CHAPTER 11
CHAPTER 11
We now come to an important chapter, with (as usual) an immensity assumed or implied. Some points may be noticed here, other statements can be examined when more enlarged upon. “Those cities are Babylon and Jerusalem.” This implies that an earthly Babylon is one great centre of the world. Here it is contrasted with the earthly, not the heavenly, Jerusalem; in Revelation it is most certainly with the heavenly, whatever its own place may be. But I shall only remark here, that the mind, thus unconsciously accustomed to this idea, is accustomed to an unproved thing. The enquiry I reserve for its place.
Such an expression as “that miserable race who are about to re-people Jerusalem” cannot be too strongly animadverted upon. I appeal to every one familiar with Scripture, as to the manner in which the heart of God yearns over His people, wandering though they be: and if they are miserable through His judgments, taunts are not what become Gentiles, confessedly become wise in their own conceits. Their sins are plainly proved in Scripture, and wrath is come upon them to the uttermost: but they are dealt with there with the hand and the heart of God, not with the insults of men. Nor do I believe that the curse of man on those who are yet beloved for the father’s sakes would be found in the mouth of one guided in his expressions by the Spirit of God. Does the Lord, when he states the fact here alluded to (which is not denied), use any expressions like “that miserable race”?+ None ever.
+Such is constantly the case with the author, and those in the system of the “Thoughts.”
[p. 133] But to turn to the substance of this chapter. We are told that the chapter “supplies us with the history of Jerusalem during the period which immediately preceded its final visitation by the Lord in glory.” I have no complaint to make of such a statement (which is an opinion on an interesting subject of enquiry), but that it is not proved — a very material thing, of course, in such a statement. It is taken for granted, and we are told, “In reading this chapter, therefore, we must imagine Jerusalem,” etc.
So we are told, “It would seem,” “that Christians, and Christian testimony remain,” previously to this period. But is this the right way of dealing with questions of the kind? The facts of Antichrist’s+ deceit and subsequent malice I believe to be true, and therefore need not enter on here. But as to the place of the witnesses in the order of events, I entirely demur. It is in vain to say, “scarcely terminate before the seventh angel sounds”... “this mystery of God will terminate and other scenes open”; because, according to the author, it ought to terminate without any “scarcely” at all. Besides, it is only in the days of the seventh angel who is about to sound, that the mystery of God shall be finished: and the seventh angel sounds a woe trumpet; and therefore it is not said “when he sounds,” i.e., at that given time — woe is still on the inhabiters of earth after and by the sounding of the seventh trumpet. We shall see that the order stated by the author, and necessary to his system, is impossible and contradicts itself. It is attempted indeed to be slurred over by the words “scarcely terminate”: but a moment’s examination will shew the palpable contradictions in the statements made.
+I doubt its being Antichrist’s, though he may coalesce in it. It is the prince to come, the head (I suppose) of the revived Roman beast.
I read (page 125), “when these servants of God shall have finished their testimony, the wickedness of earth will again, though for the last time, be allowed to lift up itself and prosper.” Now this itself is not the testimony scarcely terminating when the mystery of God finishes, and other scenes open (see page 123), for the wickedness of earth will again lift up itself and prosper. But in the notes, the positive contrary of the statement in the text is proved (page 131). “Its being said that the Gentiles tread it down for the definite period of forty-two months, proves that they do not tread it down after this definite period is over. Consequently the sackcloth testimony of the witnesses and the times of the Gentiles, and therefore the reign of Antichrist, end simultaneously.” How, then, when the servants of God shall have finished their testimony, will the wickedness of the earth again lift up its head and prosper? I should bring the passage of page 125, which is drawn from the plain text of the chapter, as demonstrative of the falseness of the position taken in the note, which is yet necessary to the author’s system. But to give the simultaneous ending of the period as absolute and identical for both, in connection with a statement, that when one ended the other lifted up its head and prospered, is an excess of self-contradiction rare to find. Yet the writer well knew what he was about in thus identifying them; because, absurd as it is, his whole system falls if the termination of the witnesses’ testimony and the reign of Antichrist be not synchronous; because this testimony of the witnesses being for the twelve hundred and sixty days, if it be not the last half week of Antichrist, we have then some previous half-week, during which a testimony — which is not the church, nor, according to him, Christianity (though it testify of Jesus among the Jews) — has been going on, which is closed (as he says, page 125) by the wickedness of the earth rising up again and prospering. Yet it is clear that the synchronous, simultaneous termination of the testimony of the witnesses, and the reign of Antichrist, is an absurdity on the face of it: because Antichrist it is that kills them — a most curious way of ending simultaneously. I know not what opinion the writer must have formed of his readers to make such a statement.
