« PoprzedniaDalej »
is near to the earth; and this incarceration is in view of a judgment yet to come in a great day.
Are not these fallen ones? Is not the earth most likely to be the place to which they wandered? And if so, is there anything in the Old Testament that Peter, Jude, and James can allude to so likely to be instructive to believers as this case in Gen. vi. ? For observe, that it is an example which readers are supposed to understand as well as the deluge, or the overthrow of Sodom, or the judgment in the wilderness. But where shall the original history be found if not in Genesis vi. ? Ashton-under-Lyne.
Isaiah XXIV, 21-23. THEN has it come to pass in that day
That Jehovah is for Bringing a Visitation Against the host of the height in the height, And against the kings of the ground on the ground. So have they been crowded together in a crowd, captive unto a dungeon ; So have they been brought for confinement unto a place of confinement; And after many days are they to be visited.
Then has blushed the silvery moon,
Then has paled the glowing sun ; Because Jehovah of hosts has Become King
In Mount Zion,
And in Jerusalem,
A CORRECTION. Sir,-Mr.Griffith, of Eastbourne, made some remarks with reference to my paper on " The Judicial Character of the Millennial Kingdom," at the late Conference, which are duly chronicled in the third column of page 3 of the Christian
To those remarks I replied; but I am impressed with the thought that when Mr. Griffith sat down after my statement that there were two Brides mentioned in Scripture, saying this was "a new idea” to him, he did not seem
satisfied. A mere allusion to such a truth was all that, at that time, I could offer, but under the hope that he either has or can borrow a copy of “ THE RAINBOW " for June, 1874, let me now refer him to a paper entitled “ The Marriage of the Lamb in Heaven, and The Marriage in Cana of Galilee on Earth," where he will find the subject of the Two Brides fully and scripturally expounded, with all needful evidence in confirmation of what I said.
I add here that the doctrinal
errors in my reply to Mr. Griffith I. Only one of the twelve apostles in that page of the Christian had been a Publican or Revenue World's report above referred to, officer. The reading of Matthew x. are either a slip of the reporter's 3, Matthew the Publican, in the Pepencil, or the compositor's mistake. shito and the Greek, shuts out the I am made to say that the supper notion of any other among the in Cana of Galilee is an
twelve having held that office. The type " instead of “
a type;” and
definite article has this force. If again, that Christ is “to be married there had been two apostles who to Israel as much as to the world,” had followed that calling it could instead of " as well as to the not have been used. In this case Church.” I am, sir, faithfully yours, Matthew might have been a pubClevedon. H. GOODWYN. lican but not the publican.
II. The whole connection before
and after, as well as in, the call of ECCLESIASTES.
Matthew is the same as that of DEAR SIR,—The canonical au- Levi son of Alphæus. thority of the Book of Ecclesiastes 1. Oar Lord was at home in has been so completely vindicated Capernaum when the sick of the by the ablest critics that no one palsy was brought to him. who has not a foregone conclusion
2. His words on the occasion of. to support, would think of calling fended certain scribes. it in question. The harmony of
3. He healed the man and reits teachings with those of other buked them. portions of the Word is remark- 4. Then he went forth to the able. Compare Matt. v. 3, 4, with sea-side to teach, and on His Ecc. vii. 2. Matt, vi. 7, with Ecc.
this man—Matthew in v. 2. Matt, vi. 19, 20,
xi. the first gospel-Levi the son of 19; Mark. viii. 86; Luke xii. 20, Alphæus in Mark—and Levi in with Ecc. vi. 2. John iii. 8, with Luke. Ecc. xi. 5. John ix. 4, with Ecc. 5. After the call, which is promptix. 10. Rom. x. 2; 1 Cor. i. 20; ly responded to in each narrative, 2 Cor. v. 10; Col. iv. 6, with Ecc. Matthew shows our Lord at a feast
1 Tim. iv. 3, 4 ; vi. 6-17 ; * so large that the publicans and John ii. 17; Jas. i. 19, with Ecc. sinners who join in it ontnumber v. 1, 2. This list might be greatly
Christ and the twelve far away, extended, but it is enough to give which implies the greatness of the the reader a hint that he may do
feast. But Matthew does not tell 80 for himself, and to show that whose house entertained the comthe New Testament endorses Eccle- pany. But Mark says it was that siastes.
of the newly-called man. As Jesus I am, Sir, yours faithfully, sat at meat in his (Levi's) house.
