man of strife to kindle strife" (Prov. 26: 21); "Silver dross spread over an earthen sherd--burning lips [lips glowing with professions of love] and a wicked heart" (Prov. 26: 23); in all which cases our version has supplied particles of comparison.

(2.) An allegory is the narrative of a spiritual transaction under the figure of something lower and earthly, the lower transaction representing directly the higher. We have in the eightieth Psalm an exquisite example of the allegory: "Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt: thou hast cast out the heathen and planted it. Thou preparedst room before it, and didst cause it to take deep root, and it filled the land. The hills were covered with the shadow of it," etc. (ver. 8-16); where the transfer of the Israelitish people from Egypt to the land of Canaan, with their subsequent history, is described under the figure of a vine.

The metaphor and allegory have this in common, that the foundation of both is resemblance, and in both the lower object is put directly for the higher. Yet the metaphor cannot be properly called a condensed allegory, nor the allegory an extended metaphor; for it is essential to the allegory that it have the form of a narrative, and that it contain real history--in the case of prophecy it may be future history--under a figure. Hence it admits of indefinite extension, as in the "Pilgrim's Progress;" and we may add the Canticles, which the Christian church from the earliest times has regarded as an allegory of which the subject is, in Old Testament language, God and his covenant people, but, according to the representation of the New Testament, Christ and his church.

We must carefully distinguish between true allegory and the allegorical or mystical application of real history. In the former case it is not the literal meaning, but the higher sense represented by it, which constitutes the historic truth. God, for example, never transferred a vine from Egypt to Palestine, but he did the covenant people. The story of Sarai and Hagar, on the contrary (Gen., chap. 16), is true history. The apostle Paul makes an allegorical application of it to the two covenants, that on Sinai and that in Christ, which is very beautiful and appropriate; yet the story itself is not allegory, but plain history. See further, in Chap. 37, No. 4.

(3.) A parable is the narrative of a supposed event for the purpose of illustrating a spiritual truth or principle. The office of the narrative is to embody the principle. It should, therefore, be natural and probable; but its literal truth is of no consequence. In our Lord's parable of the unjust steward, for example (Luke 16:1-9), the incidents of the narrative may or may not have been historically true; but either way the great principle which it illustrates (ver. 10) remains the same.

Allegories and parables pass into each other by insensible degrees. Some of our Lord's so-called parables are rather allegories; as that of the vineyard let out to husbandmen (Matt. 21:33-41), which is founded on the beautiful allegory of Isaiah (chap. 5:1-7); so also that of the good shepherd (John 10:1-18). In their pure form, however, the allegory and the parable are easily distinguished from each other. In the allegory, the figure represents directly the higher transaction. Hence the incidents introduced in the figure--at least all the main incidents--must have something corresponding to them in the spiritual transaction which the figure represents. The case of the parable is different. Here the spiritual truth is not directly described in terms of the figure, but simply illustrated from it. The incidents and characters of the story are separable from the general principle which it inculcates, and are sometimes formally separated by the speaker himself; as when our Lord says: "The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field," etc. Matt. 13:24. For this reason they may belong more or less to the mere drapery of the parable, so that to press them in its interpretation would lead to error instead of truth. See further below, No. 7.

(4.) The fable is related to the parable, but it differs from it in two respects. First, it moves in a worldly sphere, having to do with prudential maxims rather than spiritual truth. Secondly, it allows, in harmony with this its lower nature, irrational objects as speakers and actors, which would be contrary to the dignity of the parable. Our Lord never employed fables as vehicles of instruction. There are two examples of them in the Old Testament; neither of them, however, coming from the lips of prophetical men. The first is that of Jotham: "The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive-tree, Reign thou over us," etc. Judg. 9:8-15. The second is that of Jehoash: "The thistle that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon, saying, Give thy daughter to my son to wife: and there passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon, and trode down the thistle." 2 Kings 14:9.

(5.) A symbol is a material object, a transaction in the material world, or sometimes a number, to represent some higher spiritual truth. Ritual symbols, like the ark of the covenant, the high-priest's dress, the sacrifices, and, in general, the whole tabernacle and temple service, will be considered hereafter under the head of types. We speak of symbols now, only so far as they belong to the human side of interpretation. We have a beautiful example of a symbolic transaction in the seventeenth chapter of the book of Numbers, where the princes of Israel, by God's direction, take twelve rods, write each man his name upon his rod, and lay them up in the tabernacle before the Lord, whereupon Aaron's rod "budded, and brought forth buds, and blossomed blossoms, and yielded almonds;" a symbol that God would make the priesthood to flourish in his family.

Scriptural symbols exhibit a wonderful variety. Sometimes they are seen in dreams, as in Jacob's dream of a ladder reaching to heaven (Gen. 28:12-15); Pharaoh's two dreams of the fat and lean kine, and the good and thin ears (Gen. 41:1-7); or in prophetic vision, like Jeremiah's vision of a seething pot with the face towards the north (Jer. 1:13); Ezekiel's vision of the cherubim (chap. 1); and Amos' vision of a basket of summer fruit (chap. 8:2). At other times they are actual transactions. So the false prophet Zedekiah "made him horns of iron: and he said, Thus saith the Lord, with these shalt thou push the Syrians till thou have consumed them" (1 Kings 22:11); the true prophet Jeremiah wore a yoke upon his neck as a sign that God would subject the nations to Nebuchadnezzar's power, and the false prophet Hananiah broke it, that he might thus signify the deliverance of the people from Nebuchadnezzar's rule. Jer. 27:1-8, compared with 28:10, 11.

