CHAPTERS 15, 16
CHAPTERS 15, 16
I agree with the general purport of this, as one vision: only “at present acting for Christ” has nothing to say to it, because the author holds that the Apocalypse is all yet future. What follows is again without any attempt at proof, and no such connection is given in this chapter. I quite admit that after God has closed His preparatory judgments, to which men refuse ultimately to bow, but rather harden themselves against them, Christ comes forth to execute His wrath. But then this is not sending the rod of His power out of Zion, for He has not been yet set up King in Zion. The rod of His power is here sent out of heaven. Christ as King in Zion is not known in the Revelation. The judgment of the beast may introduce His reign there, but it is passed over in the most general terms possible, connected with the resurrection and binding of Satan, and the heavenly Jerusalem described. But besides, after the announcement of the destruction of Babylon, with which the vials close, but the accomplishment of which is given in chapter 18, another event takes place, wholly overlooked here, and which surely ought to interest us — the marriage of the Lamb. It is after this heaven is opened, and the rider on the white horse comes forth, and the armies which are in heaven follow Him. All this is an entirely different scene from the rod of His power out of Zion. Yet He has left His Father’s throne before either of these events takes place. That is, the whole of what is stated in the Revelation, all that concerns the blessing of the church, and the glory of Him who comes forth as King of kings, and Lord of lords, is entirely left out in a book professing to describe its contents.
“[p. 211] Commission to act is given to Christ,” says the author, “as soon as the ministration of the vials ends. He will then quit the throne of His Father; the rod of His power will be sent out of Zion, and He will rule in the midst of His enemies.” Such is the statement of the order of events, as set forth in Revelation. And the author continues “accordingly in this chapter,” etc. shewing the exactitude of the statement, adding, “the day of Christ begins when the vials terminate.” Now, is it not strange that neither of the events spoken of in the above extract is mentioned in all that follows, but a large series of most important events which are entirely left out in it? It is never said that Christ is on the Father’s throne here, nor that He leaves it, nor a word about the rod of His power going out of Zion; but between the end of the vials and the possibility of the rod of His power going out of Zion, all that relates to the full accomplishment of the heavenly blessing of the church with Christ, and His coming forth with the saints from heaven. In a word, all that relates to the heavenly blessing and glory of the church with Him is brought fully out in the Revelation; and no place is given to it at all in the arrangement of events by the author. His arrangement is a denial, by its silence, of all that it is the object of the Revelation to reveal as to this.
[p. 212] This is clearly very important. It is the key to the whole system of the author, which is nothing more than the exclusion of the church from its own blessings. Further, when it is said, “Behold, I come as a thief: blessed is he that watcheth,” we surely get an intimation that He is coming, not to the church, but for the day of the Lord. Because that day does not overtake us as a thief. The day of the Lord comes as a thief in the night; but this has nothing to do with the church going up to meet Him, raised or changed. The day does not come on the church at all.
As to the “symbolic scene of chapter 16” being “evidently laid in Egypt.” I do not doubt that there are allusions to Egypt and Pharaoh. “The song of Moses” leaves no question of this. But it is just an example of the rashness of those systematic generalisings which feed the imagination and withdraw the mind from the statements of Scripture. First of all, I find in page 227 that it is not symbolic at all. “The declarations of this chapter will be minutely fulfilled”... “The sea throughout the appointed sphere will become as the blood of a dead man.” “I expect also that Euphrates, the river,” etc. So that it is not a symbolic scene; and, if it were, how is Euphrates, and Babylon, a symbolic scene laid in Egypt? Or even fountains and rivers of waters, where in Egypt are they found? Or the appointed sphere of the sea? The sun is the nearest, for it shines there as elsewhere. Still it is difficult to say what happens to the sun is a scene laid in Egypt: the scene is not Egyptian, and (if I am to believe the author elsewhere) not symbolical. It is just imagination outrunning all Scripture. An allusion to a place puts the whole scene there, when there are positive statements quite different. The earth, sea, rivers, sun, are all smitten, symbolical or not (all are the wrath of God on the earth); and then, descending to particulars, we have the throne of the beast, Euphrates, and Babylon; and all these are a symbolical scene laid in Egypt.