[p. 135] And not only so, but there is an earthquake after; and subsequently to this it is said “the third woe cometh quickly”; and then some time consequently after the seventh angel sounds, in whose days the mystery of God is finished. So that it is quite clear that the simultaneous ending of the testimony of the witnesses, and the reign of Antichrist, and this evil power of the Gentiles, is impossible, being contradicted by the express statements of the word, recognised in part (page 125), and hushed up in the word ‘scarcely.’ And in these remarks I have passed over the rather strange statement, that they testified as much dead as alive; stranger still when we remember that it is said (as quoted, page 125), “when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.” And yet, though they “have finished their testimony,” and their enemies are rejoicing over them, these three days and a half are included in the period of their testimony.
But I have no need to insist upon this, seeing the evident untenableness of a statement which makes a simultaneous ending of two things, when one puts an end to the other, by his wicked power, and there are several subsequent events positively referred to before the close of the latter comes. Besides, is there any moral identity in the state of things? When the beast is given to make war, and overcome the saints, and to kill whoever did not worship him; and the power is given to the witnesses, that if any man would hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies; and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed? I do not say that the beast will kill all actually; admit with the author, it need not be actually done as to all. But is a power to do so, and as is alleged from Daniel (though I do not agree with it) the saints delivered into the beast’s hands, consistent with a power given to the witnesses of God against all that could touch or hurt them? Is this the same state of things? “Power from God for protection will visibly be granted them.” “They cannot be overthrown, neither can their testimony be stayed.” Is this the character of the period of the beast’s power, “just at the very moment when he is exalted into the plenitude of his glorious power”? Is it the statement given in Scripture of the relationship of the beast and the saints?+
+The reasoning as to the two periods ending simultaneously is perfectly put as regards the author’s system; but I believe there is but the one (or last) half-week in the twelve hundred and sixty days and forty-two months. But it is a Jewish testimony. The beast can only blaspheme those who dwell in heaven. The times and laws are delivered into the hands of the beast in Daniel 7 (i.e., Jewish ordinances, not the saints). He wears them out, no doubt, but the great body escape into the wilderness, to a place prepared of God for them; and, in spite of the beast, God will maintain a testimony. When this is closed, however, the beast will slay the witnesses. The beast, moreover, is not Antichrist, though helped by the latter. That he is, was at the time of writing these papers a commonly accepted idea. It does not affect this point, save as facilitating the solution of what is a real difficulty, suggested above as an objection to the author’s system — how, if there be only one half week, the slaying all who do not worship him is consistent with the existence of the two witnesses. The preservation of the woman indeed shews that this effort of the beast or dragon to destroy all cannot pass the limits set to it by God. For the true Jewish worshippers as a body escape. So in chapter 11, the altar and temple, the true worshippers, are measured and owned of God; and it seems that a testimony also is preserved, two witnesses, or an adequate testimony to the God of the earth. The beast’s power is general in chapter 13, over all dwellers in earth. Meanwhile, among the Jews, God preserves a testimony where only the second beast may be. The two periods do not close simultaneously; but the beast’s having power to continue forty-two months can hardly mean he continues in this character eighty-four. In this the author is right; but as to the nature of the testimony he is fundamentally wrong. The only change to be made in my argument is to apply it to the last half-week, not a previous one. For, whichever half-week it is, the testimony is not the church (according to the author himself), not Christianity. The rest of the reply is all right. The reply is just, but the positive statements are not clear, though guarded; because the existence of two half-weeks is supposed possible; as (see the text above) the difficulty of another interpretation is urged. The difficulty is real; but it is no more than existed in the time of the Lord on earth (for I suppose the same period). Till His time was come no one could take Him; though the power of the beast, and apostate Jews, and Antichrist figuratively were there by anticipation. The positive truth I apprehend to be that, on the casting down of Satan to earth, the power of Christ’s kingdom is so far set up; but this leaves three years and a half of the great rage of Satan, or the last half week — the time of the two beasts’ characteristic power — the time when the sacrifice is taken away, and times and laws are delivered into the beast’s hands. The rapture of the saints is quite another matter. This is not the kingdom: we are taken to the Father’s house (as in Luke 9 the kingdom was displayed on the mountain) — the church’s heavenly place, in the entering into the bright cloud whence the Father’s voice issues. As far as this is shewn in Revelation 12, it is in the taking up of the man-child. I do not attach great importance to the question of one or two half-weeks; but I believe in the Revelation there is only one. In the first half the prince had favoured and deceived the Jews, but wickedly. But if so, the argument in page 213, beginning “nor does it seem to me,” down to “inhabiters of earth,” is without force. [Note to second edition, 1868.]