(6.) A proverb is a short maxim relating to practical life. It may be expressed literally or figuratively, but in either case it must contain a general truth. "A scorner loveth not one that reproveth him; neither will he go unto the wise" (Prov. 15:12), is a proverb expressed in plain language. "The name of the Lord is a strong tower: the righteous runneth into it, and is safe" (Prov. 18:10), is a proverb under a beautiful figure. The foolish young men counselled Rehoboam to say to the Israelites: "My little finger shall be thicker than my father's loins." 1 Kings 12:10. This is not a proverb, because it contains only the figurative statement of a particular fact. But if we change the form, and say: The little finger of a foolish ruler is thicker than the loins of a wise king, we make it general, and thus it becomes a proverb.

The Hebrew word for a proverb (mashal) denotes a similitude, this being one of its most common forms. Examples occur in abundance in the book of Proverbs. We have them in the form of direct comparison: "As in water face answereth to face, so the heart of man to man" (chap. 27:19); "A continual dropping in a very rainy day and a contentious woman are alike" (chap. 27:15); "Better is a dinner of herbs where love is, than a stalled ox and hatred therewith" (chap. 15:17). We have them also in the form of metaphor: "The contentions of a wife are a continual dropping" (chap. 19:13); "The lips of knowledge are a precious jewel" (chap. 20:15). But most frequently the comparison appears in the form of contrast, thus: "A wise son heareth his father's instruction; but a scorner heareth not rebuke" (chap. 13:1); "A faithful witness will not lie; but a false witness will utter lies" (chap. 14:5). The signification of the word proverb is then extended to short sententious maxims of every form, even where comparison is excluded, thus: "A wicked man taketh a gift out of the bosom to pervert the ways of judgment" (chap. 17:23).

(7.) The word myth (Greek muthos) was applied by the Greeks to a legend or story of early times, then to a fable, like those of Æsop. In modern usage it is defined to be a story in which "there is an unconscious blending of the deeper meaning with the outward symbol, the two being separate and separable in the parable." "The mythic narrative presents itself not merely as the vehicle of the truth, but as itself being the truth; while in the parable there is a perfect consciousness in all minds of the distinctness between form and essence, shell and kernel, the precious vessel and yet more precious wine that it contains." Trench, Notes on the Parables, chap. 1. A good illustration of this we have in the tales of Grecian mythology, once received by the masses of the people as literally true; but which "a later and more reflective age than that in which the mythus had birth" learned to regard as only the vehicle of certain ideas respecting deity. The myth, as thus defined, does not come within the sphere of biblical interpretation. The historic events recorded in the Old Testament may, and often do, shadow forth something higher. In that case they are not myths, but typical history. Chap. 37, No. 4. All the scriptural narratives, on the contrary, which are true, not in their literal meaning, but in a higher sense, come under the head of allegories, parables, or symbolic representations.

4. In the interpretation of figurative language we must be guided, in general, by the principles considered in the preceding chapter. To lay down special rules for the interpretation of the rich and endlessly varied figures which adorn the pages of Holy Writ would be as impracticable as useless. The history of Biblical exegesis, however, shows that some general cautions are much needed.

5. The youthful student of Scripture should be reminded, first of all, that its figurative language is no less certain and truthful than its plain and literal declarations. The figures of the Bible are employed not simply to please the imagination and excite the feelings, but to teach eternal verities. The Lord Jesus, "the faithful and true Witness," said: "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away." Mark 13:31. Yet there is a class of interpreters who seem to think that if they can show in any given case that his language is figurative, its meaning is well nigh divested of all certainty and reality. Thrice in immediate succession did he solemnly warn his hearers to cut off an offending hand or foot, and to pluck out an offending eye, rather than be cast with the whole body into hell, "into the fire that never shall be quenched: where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." Mark 9:43-48. But, says one of this class of expositors, the maiming of the body is figurative language, and so is the representation of the worm that never dies. Undoubtedly the maiming of the body is so; and how far the unquenchable fire may also be a figure for the dread reality that awaits the incorrigibly impenitent in the world to come we pretend not to know. But in the lips of Jesus figures teach truth, not fiction. The unhappy sinner who despises the grace of the gospel will find the reality not less terrible than the figures by which Christ has represented it. The story of the rich man and Lazarus is a parable; but we cannot on this ground set aside the solemn lessons which it inculcates. What these lessons are, it requires only candor and faith to receive. They teach us that God's suffering children go immediately, upon death, to a state of conscious blessedness; and "the men of the world, which have their portion in this life," to a place of unmitigated suffering. Whatever be the comprehension of the word Hades (rendered in our version by the word hell), there is an impassable gulf between Lazarus in Abraham's bosom and the rich man in torment. The "great gulf fixed" may be a figure; but it represents an awful reality; and that reality is, that there is no transition from the one state to the other.

6. In the allegory the higher spiritual transaction is, as we have seen, directly represented by the lower. When we know, therefore, what the allegory represents, we have the key to its interpretation, and all its incidents fall naturally into place. If the sphere of the allegory be the outward history of God's people, all its incidents--at least all its main incidents--ought to have a significance. If its sphere be that of inward spiritual experience, as in the Song of Solomon, more latitude must be allowed for the drapery of the story; yet here also the essential parts will each correspond to something in the higher object represented.