That Antichrist will rise up against the Lord in a manner analogous to Pharaoh, I do not doubt; nor that Pharaoh is in many respects a type of Antichrist: but this is all. I do not attach very great importance to the idea that they are gathered at Armageddon, and that the battle is elsewhere. They are gathered to the battle, and they are gathered there; and the allusion, I have little doubt, is to Deborah’s song; Judges 5: 19, 20. Armageddon is a mystic name, an allusion: as indeed is Jehoshaphat in another way, meaning the judgment of Jehovah, or, whom Jehovah judges, as some explain it. This I do not dwell upon, though it be a statement, like so many others, without any proof.
[p. 213] But, as to those standing on the sea of glass. They are as usual the heavenly part of the Israel of God. Now it is quite certain that they are exclusively those who had gotten the victory over the beast, from the presence of whose power all obedient ones had fled through the persecutions of the dragon. For we must take in both Revelation 12 and Matthew 24, or else the author would seek to confine the affair to Jerusalem. But in Revelation 12 the civilised Eden of the earth has no place for them. But this is the Egypt in question, so that the church will not have been there. It was not “their calling” (page 218), “to be on the Lord’s side against all His enemies.” They were called on to flee, and another testimony was raised up — “the sphere of their earthly service was closed.” Indeed the whole of this is a confusion of the imagination, because the Red Sea closed all service against Pharaoh and his hosts; and hence, as a type of Antichrist and his armies, all idea of Christian testimony perishes here in all and every sense of it. And therefore there is no application of any subsequent being on the Lord’s side except in glory. But with Egypt they were not to be on the Lord’s side in any testimony. The command (see page 97) was too express and definite for any who were obedient to the Lord to avoid. So that there was no such place of identification with Him in service as His host during the Antichristian Pharaoh’s time, nor after. The Red Sea closed Pharaoh’s career. The service for the Lord of hosts came after. Here, if there were such, the service must come before: but, even so, the sphere of earthly service was closed for Christianity. Just in the dominions of this new Egypt a new testimony had been raised up. I have no doubt that the sea of glass mingled with fire (quite a new element) shewed that these had come through the tribulation, to be saved from which had been a positive promise to those that kept the word of Christ’s patience. These had been in the tribulation. All that is said of Ezekiel is quite beside the mark. There was a throne above there, not on the firmament: and what had the sea of glass to do with the firmament which was over the heads of the cherubim? I would just remark here the neutralisation in this system of all distinctive position which the book of Revelation carefully shews forth. The elders are in the circle of the throne. The great multitude worship day and night in His temple. These are on the sea of glass, which was not in the temple. All this is obliterated, and this though it is positively said here that it was one special peculiar class.
[p. 214] As to the church of the firstborn emerging from that last abyss of Egyptian darkness, what we have already read in the book shews it to be all wrong. First, the church had been reaped in the harvest in Christendom, outside the sphere of Antichrist’s power. So that they do not emerge from this at all. They come back to the execution of it with the Lord. We never emerge from this abyss. It seems to me clear that this triumphal song refers to chapter 14: 9-12. At least, that is the last formal testimony on that head.
The writer then speaks of the nations yet unsmitten as analogous to Edom, etc. But the saints are not to smite these, nor are they to evangelise grace to them. That is done by those that escape the carnage on earth. (See Isaiah 66). And therefore all this, being on the Lord’s side against all His enemies, ends with “with these prospects we shall look down from the sea of glass, the place of our sanctuary, and contemplate the results of the power of Him,” etc. Was ever greater confusion? And then the author just slips into “It will be the hour of Israel’s triumphant history commenced anew” — commenced in whom? Or who is “Israel” here? “Separated unto God according to the life-giving power of Him, who is the Son, consecrated for evermore, they will not again find the words of triumph die upon their lips, nor disappointment blight their expectations.” Who are “they”? Can we talk of disappointment when we are in heaven and heavenly glory? Yet it is we who look down from the sea of glass as from the border of the Red Sea; or have we our triumphant history commenced anew? If it be said, Nay, it is Israel’s history that is commenced anew, not ours; then how is it our triumph on the sea of glass? It is an absolute identification of the suffering but now glorified church, and Israel on earth, or it has no sense at all in any way. It is a complete confounding of the heavenly and earthly hope.