[p. 136] And now I beg attention to the character of the witnesses’ testimony. Christianity is withdrawn from Judah and Jerusalem. The statement that used to be made was, that there was not a Christian to be found in the Roman earth, and that the wheat (Matthew 13) represented risen saints in the earth, after their resurrection, and before their ascension. This, however, is now given up, and the matter stated very generally. (See page 143.) But at any rate it is withdrawn from Judah and Jerusalem. And the new character of testimony is this — “They will be able to speak of the law broken; of restoration granted, only to be forfeited again by aggravated transgression; of prophets sent to be rejected; of the Son of God slain, hanged on a tree; of the message of forgiveness through His blood despised, and now withdrawn; of the day of His glory with all its judgments being nigh, even at the doors,” etc. Now have we not here, after the church is withdrawn, a testimony to Jesus by the Spirit of prophecy? and who are “my two witnesses,” servants of Jesus as prophets? Is the testimony not to Jews, not at Jerusalem, not about Jewish hopes, and yet about Jesus, and Jesus slain, and Jesus to come — and yet altogether Jewish in every sense? And how then is it impossible that such a testimony can be without the foundations of Christianity being gone? And if the Lord Jesus has alluded to it, is this very wonderful? Or if He has left a door open, in what He has said, to the application of His words to it, when speaking of these very times, is this very wonderful? There may be more detail. It may require patient submission to the word to connect it all. But is it wonderful that, when speaking of Jerusalem in the latter days, he should allude to such a testimony as this? And what comes of statements made of their remaining a people rejecting all testimony until they see the Lord, and are converted by it?
[p. 137] But further, testimony (page 128) ceases on the earth (during the three days and a half). Where then is the church? But “the time has come for the Son to quit the throne of the Father,” etc.; “and to be invested with the power which now is finally taken from the hands of man. The times of the Gentiles finish, and with them the mystery of God.” This is really too bold; because after slaying the witnesses, and even after their receiving the Spirit of life from God, there is an earthquake, and very notable effects ensuing on it.+ Then it is declared the third woe comes quickly; and, as we have seen, it is only in the days of this woe that the mystery of God is to be finished. In a word, the statements of the author are in direct contradiction of the plain text of scripture.
+Effects much more like the end of chapter 6 than chapter 19 is.
[p. 138] One thing is certain. If this secret scene in heaven takes place in heaven before the seventh trumpet sounds, it is perfectly clear that the Lord rises up and takes the kingdom some time before the mystery of God is finished on earth: for this is only in the days of the seventh angel. Moreover, this celebration of the sovereignty of the world being become our Lord’s and His Christ’s we find again in Revelation 12 decidedly three years and a half before the end. “Now is come the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ.”
And now just see the reasoning of the author. In chapter 11 we find, “there were voices in heaven, saying, The sovereignty of the world hath become our Lord’s and his Christ’s”; or, The sovereignty of the world of our Lord and of His Christ is come. We find in Revelation 12, with the stronger expression “now” — “I heard a great voice in heaven, saying, Now is come... the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ.” In the first (we are told) the scene has passed in heaven of taking the kingdom, and the times of the Gentiles finished, and the mystery of God, and the time come for the Son to quit the Father’s throne; which, we shall remember, ends the age altogether. In Revelation 12 this assertion of power was as yet for heaven only. If it be so (though it seems to me a mistake), then it is quite clear that Christ takes in heaven the authority, and the kingdom of God is set up for the blessing of the dwellers in heaven three years and a half before it is on earth.
Again: “It is the last of these trumpets, and will bring alike upon Israel and on the Gentiles the final blow — administered by the Son of man Himself.” This is never said. Nor does it seem to me to be a just interpretation of the trumpets to make the coming of Christ a woe. I know it is said that it will be to the inhabiters of the earth; but it seems to me excessively strained so to apply it, or to term God’s personal judgment a woe. Nor is it said to fall on any but Antichrist and his army, who are not the inhabiters of the earth. At any rate, if the seventh trumpet ushers in the administration of this blow, again, I have to repeat, Antichrist is not put an end to simultaneously with the witnesses before the sixth closes. And, again, if it be the final blow on the Gentiles, the Assyrian, Gog, etc., are all left entirely out, as if no prophecy existed about them: for Gog comes up when the land is at peace, and Christ is the peace when the Assyrian comes into it.
[p. 139] I proceed to the notes. As to this new translation, I conceive it is simple nonsense. What is the meaning of, “In the days of the voice,” etc., “when he should be about to sound”? Are the days of his voice before he has sounded at all? Tregelles has fairly enough translated it “when he should sound.” There was to be no longer delay; the seventh angel was going to sound, and when he should, in the days of his voice the mystery should be finished.
What is stated about “mystery of God” and “mystery” is eminently calculated to mislead. The church is not called the mystery of God; nor do I believe the expression refers to it,+ but rather to the strangeness of the existence of God’s sovereignty while evil was allowed and rampant. But it is said “this is a great mystery” — to wit, the union of husband and wife; “but I speak as concerning Christ and the church.” The church, therefore, its union at least with Christ, is called a mystery. And of what is it the apostle speaks when he says, “the mystery of Christ, which, in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and the of same body,” etc.? “Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God... to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church,” etc.
+Unless on the authority of a various reading in Colossians 2. Still here it would be government, and not the church, which is in question.