An example of pure historic allegory is that of the vine transplanted from Egypt (Psa. 80), where the higher object, which gives the key to the meaning, is God's covenant people. The casting out of the heathen (ver. 8), is literally expressed, but in the verses following, the figure is beautifully carried out. This vine takes deep root and fills the land; the hills are covered with its shadow, and its boughs are like the goodly cedar; it sends out its boughs to the sea, and its branches to the river (ver. 9-11). Here we have one main incident, the increase of the people in the land of Canaan. Then God breaks down its hedges, so that every passer-by plucks it; the boar out of the wood wastes it, and the wild beast of the field devours it (ver. 12, 13). This is another main incident, the withdrawal of God's protection from his people, and their oppression by their heathen neighbors. The prayer that follows in behalf of this vine (ver. 14-16) represents the love which God's people bear to his church. All these parts of the allegory have their proper significance. The rest of the imagery--the hills overshadowed by it, the boughs like the goodly cedar, the wild boar wasting it, etc.--is but the drapery of the allegory; and an attempt to find a spiritual meaning for each of these particulars--the boar out of the wood, for example, and the beast of the field--would but mar its beauty and force.

We give from Ezekiel (chap. 17:3-10) another example of historic allegory, in which the essential parts can be readily distinguished from the luxuriant imagery of the prophet: "A great eagle with great wings, long-winged, full of feathers, which had divers colors [Nebuchadnezzar], came unto Lebanon, and took the highest branch of the cedar [Jehoiachin, whom Nebuchadnezzar dethroned and carried to Babylon. The cedar of Lebanon represents the royal family, and Jehoiachin, as the reigning monarch, its highest branch]: he cropped off the top of his young twigs [the same as: he took the highest branch of the cedar], and carried it into a land of traffic [Chaldea]; he set it in a city of merchants [Babylon]. He took also of the seed of the land [the king's seed, meaning Zedekiah, whom Nebuchadnezzar made king in the place of Jehoiachin], and planted it in a fruitful field; he placed it by great waters, and set it as a willow-tree [established Zedekiah on the throne, and gave him the means of prosperity as his vassal]. And it grew, and became a spreading vine of low stature [not a lofty cedar, but a low vine; that is, a tributary king], whose branches turned towards him [towards Nebuchadnezzar, as dependent upon him], and the roots thereof were under him [under Nebuchadnezzar, as subject to his power]: so it became a vine, and brought forth branches, and shot forth twigs. There was also another great eagle with great wings and many feathers [Pharaoh, king of Egypt]: and behold this vine did bend her roots towards him [Zedekiah turned away his confidence from Nebuchadnezzar to Pharaoh], and shot forth her branches towards him, that he might water it by the furrows of her plantation. It was planted [had been planted by Nebuchadnezzar] in a good soil by great waters, that it might bring forth branches, and that it might bear fruit, that it might be a goodly vine [fidelity to Nebuchadnezzar would have made Zedekiah prosperous]. Say thou, Thus saith the Lord God: Shall it prosper? [now that it bends towards the second eagle] shall he [Nebuchadnezzar] not pull up the roots thereof, that it wither? It shall wither in all the leaves of her spring, even without great power or many people to pluck it up by the roots thereof [the work of plucking it up will be easy, not requiring a numerous force]. Yea, behold, being planted shall it prosper? shall it not utterly wither when the east wind toucheth it? [a new figure to represent its destruction] it shall wither in the furrows where it grew."

There is a class of allegories in the Old Testament which represent the relation of God to his people under the figure of husband and wife. Such are the Song of Solomon, and the two remarkable allegories in Ezekiel (chapters 16 and 23). The luxuriant fulness of imagery in these allegories does not admit of interpretation in detail. The general scope only of the images is to be taken into account, since this contains the essential idea.

In the free style of the scriptural writers the allegory admits of the introduction of literal clauses ("Thou hast cast out the heathen, and planted it," Psa. 80:8), and also of explanatory clauses, though not so readily as the parable. See examples in Isa. 5:7; John 10:9, 11, 14.

7. The scriptural parables have a rich variety of form, sometimes approaching to that of the allegory, when the interpretation must be upon the same general principle. In its pure form, however, the parable does not, like the allegory, represent directly the higher spiritual truth, but is simply a narrative to illustrate it. It may be introduced in the absolute form, like the parable of the barren fig-tree (Luke 13:6-9); or, more commonly, in the shape of a similitude, thus: "The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field" (Matt. 13:24); "Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it?" Mark 4:30. It may be left without explanation, but more commonly an explanatory remark is added. So to the parable of the two sons whom the father asked to work in his vineyard is added the application: "Verily I say unto you, that the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you" (Matt. 21:28-31); and the parable of the Pharisee and publican is both introduced and followed by an explanatory clause (Luke 18:9-14). All such clauses are of the highest importance for the interpretation of the parables to which they are annexed. In the interpretation of a parable, the first and most important thing is to ascertain the spiritual truth which it is intended to inculcate. How far a spiritual significance is to be sought for the particular incidents of parables is a question to be determined separately for each, according to its nature.

In the parable of the sower, which our Lord himself interpreted (Matt. 13:3-8, 19-23), all the parts are essential, since the four different kinds of soil represent four different classes of hearers. So in the parable of the tares in the field (Matt. 13:24-30, 37-43), the good seed sown by the owner of the field, the tares sown by his enemy, the separation, at the time of harvest, of the tares from the wheat, the burning of the tares, and the gathering of the wheat into the barn, are all main incidents in its spiritual application. Not so in the parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13), of which our Lord himself has given the scope, and, so far as we can see the only scope: "Watch, therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh." If we go farther, and inquire what is the spiritual meaning of the lamps and oil-vessels, of the equal division of the virgins into five wise and five foolish, of the request of the foolish virgins that the wise would give them oil, and the answer of the wise virgins, we run into useless speculations. All these particulars belong to the drapery of the parable, and are intended to make the story natural and probable.