ALETHES. Luke says, “ And Levi made him
a great feast in his own house."
All three evangelists agree as to MATTHEW THE PUBLICAN.
the guests who were there. Christ, SIR, – In answer to your Stoke- His disciples, a great multitude of Newington correspondent as to my publicans and sinners, say Matthew ground for calling Matthew a son and Mark ; Luke says, publicans of Alpbæns, I rest upon the follow- and others. ing considerations :
6. Our Lord is censured by the
scribes and Pharisees according to tion, I will leave it for more athleLuke v. 30, Mark ii. 16, and by tic exercise. Pharisees in Matt. ix. 11, and he Yours respectfully, replies to their consorious question
JAMES HOLDING. ing in the same way in each Evan
P.S.-I wish to make the followgelist.
ing corrections in the article on the 7. The very next incident selected
Old Testament Peshito, in the Sepfor record by Matthew is that of
teinber RAINBOW. Page 387, last John's disciples coming to question paragraph, read “ My fruitful one.” Jesas about His disciples not fast
In the same paragraph erase to being as did those of John, and those
fore showing. Page 388 read Philip of the Pharisees, Matt. ix. 14, and instead of Andrew, and vice versa, Mark ii. 18, just does the same. in lines 7 and 10.
J. H. Luke also gives just the one incident that the other two have as next after the feast. Now if Matthew and Levi are not the same
A SUGGESTION. man under two names, why all Dear Sir,-I should like to offer these points of identification ? And a suggestion with regard to the did the Baptist or his leading ad- passage in 1 Peter iv. 6, “ That herents twice send a deputation to they might be judged according to Christ to ask the
ques- men in the flesh, but live according tion without any alteration, and to God in the spirit.” to get the same answer word for Mr. Laing's paper throws conword ? Let those believe it who siderable light upon the first part
of the verse, and I quite agree with My position then is that Matthew his rendering, that the gospel was and Levi are one man. But Levi preached to them that are (now) is a son of Alphæus, and so then dead, but as to the latter part his Matthew must be. Then as sons exposition is not quite so clear. Do of the same man are brothers in we not obtain a solution of the Bible language, Matthew, or Levi, passage by assuming that the beneis brother of James the less. And ficial effects of Noah's preaching to then, when we remember that in the antediluvians were not realised the East the pedigree makes the until it was too late to obtain refather and not the mother the stan- fuge in the ark ? There was a condard from which to reckon, I am siderable lapse of time between the justified in preferring to understand first drops of the shower and the Jude, when he calls himself the entire submersion of the world, brother of James, to mean that he " forty days and forty nights;” the was his father's son.
waters prevailed altogether "one I do not observe that the Editor hundred and fifty days ;" might not of the RAINBOW cares much for un- many of these people during this inspired authority, or I might quote interval repent and find mercy, and Schleusner, the author of a Greek though too late to escape the judgand Latin Lexicon of the New ment, they yet might obtain the Testament, who is a giant where salvation of their souls? Is not John Bunyan is but a dwarf in the the case of the Israelites somewhat matter of Greek criticism.
similar? The children of Israel Hoping I have said enough on for their unbelief in the matter this school exercise in interpreta- of the spies were doomed to die;
" their carcases fell in the wilder- that these texts at all bear him ness ;" yet surely these forty years' out. experience, the miracles wrought I am quite willing to concede to on their bebalf and the dealings of him that these, as well as many God with them, were rich in in- other texts, prove that “the essenstruction (see Psa. xc.), so that their tial feature of Christ's redemption spiritual gain was great. “They
They is that man's deliverance could only were judged according to men in be effected by the Saviour taking the flesh (their doom was not re- the identical nature of man.” But versed), but many of them lived ac- this by no means proves that God cording to God in the spirit.” could not through His Son send a The deluge was a temporal ca- message
to angels without lamity, and though the antedila- our Lord's taking upon Him the vians did not escape that, yet doubt. angelic nature. God is not tied to less many who bitterly repented of one uniform method of dealing with their sins might escape eternal des- his creatures. There may have truction,
been circumstances in the case of If there be any basis for this as · the fallen angels which allowed of Bumption, I think it throws con- a different method from that taken siderable light upon the passage. in man's. All such matters surely Yours very truly,
we, who know so very little, must CHAS. UNDERHILL. be content to leave with God. Woodbridge Lodge.