Further, we are told, “But now we must turn from the heavenly scene, in order to consider the hour of Egypt’s strength and of Egypt’s judgments, out of which they come who stand upon the sea of glass mingled with fire.” But how does the church of the firstborn come out of the hour of Egypt’s strength and Egypt’s judgments? Will the church of the firstborn come out of Egypt’s judgments? Or how, even out of the hour of Egypt’s strength? The writer has taught us that they are not to be in it. That those who are on the sea of glass have passed through the hour of Antichrist’s strength, is true. But this proves that they were not on earth in the proper place of the church of the firstborn. For those who kept the word of Christ’s patience were to be kept from the hour of temptation; and the disciples were to flee from Judea, not to be in it, and, therefore, I suppose were not in it elsewhere.+
And now as to Israel and the earth being brought unto the heavenly temple long ago: where is the proof of this? Had they been converted, surely times of refreshing would have come from the presence of the Lord, and He would have sent Jesus. But what is there of being brought to the heavenly temple in this? In speaking there he says, “the heavens must receive till the time,” etc. It is a simple assertion again of the author, without the smallest iota of proof.
Further, we are told that Paul preached the same gospel. Now, speaking of these subjects, did Paul preach the gospel which Peter preached here to the Jews (and that is the whole question)? Never. “If,” says the author, “Jerusalem had listened to their words, the Lord Jesus would have come.” I agree to this; but Jerusalem did not listen, and Jesus did not come. And therefore it was not the same testimony which was continued, nor which another extraordinary apostle was raised up to bear, but quite another testimony on these points, which lifted up the church into union with Christ as His heavenly body, always in God’s mind, but hid in Him, and now brought out by revelation.
Where are golden girdles the excellency of divine power? These bowls had not surrounded the golden altar. They were given by one of the four beasts. All the arrangement and statements on the subject in this page are the imagination of the author. In page 227, of course, everyone must judge whether it is literal or not. I would only remark that, when it suits the object (page 171),++ earth is of wider extent than world (Roman world): here it is exactly Roman world, though the use of it be identical. But what is the appointed sphere in which the sea becomes like the blood of a dead man? and what is literally the blood of a corpse like? Surely sea is contrasted with earth here. And what is every living soul dying in the sea? And indeed “the sea” is used most generally; and why is it omitted to notice that the rivers and fountains (I suppose in the Roman earth) become blood as well as the sea — blood as of a corpse? And if the sun scorch men literally with fire, the contents of the golden bowl must be poured literally upon it. And if “the kingdom of Antichrist be full of darkness and anguish, so that men will gnaw their tongues for pain, and blaspheme the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and that they have nothing but blood to drink” — how is it that after this they “rest (being gathered by devils) in all the proud consciousness of undisputed greatness”? or how is it the fairest scene of collected glory that the earth had ever witnessed — “the beautiful clusters of earth’s fairest plant”? These poor creatures, full of pains, sores, and anguish, smitten of God, their kingdom plunged in darkness! And how in undisputed greatness, if the king of the south has pushed against him already, and the king of the north with chariots, and horsemen, and many ships? Let the reader remember sailing in what sea. The truth is, this book is nothing but the indulgence of the most unbridled imagination making a system of its own.
+See the “Thoughts on the End of the Age,” more recently published than the “Thoughts on the Apocalypse.” We have “instead of escaping the tribulation as the saints will!” (page 25).
++In all the rest of that chapter the earth is treated as Roman earth.
[p. 216] That unclean spirits will go out, I doubt not; but that they go out at the bidding of Antichrist, etc., I do most entirely. “First to Armageddon, and then to the battle,” is not scripture. As to Babylon, we will discuss it when the subject is completely before us, when we shall find statements as unfounded as on everything else.