In the pure form of the parable, the personages introduced to illustrate God's ways of providence and grace do not, as in the allegory, directly represent God himself. It is not necessary, therefore, that there be in all cases a correspondence between their character and that of the holy God. It is sufficient if the words and deeds ascribed to them truly illustrate the spiritual principle in question. In the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matt. 18:23-35), his lord "commanded him to be sold, and his wife and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made" (ver. 25); and afterwards he "was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him" (ver. 34). We need not trouble ourselves about the reasonableness of these acts on the part of an earthly lord. It is sufficient for the end of the parable that they were in accordance with the usages of the age, and thus illustrated the great truth which the parable was intended to enforce: "So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses" (ver. 35). We have still more forcible illustrations of this principle in such parables as those of the importunate friend (Luke 11:5-8), the unjust judge (Luke 18:1-8), and the unfaithful steward (Luke 16:1-9). The Saviour does not compare God to an indolent friend, who will not arise to accommodate his neighbor with bread till he is forced to do so by his importunity; nor to an unjust judge, who fears not God nor regards men. But he draws illustrations from their conduct of the efficacy of importunate prayer; adding, at the conclusion of each parable, its scope: "And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you" (Luke 11:9); "And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?" Luke 18:7. In the parable of the unfaithful steward, our Lord introduces a fraudulent transaction--a transaction so manifestly fraudulent that there is no danger of our thinking that it could have his approbation--that he may thus illustrate the importance of prudent provision for the future. By allowing each of his lord's debtors to diminish the amount due from him, he gains their favor, that in time of need he may be received into their houses. For the right apprehension of the parable, the words of the eighth verse are of primary importance: "And the lord [the master of the steward] commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely" [prudently, as the Greek word means]. Unjust as the steward's conduct was, he could not but commend it as a prudent transaction for the end which he had in view. Our Saviour adds: "For the children of this world are in their generation [more exactly, towards or in respect to their own generation; that is, in dealing with men of their own sort] wiser than the children of light." The steward and his lord's debtors were all "children of this world," and the transaction between them was conducted upon worldly principles. Our Saviour would have "the children of light"--God's holy children, who live and act in the sphere of heavenly light--provident of their everlasting welfare in the use which they make of this world's goods, as this steward was of his earthly welfare when he should be put out of his stewardship. He accordingly adds, as the scope of the parable (ver. 9): "Make to yourselves friends of [by the right use of] the mammon of unrighteousness [so called as being with unrighteous men the great object of pursuit, and too commonly sought, moreover, by unrighteous means]; that when ye fail [are discharged from your stewardship by death], they may receive you [that is, the friends whom ye have made by bestowing your earthly riches in deeds of love and mercy] into everlasting habitations." Our Lord uses the words, "they may receive you," in allusion to the steward's language: "they may receive me into their houses." They do not receive us by any right or authority of their own, for this belongs to Christ alone; but they receive us in the sense that they bear witness before the throne of Christ to our deeds of love and mercy, by which is manifested the reality of our faith, and thus our title, through grace, to everlasting habitations. Compare the remarkable passage in Matt. 25:34-46, which furnishes a true key to the present parable.

8. To determine whether a symbol is a real transaction or seen only in vision, we must consider both its nature and the context. When Ezekiel, at God's command, visits the temple-court, digs in its wall, and sees the abominations practised there (chap. 8), we know from his own words (ver. 3) that the whole transaction was "in the visions of God." So also the remarkable vision of dry bones. Chap. 37:1-14. But the symbolical action that follows--the joining of two sticks into one--seems to be represented as real; for the people ask concerning it: "Wilt thou not tell us what thou meanest by these?" (ver. 18), and the two sticks are in the prophet's hand "before their eyes" (ver. 20). The nature of the symbolical transaction recorded in Jer. 32:6-12--the purchase of Hanameel's field--with the accompanying historical circumstances, shows that it was real. From the nature of the vision of the chariot of God, on the contrary, which Ezekiel saw (chap. 1:10), as well as from the accompanying notices (chaps. 1:1; 8:1-4), we know that it was represented to the prophet's inner sense, not seen with his outward eyes. The moral character of the transactions recorded by Hosea (chaps. 1-3) has led commentators to decide against their literal occurrence.

In some cases we must remain in doubt whether the symbolical transactions are real or seen in vision. How are we to understand, for example, the transactions recorded in Isa. chap. 20; in Jer. chap. 13:1-11; in Ezek. chap. 4? Concerning such examples expositors will judge differently; but in either way of understanding them, their meaning and the instructions which they furnish are the same.

The subject of symbols will come up again in connection with that of prophecy. At present we consider simply the general principles upon which they are to be interpreted. Here we are to be guided first of all by the writer's own explanations. Where these are wanting we must carefully study the nature of the figures used, and the connections in which they occur.