[p. 140] The church is not the whole of the mystery of God’s will. That is true. But this is certain, that what Paul specially preached (and this he identifies with the doctrine of the church) was from the beginning of the world hid in God. Here is his statement of the mystery: “That he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth; in him in whom we also have obtained an inheritance,” etc. This he developed in the same chapter as being “head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.” The mystery thus includes Christ’s administrative headship over all things, and the union of the church to Him as such, as His body. This mystery was made known to Paul by revelation. It had been hidden in God before. It is not a true representation of the apostle’s statements to talk of the great “mysteries”; because he talks most expressly of “the mystery,” over and over again, as hidden previously from the sons of men. Thus, in Colossians 1: 26, 27, the mystery hidden, or — if we are to imitate the translation of “the tribulation, the great one” — the mystery, the hidden one from ages and generations, but which now has been manifested to His saints; to whom God would (has willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, etc. And had not this (Christ in them) something to do with the church — the breaking down the middle wall of partition, and of twain making one new man in the body, the church, united to the Head? So in Colossians 2: 3. If we read with the margin (”wherein” as indeed I doubt not we should), we find the immense importance of this special mystery. So in chapter 4: 3 we find that Paul was in bonds for the mystery. Compare Ephesians 3: 1 and chapter 4: 1. Now I would ask, after reading these passages, Is it a just representation of the apostle’s teaching to say, “the great mysteries connected with the ministry of the apostles”? Or why is it concealed that there is a mystery, of which the apostle speaks?
I ask, too, whether saying neither the church of the Firstborn nor the church in any of its parts is the mystery, would not mislead? And when do we read of the parts of the church in Scripture, save in the sense of members of the body? Is not the great object of the apostle to insist on its unity? And where it is said, that which has been stated in the Old Testament, but allowed to remain there silent+ — is this, taking all the passages, what the apostle states, or not? And if not, why this care to cover up his statements as to this great mystery hidden from ages and generations — hidden in God? Does it not shew that there is just that in it which the author’s system would not bear, the church’s proper place as the body and spouse of Christ? A mystery is not necessarily a fresh truth (he says) never before stated. Does not the apostle say that the mystery had never before been stated? Why this anxious effort to get rid of what distinguishes the church?
+What is the meaning of stated and remaining there silent? Was the mystery silent? If not, if it was stated in the Old Testament, the Old Testament was not silent about it. But the apostle states in Romans 16: 25, that it was not spoken of, or stated — that silence had been kept about it: not that it had been silent there, which has no sense. The translation is a wrong one also. It is not “kept silent”; but silence kept about it; and therefore rightly, for the sense, translated “kept secret.”
As to “make known by the+ prophetic scriptures,” the author would have very great difficulty indeed to shew that it meant the prophecies of the Old Testament. It is impossible to affirm it from the passage: but I shall not contest it. But it is a strange thing to say that that which had been kept secret or silent since the world (in all times of ages), but revealed or made manifest now, was revealed all along in the Old Testament (only kept as it were silent there). Do we not find the apostle quoting passages constantly from the Old Testament prophets, to vindicate, and prove, and make known what was not revealed at all there, but which maintained certain truths when they were revealed? As, “He hath stretched out his hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people.” “Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people;” “Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” And, “Lo, we turn to the Gentiles; for so it is written, I have set thee for a light to the Gentiles.” All these the apostle uses in making it known. But surely they did not reveal the mystery. They were found accomplished in the mystery when it was revealed and so used in making it known: but by themselves they never would have revealed it.
And this was just the wisdom of God, to provide, while leaving the Jews to their own proper responsibility, for a system to be set up when they should fail in it (and which was yet shewn to be according to the previous purpose of God, when once it was revealed in its time) — a system which was set up when they failed in that responsibility, established in fact, but suspended in revelation, till they had rejected the testimony of the Holy Ghost to the exalted Messiah, as well as crucified the humbled one; and thereon fully revealed, and their whole system and existence for a while replaced by it. For I avow unequivocally here, that all the objections and all the difficulties raised against it have only confirmed me in the distinctive character of Paul’s ministry, set up consequent upon the rejection of the testimony of the Holy Ghost by Jerusalem in the martyrdom of Stephen. It was the turning-point of the whole proper present position of the church. No one denies that the church was then in Jerusalem. But no passage can be adduced to shew the revelation of its position to it as one heavenly body with Christ, all difference between Jew and Gentile being lost therein. The case of Cornelius had shewn that God would visit them on earth, and take out of them a people (little as it was understood, the nation having been preached to by the Holy Ghost as still God’s people, and the disciples still holding their place as Jews). But its proper place, as sitting in heavenly places, was not brought out; nor does Paul ever refer to the case of Cornelius as establishing the views he taught.
+It is not the prophetic scriptures, but by prophetic scriptures; and I have not the smallest doubt this applies to New (not Old Testament) scriptures — a testimony withal of their inspiration, if such were needed.