But there is one of the texts which Mr. Underhill has quoted,
upon which it will be necessary to THE SPIRITS IN PRISON.
say a few words, viz., Hebrews ü. SIR, -In reply to Mr. Under- 16. hill's kind letter in the Rainbow of Translated as it is in our authoOctober, I would first say that it rised version, and as Mr. Underhill did not form a portion of my theory seems disposed to render it, this to maintain that the proclamation text has no force, even in appear. of our Lord to the spirits in prison ance, upon the controversy. But I was a proclamation of mercy. I am quite certain that this verse is inclined to think that it was such, wrongly translated, and that its and I hoped it was; but it was by no true translation gives some appameans essential to my theory to rent countenance to Mr. Underhill's maintain that it was. Mr. Under- theory that fallen angels can have hill might therefore establish his no part in Christ's redemption. point that all fallen angels are out The proper translation is unquesof the pale of salvation without in- tionably that in the margin of our terfering with my view that the Bible-doubtless He taketh not "spirits in prison" of 1 Pet. iii. hold of angels, but He taketh hold 19, 20, were angels who fell in the of the seed of Abraham.” “ Angels" time of Noah,
here are supposed to be fallen But I do not think that anything angels, and it is thought that it is that Mr. Underhill has said in his here denied tbat Christ took hold letter at all disproves the idea that of any of these for the purpose of this message may bave been one of saving them from their fall. I mercy. He has brought forward took this view myself of the pasthree texts to establish his point. sage for some time ; but I have I do not, with all respect, consider seen reason to alter it.
In the first place I do not think force of the terms of the passage that " angels ” here refers to fallen before us, but is also most suitable angels at all, but to the unfallen to the spirit and bearing of the angels of God. The writer of whole argument of the sacred writer Hebrews constantly speaks of these in the first and second chapters of latter both before and subsequently our epistle. to the passage under consideration, The first chapter is very much and in every instance it is of the occupied in showing the original unfallen angels he is speaking. superiority of Christ as Son of God (i. 4, 13; ii. 2, 9; xii. 22 ; xiii. 2.) over the unfallen angelic race. A It is only therefore natural to sup- main part of the argument of the pose that it is of these he speaks second chapter is to show the inin ii. 16, unless we have good feriority of this same angelic race to proof that he here uses it in a dif- Christ as Son of Man, as repreferent sense. Such proof we have sentative of the human race, in that not.
“world to come ” which is spoken The Greek word translated “ta- of. “ Unto the angels,” we read, keth hold," signifies taking hold of “ God hath not put in subjection a person either with the view of the world to come, whereof we doing him some good or some harm, speak" (verse 5). And then the
. ” Thus, in Mark viii. 23, our Lord writer goes on to show that over took hold of the blind man's hand this world to come Christ, as man, to lead him to the place where He and as Son of Man, is constituted would cure him; while in Acts ruler in the great purposes of God. xviii. 17, the Greeks took hold of In this glory of the head of the Sosthenes for the purpose of mal- redeemed race that race itself is to treating him. As we cannot sup- share. It is immediately after this pose that the word is used in this
argument that the passage under latter sense in the passage under notice occurs, and with this whole consideration, we must needs sup- argument the idea I suppose to be pose that it is used in the sense of conveyed in it harmonises, viz., taking hold for the purpose of con
that Christ did not come into our ferring a benefit. Let us see if it world with any purpose of elevating will not well bear this sense as the angelic nature above its primal applied to the unfallen angels of condition, but that he did come for God.
the purpose of elevating the conI would thus paraphrase the dition of the race spoken of as passage: “ for doubtless Christ " the seed of Abraham." To takes not hold of angels, of the un- suppose the fallen angels to be fallen angelic nature, with the pur. spoken of in ii. 16, is to intropose of raising and elevating it duce a new idea into the argument above its present condition; but He altogether foreign and alien to its takes hold of the seed of Abraham, purpose. of the people given Him in cove- As this passage then does not nant, for the purpose of elevating it speak at all of fallen angels, it above its present condition ; yea, of cannot for a moment be brought raising it to an equality with the forward in opposition to the view I angelic nature by delivering it from suggested, but did not attempt to death."
prove, in my paper on “ The Spirits The sense thus brought out is in Prison," that the message pronot only suitable to the natural claimed by our Lord in their dark