The sacred writers very commonly indicate the meaning of the symbols which they employ. Thus the prophet Isaiah is directed to loose the sackcloth from his loins, and put off his shoe from his foot, walking naked and barefoot. Chap. 20:2. Then follows the explanation of this symbolical transaction: "Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and Ethiopia; so shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot," etc. (ver. 3, 4). For other examples see the symbol of the girdle (Jer. 13:1-7 compared with ver. 8-11); of the purchase of Hanameel's field (Jer. 32:6-12 compared with ver. 13-15); of the removal of household stuff (Ezek. 12:3-7 compared with ver. 8-12); of the plumb-line (Amos 7:7, 8); of the four horns and four smiths (Zech. 1:18-21); and many other symbolical transactions which will readily occur to the student of Scripture.

But sometimes the symbol is given without an explanation, or with only an obscure intimation of its meaning. The prophet Amos has a vision of grasshoppers, and afterwards of a devouring fire, with only a general intimation that they denote heavy calamities, which the Lord in his pity will avert in answer to prayer. Amos 7:1-6. Here the nature of the symbols, in connection with the known situation of the Israelitish people, shows that they represent the general desolation of the land by foreign enemies. The prophet Ezekiel adds no interpretation to his vision of the Lord enthroned in glory upon the firmament above the chariot with four cherubim and four living wheels full of eyes, in the midst of which a bright fire glows and lightnings blaze. Chaps. 1, 10. From a careful study of the nature of this magnificent imagery we may infer with probability that the cherubim with their wheels, moving every way with the rapidity of a flash of lightning, denote all the agencies and instrumentalities by which God administers his government over the world, which are absolutely at his command, and execute with unerring certainty all his high purposes. The four faces of the cherubim, moreover, which answer to the four principal divisions of living beings among the Hebrews, seem to represent the fulness of their endowments. The meaning of Ezekiel's vision of a New Jerusalem, with its temple and altar, comes more properly under the head of prophecy. Some of the symbols in the book of Zechariah are expounded with beautiful clearness, as that of the two olive-trees. Chap. 4:1-10. Of others the meaning is only hinted at in an enigmatical way; so that their interpretation is a matter of great difficulty and uncertainty. As examples we may refer to the symbol of the ephah (chap. 5:5-11); of the four chariots coming out from between two mountains of brass with horses of different colors (chap. 6:1-9); of the two staves, Beauty and Bands, with which the prophet in vision is commanded to feed "the flock of the slaughter," and which he is afterwards to break (chap. 11:4-14). For the details in the interpretation of these and other difficult symbols the reader must be referred to the commentaries. Our limits will only allow us to indicate the general principles upon which the expositor must proceed.

9. There is a class of scriptural symbols which may be called numerical. Thus seven is the well-known symbol of completeness, four of universality, twelve of God's people. See Chap. 32, No. 5. Under this head fall also those passages in which a day is put for a year, or for an indefinitely long period of time. One of the most certain examples is Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks that were to precede the death of the Messiah (chap. 9:24-27), for the details of which the reader is referred to the commentators. Upon the same principle we must, in all probability, interpret the "time and times and dividing of time," that is, three and a half years (Dan. 7:25); the "forty and two months" (Rev. 11:2; 13:5); and the "thousand two hundred and threescore days" (Rev. 11:3; 12:6). Compare Ezekiel 4:4-8, in which symbolical transaction a day is expressly put as the symbol of a year. On the symbolical interpretation of the six days of creation, see in Chap. 19, No. 6.

SECOND DIVISION.

INTERPRETATION VIEWED ON THE DIVINE SIDE

* * * * *

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XXXVI. THE UNITY OF REVELATION

1. "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world;" and therefore they constitute together a self-consistent whole. To receive the Holy Scriptures as containing a revelation from God is to acknowledge that they possess an essential and all-pervading unity. Whoever speaks timidly and hesitatingly of the essential harmony between the Old Testament and the New, either refuses to acknowledge both as given by inspiration of God, or he apprehends this great fundamental truth only in a confused and imperfect manner. If God spake by Moses and the prophets, as well as by Christ and his apostles, it is vain to allege any contradiction in doctrine or spirit between the former and the latter. So absolutely certain is it that the Saviour and his apostles built on the foundation of the Old Testament, that to deny its divine authority is to deny that of the New Testament also.

2. But the unity of revelation, like that which pervades all the other works of God, is a unity in the midst of diversity--diversity in its contemporaneous parts, but especially in its progress. Illustrations without number are at hand. The history of a plant of wheat, from the time when the kernel is sown in the earth to the harvest, has perfect unity of plan. But how unlike in outward form are the tender blade, the green stalk, and the ripened ear! The year constitutes a self-consistent whole. But can any thing be more dissimilar in form than spring and autumn? Yet no one thinks of finding a want of harmony between the fragrant blossoms of the former, and the ripened fruit of the latter. The path to the harvest lies through the blossoms. Geologists dwell at great length on the varied conditions through which our planet has passed, and the wonderfully diversified forms of vegetable and animal life corresponding to these several conditions. Yet in this endless diversity of outward form they recognize from first to last a deep underlying unity of plan. We might, then, reasonably infer beforehand that if God should make a revelation of himself to men, it would have not only unity but diversity of outward form, especially diversity of progress. The fact that the revelation contained in the Bible has such diversity is one of the seals of its genuineness.

3. We may consider this unity in diversity in respect to the form of God's kingdom. From Adam to Abraham God administered the affairs of the human family as a whole, without any visible organization of a church as distinct from the world at large. From Abraham to Moses his church--using the term church in a general sense--existed in a patriarchal form. With the beginning of the Mosaic dispensation he put it into the form of a state, of which he was the supreme head and lawgiver, while its earthly rulers exercised under him all the functions of civil offices, the bearing of the sword included. When Christ came, he separated the church from the state, and gave it its present spiritual and universal organization. In all this diversity of outward form we recognize the progress of one grand self-consistent plan.