[p. 142] Next, as to measuring the temple of God.
“The first two verses (we are told) refer to the time which immediately precedes the last twelve hundred and sixty days of Jewish tribulation.” The measuring clearly does not, according to the author, as the next note shews. The temple is measured for those days to be preserved. This makes the distinction between the temple and the court. But if the temple be Christianity and the court Judaism, does the author mean to say that previously Christianity and Judaism were one common system, as the temple and court were? If it was, had not Christianity lost its proper church character? It is not merely existence, which is recognised, if anything is. They are recognised as one common united system (no doubt one exterior to the other), but still united and identified in recognition. One perhaps might be afterwards trodden down and abolished, the other not. But till this happened, if represented by the temple and its court as then previously existing, they were recognised as one united system, both sanctioned in their place. But, besides, the argument of the note is quite invalid. There is no proof whatever that the altar means the altar of incense. I should say the contrary: because it is mentioned besides the temple. The altar of incense was in the temple and is called in the Revelation generally “the golden altar which is before God.” There is no passage, I think, which mentions it without some accompanying circumstance to distinguish it. One may be discussed (chapter 14), but cannot be adduced as proof. In the rest of the New Testament, altar always means of burnt sacrifices; and “of incense” is added the only time the other is used. So we have temple and altar, or altar and temple (house), distinguished as here, in Matthew 23 and Luke 11, where clearly the altar is that of burnt sacrifice. I think no one, examining the use of the word, will doubt to which altar the word applies used alone, and still more used as something besides temple — Greek naos. And the temple being measured, measuring the altar of incense added nothing. If this be so, the argument of the author fails.
[p. 143] But, further, is it not strange that measuring means casting out into dens and caves of the earth? Or was Christianity as such (i.e., the church condition of saints) now for the first time distinctively recognised of God? I say “of God,” because it was not now publicly sanctioned and settled providentially. For, according to the author’s system, it is thereon banished from this world’s Eden, out of the reach of the beast’s power, or hid in caves, Previously to this it had had a publicly recognised existence; on being measured it is driven out. It is clear that of God it had been recognised for centuries. But if measuring is not recognised of God, it means abolishing+ (not being given up to be trampled upon): why then does measuring signify to “recognise as our own”? Both existed before without any measuring at all. Why is not measuring then abolition, in the case of Jewish worship? Christianity was recognised of God before. And, as far as the prophetic earth goes, it is abolished by man now at this time of measuring it. Or why, if Jerusalem and Jewish worship is Sodom, and utterly rejected of God, and “the court” means their worship, is it called the holy city, or symbolised by this expression? I see no proof at all. Why is not the court and holy city symbolic also?
+We must remember that according to the author, “The chapter before us supplies us with the history of Jerusalem during the period which immediately precedes its final visitation by the Lord in glory.” Now Antichrist abolishes Christianity and Judaism. How is this denoted by measuring one and not measuring the other? If it be of God, how can Judaism and Christianity be now in any sense outer and inner courts of the same common building, which God has to consider, to shew which He will own and which He will not.
[p. 144] I do not believe the twelve hundred and sixty days, here spoken of, to mean the days of Antichrist’s final power.+ Of this I have already spoken. Nor do I believe treading under foot the holy city means abolishing it, or Jewish worship symbolised by it. It seems to me the circumstances of the witnesses are quite inconsistent with the state of things under the beast during the last three years and a half. Measuring the temple and the altar I cannot consider as a secret recognition of Christianity, which surely could be no new thing. Public recognition in the prophetic earth it would just exactly then cease to have, according to the system urged. And moreover, this chapter gives the “history of Jerusalem,” from which Christianity is wholly withdrawn. Nor is it to be imagined how the saints are to be secured and measured during the time they are given into the beast’s hand to kill. And, measuring here being contrasted with giving up to be trodden upon by the Gentiles, how can its suppression by these Gentiles in the limits of the empire be a contrast with that? Is it not trodden down by them during this period, according to the author? Moreover, Christianity is withdrawn, and ceases to give testimony in the prophetic earth. It is still existing outside the Roman earth, but not as a testimony at all. A new testimony is to be raised up — new in character — which subsists at the same time. And the position here assigned to Christianity is said to be that of saints, whose blessedness and fidelity characterise the church in such a way that they alone are mentioned in the Revelation as in glory. Thus Christianity is withdrawn, and gives no testimony. The witnesses have power to destroy those that hurt them. Who are the saints given up to the beast to kill?
+I have already corrected the thought of the two half-weeks here recurred to. The general argument remains the same, except the sentence beginning “Nor is it to be imagined” in text above. The view of the author of the “Thoughts” criticised, which insists on Christianity and yet excludes it, is contradictory to the last degree. His object is to keep the church to the end and have no Jewish remnant. Yet he holds it was withdrawn from Jerusalem, and another testimony there, yet owned all the while of God. The same question arises in pages 171, and 183, where it is treated as a collateral question. I need not refer to it again. (Second edition.)