4. We may now go back again to the beginning, and consider the diversity in the forms of public worship--the simple offering of Abel, who "brought of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof," the altars of the patriarchs, the gorgeous ceremonial of the Mosaic economy with its priesthood and sacrifices, "the service of song in the house of the Lord" added by David, the synagogue service of later times, and, finally, the spiritual priesthood of believers under the New Testament, whose office is "to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 2:5); and show that through all this variety of outward form the essence of God's service has ever remained unchanged, so that the example of primitive believers is a model for our imitation. Heb. chap. 11.

5. We may show, again, that the same manifoldness belongs to the forms of labor devolved on God's servants in different ages. The work assigned to Noah was not that of Abraham; nor was Abraham's work that of Moses; nor the work of Moses that of David; nor David's work that of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel; nor did any one of the Old Testament believers receive the broad commission: "Go ye into all the world; and preach the gospel to every creature." They could not receive such a commission, for the way was not yet prepared. Abraham must sojourn in the land of promise "as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob" (Heb. 11:9); Moses must lead Israel out of Egypt, and be God's mediator for the law given on Sinai; Joshua must take possession of the land of promise and David maintain it, sword in hand; the prophets must foretell the future glories of Christ's kingdom, not preach it, as did the apostles, to all nations. But in the divine plan this manifoldness of service constitutes a self-consistent and harmonious whole.

6. The same unity in diversity belongs to the spirit of revelation. Failing to apprehend the character of God in its entireness, Marcion rent the seamless garment of divine perfection into two parts, the one consisting of justice, which he assigned to the "Demiurge" of the Old Testament, the other of goodness, as the attribute of the supreme God of the New Testament. He did not see that God's character is alike infinite on both sides; that his justice is a justice of infinite goodness, and his goodness a goodness of infinite justice. Hence he arrayed in opposition to each other two caricatures of deity, the one drawn from the Old Testament, the other from the New; an error in which he has had too many imitators in modern times. To see the harmony of the spirit that pervades the Holy Scriptures from beginning to end in respect to the Divine character, we should take a comprehensive instead of a partial view of their representations. It is true that the Old Testament describes God as infinite in holiness and inflexibly just. But it also describes him as "the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin." It is true that God's covenant under the Old Testament was restricted to a single nation; but this was, as has been heretofore shown, preparatory to a universal dispensation of mercy, as when a general seizes one strong position with a view to the conquest of an entire region. Chap. 18. It is true, on the other hand, that the New Testament is, in a peculiar sense, a revelation of God's mercy through Jesus Christ. But it is a discriminating mercy, through which God's awful holiness and justice shine with dazzling brightness. It is a mercy shown not at the expense of justice, but in perfect harmony with it; a mercy sternly restricted, moreover, to those who comply with the conditions on which it is offered. The gospel is a plan of salvation, not of condemnation; "for God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved." John 3:17. Yet it brings condemnation to those who reject it; for the Saviour immediately adds (ver. 18): "He that believeth on him, is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." It is in the New Testament, not in the Old, that we find the most awful declarations of God's wrath against the finally impenitent, some of them proceeding, too, from the lips of the compassionate Saviour: "The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven, with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power" (2 Thess. 1:7, 9); "He that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:36); "These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal" (Matt. 25:46).

7. The same harmony of spirit pervades both Testaments in respect to the way of salvation. On this momentous question the teachings of the New Testament are fuller than those of the Old, but never in contradiction with them. The Old Testament teaches that men are saved, not from the merit of their good works, but from God's mercy: the New Testament adds a glorious revelation respecting the ground of this mercy in Jesus Christ. To exhibit in a clear light the reality of this harmony, let us take a passage of the New Testament which embodies in itself the substance of the way of salvation, and compare with it the declarations of the Old Testament. The following will be appropriate: "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." Titus 3:5.

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. "The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: but because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt" (Deut. 7:7, 8); "For thy name's sake, O Lord, pardon mine iniquity, for it is great" (Psa. 25:11); "Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy loving-kindness; according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions" (Psa. 51:1); "I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for my holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen whither ye went" (Ezek. 36:22); "We do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousness, but for thy great mercies" (Dan. 9:18).

By the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost. "Behold thou desirest truth in the inward parts; and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom. Purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow." "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy Holy Spirit from me" (Psa. 51:6, 7, 10, 11); "I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people" (Jer. 31:33); "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them" (Ezek. 36:25-27).

8. The stern character of the Mosaic dispensation is freely admitted. As a preparatory dispensation, severity belonged appropriately to it. "The law," says Paul, "was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." Gal. 3:24. Its office was to educate the human conscience to such a point that it should be prepared for the full revelation of God's mercy in Christ. We may concede the prominence of God's justice in the Old Testament, and his mercy in the New; but we must never forget that neither part of divine revelation is complete in itself. It is only when we view them in their connection with each other, as parts of one great whole, that we discern in them an all-pervading unity and harmony of spirit.

From the unity of revelation some inferences may be drawn of a very practical character, especially in reference to the interpretation of the Old Testament.

9. Each particular communication from God to man must be, in its place and measure, perfect. For it proceeded from the infinite mind of God, who understood at the beginning the whole plan of redemption, and who, when he made the first revelation concerning it, knew all that was afterwards to follow, and said and did, in the most perfect way, what was proper to be said and done at the time. The revelations of the Holy Spirit, therefore, admit of a stupendous development, but no rectification or improvement. The very earliest of them contain the germs of all that is to follow without any admixture of falsehood. There is a holding back of the full light reserved for future ages, but no mist of error--nothing which, fairly interpreted, will ever need to be retracted. For this reason the very earliest of God's communications to men retain for us, who live in these latter days, their pristine freshness and power. Take, for example, the great primitive prophecy: "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Gen. 3:15. We can find no words more pertinent to describe the mighty conflict now going on between the kingdom of God and that of Satan. What are they but a condensation into one sentence of the history of redemption--a flash of light from the third heavens, which discloses at a glance man's destiny from Eden to the trump of the archangel? And so is it also with the later prophecies concerning Christ and his kingdom. What is true of the revelations of the Old Testament holds good of all its institutions. In their place, and with reference to the end which they proposed to accomplish, they were all perfect; were the best that could be given under existing circumstances. At the foundation of all our reasonings concerning the appointments of the Old Testament must lie the axiom: "As for God his way is perfect."

10. The later revelations must he taken as the true exponents of the earlier. This is but saying that the Holy Spirit is the true and proper expositor of his own communications to men. Since, as we have seen, the first revelations were made in full view of all that was to follow, the later revelations must be considered not as a mass of foreign and heterogeneous materials superadded to the original prophecies, but as a true expansion of the earlier prophecies out of their own proper substance. For example, the promise made to Abraham: "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed" (Gen. 22:18), is not so much a new promise as a further unfolding of the original one: "It shall bruise thy head." A further development of the same promise we have in Nathan's words to David: "Thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee, thy throne shall be established for ever;" and in all the bright train of prophecies in which the glory and universal dominion of the Messiah's kingdom are foretold down to the day of Gabriel's announcement to Mary: "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David. And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end." Luke 1:32, 33.

And since the manifestation of God in the flesh is the culminating point of revelation, it follows that the Lord Jesus and his apostles, whom he authoritatively commissioned to unfold the doctrines of the gospel, must be, in a special sense, the expositors of the Old Testament, from whose interpretations, when once fairly ascertained, there is no appeal. The attempt of some to make a distinction between Christ's authority and that of his apostles is nugatory. As it is certain that our Lord himself could not have been in error, so it is certain also that he would not have commanded his apostles to teach all nations concerning himself and his doctrines, and have further given them, in the possession of miraculous powers, the broad seal of their commission, only to leave them subject to the common prejudices and errors of their age. See further in Chap. 7, Nos. 3, 4.

11. The extent of meaning contained in a given revelation must be that which the Holy Spirit intended. It is not to be limited, then, by the apprehension of those to whom it was originally made. Earlier prophecy is, at least in many cases, framed with a view to the subsequent development of its meaning. Until such development is made by God himself, either in the way of further revelations, or indirectly by the course of his providence, men's apprehension of its meaning, though it may be true as far as it goes, must yet be inadequate. To cite a single passage from one of the Old Testament prophecies: "It hath pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief; when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand." Isa. 53:10. No one will maintain that the Jews before our Lord's advent (all carnal prejudices aside) could have had that apprehension of its deep meaning which it is our privilege to enjoy. This meaning was contained in the promise from the first, but in an undeveloped form. Accordingly the prophets themselves "inquired and searched diligently" concerning the import of their utterances and the time of their fulfilment. 1 Pet. 1:11. They who deny the reality of prophetic inspiration are necessitated, for consistency's sake, to deny also the principle now laid down. But if revelation be a true communication from God to men, it is reasonable to believe that it should have contained from the beginning the germs of mighty events in the distant future, the realization of which in history should be, in connection with further revelations from God, its true expositor.

12. The more obscure declarations of Scripture are to be interpreted from the clearer. A single passage of God's word occasionally gives us a glimpse of some great truth nowhere else referred to in Scripture. Of this we have a remarkable example in what the apostle says of Christ's delivering up the kingdom to the Father upon the completion of the work of redemption. 1 Cor. 15:24-28. But no great truth relating to the way of salvation through Christ is thus taught obscurely and in some single passage of Scripture. Every such truth pervades the broad current of revelation, and shines forth from its pages so clearly that no candid inquirer can fail to apprehend its true meaning. If, then, we find in the Bible dark and difficult passages, they must, if interpreted at all, be explained, not in contradiction with what is clearly and fully taught, but in harmony with it. This is but saying that, instead of using what is obscure to darken what is clearly revealed, we should, as far as possible, illustrate that which is dark by that which is clear.

The Scriptures teach, for example, with abundant clearness, that Christ is the only foundation on which the church can rest. Isa. 28:16; 1 Cor. 3:11; Ephes. 2:20; 1 Pet. 2:6. This is, indeed, an office which plainly requires for its exercise that omnipotence, and that supreme power in heaven and earth which are expressly ascribed to him. Matt. 11:27; 28:18; John 5:19-30; 17:2; 1 Cor. 15; 24-28; Ephes. 1:20-23; Phil. 2:9-11; Col. 1:15-19; Heb. 1:3. When, therefore, our Lord says to Peter: "Thou art Peter [that is, as the word Peter means in the original, Thou art Rock], and upon this rock will I build my church" (Matt. 16:18), to understand Peter, or any pretended successor of Peter, as a rock in any other sense than as an eminent instrument in Christ's hand for the establishment of his church, is absurd and blasphemous.