[p. 145] We are told in the next note that “its being said that the Gentiles tread it down for the definite period of forty-two months proves that they do not tread it down after this definite period is over.” Nor of course before it commenced. But then where is all the treading down during the time of the Gentiles, from the capture of Jerusalem by Titus, as insisted on by the author in his lecture on Luke 21?+
Next as to the two olive trees.
Because there is a reference to Zechariah, they are assumed to be the same thing, additional features of glory being added in the Revelation. Can anything be more unreasonable? I might as well prove the heavenly Jerusalem to be the earthly, because there is a reference to Isaiah 60. The account is quite different. In Zechariah there is one candlestick. Here there are two. It is not an added feature, but a totally different state of things. The feature is in Zechariah as well as in Revelation. Then we are told, “they will be in their own persons in heaven... what they will enable others to be on earth.” What does this mean? Will they be the church in its unity before God above, which is what the author says is a candlestick? Or are the witnesses in their own persons in heaven? I read “they stand before the God of the earth,” and I suppose it is on earth they are killed. And then we are told that the petition of the mother of James and John was doubtless grounded on this passage in Zechariah! To be on the right hand and left of Christ, as the two olive trees that supply oil? For what they sought was to sit on the right hand and left of His throne. Can anything possibly be more absurd?
+The whole argument and structure of that tract, which appears to me manifestly unsound, is based upon an incorrect citation of the passage, “Before all these things shall they lay their hands upon you.” In the English translation (which I have no doubt at all is correct), it is, “Before all these they shall lay,” etc. The difference being that the English translation refers to a distinct specific set of things just mentioned; whereas the writer generalises it, and puts it before another large class of events which have no connection, as he himself recognises, with the other. Now, all the statement of the tract depends on this, the tract bringing in thereby the whole Christian dispensation as in question. Now I believe most decidedly the English translation to be right, and the author of the tract wrong. But at any rate he ought not to give as a quotation what has been changed, without apprising the reader, and giving some reason for it, when the whole argument of his tract depends upon it.
[p. 146] We have then a long statement about a Greek rule, which is totally and entirely wrong.+ I will not enter into a discussion of Greek here. I will only cite a few passages which prove it wrong; I might add twenty more (Hebrews 12:3; Hebrews 5:5; Matthew 3:3; Matthew 10:4; John 12:1; Romans 8:3; 1 Corinthians 7:10; 1 Corinthians 7:26; 1 Corinthians 11:5; 1 Corinthians 1:31; 1 Corinthians 10:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:16, verse 4 also may be quoted [perhaps also Hebrews 2:9]; Galatians 1:4). But, not to quote other examples, there is one which will, probably, surprise the reader; and that is the passage itself on which the author is commenting. This is a singular example to afford of the confidence which can be reposed in the critical accuracy of this book. In Revelation 11: 4 (”which stand”) the passage by reason of which he gives this rule, is an example that the rule is quite wrong. It is the Attic form of the participle of the perfect active.
We have, then, a more precise statement as to the testimony of the witnesses. To the infidel multitudes around it will be the Lord’s coming in judgment, and the sins which cause it to fall. But for those who tremble and bow before their word (so that there are such), to such they can promise protection through the coming fires, “and acceptance in Jesus after He shall have returned and removed ungodliness from Jacob. Such anticipation of the future, founded on the word of others, is something very different from present faith and joy in the Spirit.” Now, that this remnant will not have joy in the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, I believe. But let us consider it according to the author’s system. During this period Christianity subsists still in the earth — is professed over a larger portion of the globe than the dominion of the beast. The Spirit of God is there. The church is yet on earth, and the Spirit abiding in it. At the same time there are persons brought to own Jesus as Son of God — to own Him as the one in whom they are to be accepted in a year or two, and who will protect them till that time; but they have nothing to do with the church, which is yet down here on earth, nor with the Holy Ghost, which is here too. Yet they have trembled at the word of God, bowed and been humbled, and owned Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of God; and that previous to the close of this dispensation, the church being yet upon earth, and the Holy Ghost as sent down from heaven. Yet, though owning Jesus to be the Son of God, previous to the church’s rapture, and counting upon acceptance in Him when He appears, they are only to have the earthly portion of Jews. Is it not singular that during this dispensation persons thoroughly humbled, recognising Jesus to be the Son of God,++ and acknowledging that He was coming again, should not be justified (I read, “by him all that believe are justified from all things”); though acceptance in Jesus is a thing proclaimed to them, and the church be still in existence, and the day of grace not over elsewhere?
+There are two parts in the rule: “words... in the Greek rendered by the participle, not by the indicative mood, and therefore do not imply present time, but an abstract relation.” (Note here, the participle is not of the present tense.) Now this part is quite wrong; as John 5: 11, 15; 1 Timothy 6: 2 (and this would be the easier way of translating Psalm 1: 3; Hebrews 5: 5), and an endless number of instances prove. The other part is, that this rule as to abstract relation is confined to the present and perfect middle. And this is quite wrong too; as Matthew 10: 4, and the passage Revelation 11: 4 prove. The truth is, the one part of the rule proves the other part wrong. Because, if the participle is abstract, it certainly is not merely in the present and perfect middle that it is so used. Take chapter 10: 3, where we have this form twice, once the very same word, and see how either of the rules will apply. Indeed, it is so entirely wrong, and so upsets every real rule about time, which is governed by the tense and not by the question of participle and indicative mood, that it is useless to enter into further details. I should have to cite all the rules of interpretation for the Greek tenses. Neither is the present active with the article always abstract (as Matthew 8: 10; chapter 21: 9, where you have it twice not abstract, and once abstract). So in the expression “who were” Acts 11: 1, and at the beginning of Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, changing case and gender as needed. But I need go no farther.
++This is the account given of their state, page 112: “They appear to become gradually humbled, and at last, under the testimony, I believe, of the witnesses, thoroughly broken — conscious of the truth respecting the past, and correctly anticipating the future: assured of preservation through the fires, and of subsequent blessing — but not as yet sprinkled with the blood of reconciliation, nor possessed of the spirit of peace.” It is curious that they should be assured of subsequent blessing, and preservation for it, and yet not of the favour of God. That they might know they were not of the church, if the dispensation or time of the church were over, one might understand: but to be assured of blessing by God’s favour, and that blessing “acceptance in Jesus” (page 113), and yet not know God’s favour, is strange enough. Certainty of acceptance in Jesus in two years, without peace, is a state of soul perfectly impossible to exist. But let that pass now. The statement in page 15 of the tract entitled “The day of the Lord,” is entirely contradictory of this. “They will reject Him till they shall have been brought through the terrors of that day.” Is assurance of acceptance in Him shortly, and consciousness of the truth of what is passed, and correctly anticipating the future (i.e. His coming), “rejecting him”? But it is really impossible to follow all the contradictions and confusion into which following his own thoughts (where Scripture and submission of mind to Scripture are departed from) throws a writer.
[p. 148] And the ground of this is still more singular; namely, that “such anticipation of the future, founded on the words of others, is something very different from present faith.” And what then is faith? This remnant is thoroughly broken under the testimony of the witnesses; so that it is not even mere head knowledge. But I thought that receiving on the testimony of others was the peculiar glory of the Gentiles, indeed of all faith. “In whom after that ye had heard” is the way the apostle describes the blessed faith of the church. The ancient patriarchs received individually personal communications; the word of the Lord came, or the Lord appeared. Thomas believed because he saw; but blessing rests on him who believes without seeing, whose faith as to the instrument rests on the word of others, but that word received as the word of God. One would have thought that anticipation of the future, founded on the word of others, was wonderfully like present faith — “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” What was Abraham’s faith but seeing the promises afar off, being persuaded of them, and embracing them? This, it is clear, the remnant do; because they are “assured of subsequent blessing,” and that on this testimony, in spite of all the present power of Antichrist. But here we are told that it is something very different from present faith. Compare the testimony in page 124 (by which they are “thoroughly broken,” and which consequently they believe), and the assurance of what is promised (page 133), and say what it is if it be not faith? Is it not exactly what has been believed as to a Jewish remnant? only that the author insists that this shall take place while the church and the Holy Ghost are here below, without conferring the blessings conferred there.
And I beg the reader here to remember that it is because saints have believed that there would be such a remnant, and that the Lord so spake as to refer to and provide for it in Matthew 24, that so great a cry has been raised. Is there not such a one? Is it not the only one in Jerusalem, according to the author, during the last three years and a half? The only difference in principle being that some have thought the church would be in heaven — the author puts them in caves and dens of the earth, rendering no testimony at all (this other new testimony being raised up while they are there), though such is their glory, that the whole church is characterised by them. I do not believe his dates, because I believe it is impossible to place the witnesses in the last three years and a half. I believe they close their testimony, and the third woe still remains, which is a real proper woe, coming on the inhabitants of the earth from the power of evil let loose.
[p. 149] But however this may be (which I treat only as a very legitimate question, on which I should be glad to hear what anyone had to say), the principle of the question is as I have stated it. And what comes of the outcry as to testimony to Jesus, and faith of Jesus? Do not the witnesses, when they promise future acceptance in Him, and declare His past rejection, give testimony to Him? And do not the remnant, when they trust this — are conscious of the truth as to the past, and assured of blessing in the future in Him — believe in this testimony? And yet they have not the Spirit, and are not in the church. That is the other side the Euphrates,+ or hidden in dens and caves.