Again: Christ gives to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, with power to bind and loose (Matt. 16:19), and elsewhere the same power is conferred upon all the apostles (Matt. 18:18). That Peter and his associates in the apostleship had the keys of the kingdom of heaven in any such sense as that in which Christ has them (Rev. 3:7); that is, that they had authoritative power to admit their fellow-sinners to heaven, or exclude them from heaven, is contrary to the whole tenor of the New Testament, which everywhere represents Christ as the supreme Judge, upon whose decision depends the everlasting destiny of every child of Adam. Matt. 7:21, 22; 16:27; 25:31-46; John 17:2; Acts 17:31; 2 Cor. 5:10. Christ's words concerning the keys may be best understood of the special authority which he bestowed on the apostles, as inspired teachers and guides of his primitive church, to settle all questions respecting her. For eminent examples of the exercise of this power, see the decisions concerning Gentile converts, Acts 11:1-18; 15:1-29. In this sense the gift of the keys ceased with that of inspiration. But if, as some think, the words may be understood of the common power conferred by Christ on his churches to regulate their own affairs, to administer discipline, and to admit or exclude from their communion, the power continues in this sense in the visible church, and is valid so far as it is exercised in accordance with God's word.

So also must we interpret the words of Christ recorded by the apostle John: "And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained." Chap. 20:22, 23. The authoritative forgiveness of sin is a prerogative of God alone, the exercise of which implies omniscience as well as supreme authority in heaven and earth. The prerogative of remitting and retaining men's sins here conferred on the apostles is part of the general power of binding and loosing already considered. It was exercised in the sphere of the visible church on earth. As it respects the actual forgiveness of sin and consequent admission of the soul to communion with God here and eternal life hereafter, God's ministers can only declare the terms of salvation as they are set forth in the gospel.

The same general principle is applicable to the interpretation of all passages containing "things hard to be understood." The "unlearned and unstable" wrest them, by taking them out of their connection and in contradiction to the general tenor of God's word. But the candid student of Scripture never uses that which is difficult in revelation to obscure that which is plain. He seeks, on the contrary, to illumine what is dark by that which shines with a clear and steady light.

13. As a fitting close to this part of our subject we add some remarks on the analogy of faith. "We may define it to be that general rule of doctrine which is deduced, not from two or three parallel passages, but from the harmony of all parts of Scripture in the fundamental points of faith and practice." Horne's Introduct., vol. 1. p. 269, edit. 1860. It is based on two fundamental principles; first, that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God," and therefore constitutes a self-consistent whole, no part of which may be interpreted in contradiction with the rest; secondly, that the truths to which God's word gives the greatest prominence, and which it inculcates in the greatest variety of forms, must be those of primary importance. Thus understood, the analogy of faith is a sure guide to the meaning of the inspired volume. He who follows it will diligently and prayerfully study the whole word of God, not certain selected parts of it; since it is from the whole Bible that we gather the system of divine revelation in its fulness and just proportions. "If we come to the Scriptures with any preconceived opinions, and are more desirous to put that sense upon the text which coincides with our sentiments rather than with the truth, it then becomes the analogy of our faith rather than that of the whole system." Horne, ubi supra. In this substitution of "the analogy of our faith" for the analogy of Scripture lies the foundation of sectarian controversy.

Again; he who follows the true analogy of faith will not allow a doctrine which runs through the whole tenor of divine revelation to be weakened or set aside in the interest of some other scriptural doctrine.

The Scriptures teach, for example, with great frequency and clearness that men are saved, not from the merit of their good works, but solely by God's free grace through faith in Jesus Christ. They teach also with equal frequency and clearness that without repentance and obedience to the divine law there is no salvation. These two deductions are not contradictory, but supplementary to each other. They present two sides of one and the same way of salvation. Yet it may happen that a Biblical student will find himself unable to reconcile in a logical way two such deductions as the following: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (Rom. 3:28); "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 7:21). What then shall we counsel him to do? Plainly it is his duty, first of all, to receive and hold both doctrines. Afterwards he may properly seek to reconcile them with each other in a logical way; but if he fails to accomplish this task to his satisfaction, he must not deny one truth, or sink its importance, in the interest of the other. The same general principle applies to various other doctrinal difficulties, which need not be here specified.

Finally, a true regard to the analogy of faith will make our system of belief and practice entire and well proportioned in all its parts. Every declaration of God's word is to be received in a reverent and obedient spirit. But inasmuch as the Scriptures insist much more earnestly and fully on some things than on others, it is our wisdom to follow, in this respect, the leadings of the Holy Spirit. It will be the aim of the enlightened believer to give to each doctrine and precept of revelation the place and prominence assigned to it in the Bible. Especially will he be careful that no obscure or doubtful passage of Scripture be allowed to contradict the plain teachings of inspiration.

The practical study of the Bible, that is, the study of it as "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," resolves itself in a great measure into the comparison of Scripture with Scripture, especially the comparison of doctrinal parallelisms. All that the Bible teaches from Genesis to Revelation concerning God's being and attributes, his providential government over man, the person and offices of Christ and the way of salvation through him, and the final destiny of the righteous and the wicked, should be diligently compared, that from the whole we may gather a full and well-proportioned system of faith and practice as it is contained in the pages of inspiration. So far as we fail to do this our view of divine truth is defective and disproportioned. The solemn warning in respect to the last book of revelation applies with equal force to revelation as a whole: "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book." Rev. 22:18, 19.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us