As to the Psalms, I cannot enter into them at large here. I believe there are two periods at Jerusalem: one during which the testimony is preserved; and the other when it has been driven out. There is a difference as to these two periods in the Psalms, I believe. Generally, I apprehend, the first book refers to the first period, which has a strong analogy to Christ’s ministry on earth. It goes down to the end of Psalm 41. The references to resurrection are very much more frequent in it; still, proper Jewish hopes are there. It is not the period of Antichrist’s proper power as such after Satan has been cast down from heaven. This begins with Psalm 42, but enters on a far wider sphere; because all Israel, the bringing in the Only-begotten into the world, and consequently the testimony to the Gentiles, and the final hallelujah of triumph, now open to view. But the hopes are more exclusively Jewish, though a suffering Christ be found the centre and the stay of each and every condition.
+Can any one believe that during the present period, the church period, present salvation and presence depends (not by man’s hindering the gospel, but by God’s sending another different testimony) on which side a river a man is?
[p. 150] It is well known that the Psalms are divided into five books and I believe by distinct subjects, besides several clusters of them which treat each a complete subject by itself. But I do not believe any part of them describes the church state as such (that is, the power of the presence of the Holy Ghost in the unity of Christ’s body upon earth). If a Christian, as regards his walk on earth or state of soul, finds himself in the state any psalm speaks of, he has certainly the sympathy of the Spirit of Christ there given. And this is the proper force of the Psalms — Christ entering into worldly sorrow, and the condition of His suffering people upon earth, instead of having what the first two psalms speak of. Now His earthly people will be there and the Psalms will fully apply to them.
But the saints (the remnant according to the election of grace), and the Gentiles graffed in, followed Christ in that place on earth; and therefore they find the sympathy and consolations of Christ in it. But then higher and heavenly blessings have been revealed to them — their sitting in heavenly places in Christ, to which (save some allusions in reference to the heavens in the day of judgment) the Psalms do not refer. Their own proper peculiar blessings are not there. It is from Christ’s entering in them into worldly sorrow, and the condition of His suffering people upon earth, that we find in the expressions of His own heart (not in prophecies about Him) prophetic statements of His own condition. For He entered into them, not by a mere divine sympathy above, but by being actually in them here below; and this is what renders the Psalms so peculiarly precious. But then He was on earth a Jew, though much more than a Jew, and the literal circumstances always identify themselves with that people. He does not rise up to His heavenly place, save in general expressions, as “the heavens shall declare his righteousness,” etc. But though Christ does not rise to the unity of the heavenly body here, yet the members of that body have taken His place upon earth; and therefore, when the shadow of His sorrow (for indeed it is but that) passes over them, they find it is His sorrow, and so His sympathy in it: and this is very precious to them, though it may bring them to the thought that they do not rise up to their proper place with Him. What He is in them is the everlasting manna of the saints.
[p. 151] The next note requires a few remarks. First, we have again their Lord, of those who witness when Christianity is withdrawn — who do not testify of grace but as to come. What was stated as to “His servants” was unfounded. Further, Gentile nations are known by other likenesses. It is merely those united to the beast, and when and as so united, that are presented as any part of the likeness. Gentile national churches are never called so at all. This confusion of different things together is very mischievous. Our part is rather to separate what is precious from what is vile. The powers of Gentile nations are as yet ordained of God: and Gentile national churches have never any such name given to them at all, or any name that I know of in Scripture.
“The Spirit of life from God entered into them.” If they literally revived, they literally ascended up to heaven in a cloud — not in their natural bodies. Did Elijah go to heaven in his natural body? Was it in his dead body unchanged that Moses appeared? Was his dead body glorified? What natural body had Moses when he was dead? Does appearing in glory of those who were either dead or translated convey the idea of a natural body? It would really seem that the writer took pleasure in making strange statements.
The last note is still more unjustifiable. The Lord God Almighty taking to Him His great power and reigning “is the resumption of the power delegated to the Gentile monarchs.” And the language too, in the Greek, is emphatic, “thy power, the great” — that great power. The reason of this assertion is obvious. It is to make the sounding of the seventh trumpet the time of the assumption of earthly power by Christ+ — at least God’s taking it away from man to give to Him. But are all the consequences of verse 18 the exercise of Nebuchadnezzar’s power? Or is the solemn testimony of God’s almighty and supreme power to be thus dealt with, to secure the proof of a date, and prove that the heavenly exercise of power cannot precede by any interval the earthly? For this is the object here.
+Were it so, that God re-assumed now the power delegated to the Gentiles, all the author’s system is confusion and contradiction; because he has stated that the times of the Gentiles and Antichrist’s reign close necessarily synchronously with the testimony of the witnesses. Whereas the power is re-assumed by God only after this, on the sounding of the seventh trumpet — re-assumed even in heaven; while Antichrist’s reign was already closed before this on earth.
[p. 152] I do not feel it needful to discuss the remaining notes, though they do not approve themselves to my mind.