To turn to the notes. “Whenever angels are mentioned as being the agents, it is a sign that the present dispensational period in which God is acting for Christ has not yet terminated.” The reader will recollect that this is the church period or dispensation, and that it closes with Christ’s rising up from Jehovah’s throne. It is, I suppose, clear that Christ has risen up when He comes to receive the saints to Himself in the air. Now turn to page 204, where we have the description of the harvest in which the saints of Christendom are gathered into the garner. “He (the Son of man) comes in glory and in divine majesty.” “We are not here taught as to the means employed by the Son of man to give effect to that power here symbolised by the sickle. But from another part of Scripture we learn that the reapers are the angels.” Again (page 207) “so as soon as He descends into the air, and the earth is spread before Him, to receive the hour of its visitation, His first act will be to judge that which is bearing His name, ‘judgment begins at the house of God.’ He will send forth His angels, and they will separate the tares from the wheat,” etc. I believe the author has misinterpreted and misconceived the whole ways of God as to this, from beginning to end, in identifying Matthew 13 and Revelation 14, and I might add Joel 3: but I am examining here the details of this book. Now it is clear here that the Son of man employs the angels, that He is descended into the air, and therefore, I suppose, He has left the throne of His Father. In the note before us the employing of angels is a proof that the present period in which God is acting for Him is not closed. The writer is wrong in all — wrong in attempting so to define the period, wrong in the way he interprets the employment of angels, and wrong in the way he connects the two. His whole system is wrong, and statement after statement made just as it suits the idea of the moment, and the point sought to be proved. Look at Matthew 24: 30, 31, and see what such a statement as that of this note comes to.
[p. 217] Does anyone allege what is said (page 204), “but He comes still as the servant of the Most High God — and therefore an angel comes forth from the temple that was seen in heaven,” to shew that it was the Most High God that was acting for Christ, as if He were still sitting on God’s throne till His enemies were made His footstool? I can only say such an attempt to cover the inconsistency would be worse than the inconsistency itself, and a mere attempt to maintain the credit of a system at the expense of the known contradiction of Scripture, and this book’s statements about it. “He comes in glory.” He is not therefore sitting on God’s throne — that throne acting for Him till His enemies be made His footstool. Servant or not of the Most High, I suppose when judgment begins (page 207), it is the Son of man Himself that is acting.
[p. 218] The rest of the note is confusion. God acts by angels for His wrath. Be it so. Then comes the wrath of the Lamb, and then He will sit down “upon His throne”; and then, instead of angels for wrath, saints, attended by angels, will issue from the temple. But do not saints come forth with Jesus, when He “comes to execute wrath,”+ as in chapters 17: 14 and 19: 14, all which, we are to note, happens after He has judged all Christendom? The marriage indeed of the Lamb had come, so that on the author’s system it must be so, the harvest being of Christendom, and the beast not in it at all. So that He had come to receive the saints, judge all the wicked in Christendom, casting the tares into the furnace, before heaven opened for Him to come forth to judge Antichrist.
And where is it said that saints will be attended by angels when they issue from the temple? Though their issuing indeed from the temple is an idea not found in Scripture.
Again, how is fire living holiness? It is judicial holiness — killing holiness therefore. Our God is a consuming fire. The fire tries every man’s work what it is.
Again, where are the waters of the sea used as an emblem of destructive power from God? They are used sometimes as the rage or overflowings of the people (which no doubt destroy), great and tumultuous actings of men, and hence trial also; but where as destructive power from God blotting out of the land of the living?
And what is the meaning of “purification unto life”? Where is such an idea in Scripture? That historically waters did destroy, is quite true: but waters are not used for destruction. That waters purify, is true too: but purification unto life is quite an unscriptural idea. That we, without being the Israel of God, shall enjoy final deliverance and priesthood, is most sure.
+This single consideration upsets all the author’s statements about the harvest (absurd enough through the notion that ripened tares are no tares at all): for on his system the angels only are with Him when the tares are judged, which he considers (contrary to Scripture) to be a momentary act. But on all this head one of his statements is only more contradictory than another.
As to the note on “King of nations.” The reading seems to be adopted by all; so I have nothing to say on it. But the principles of the note are to be examined. For they are of much importance, and tend (as everything in the book) to the depreciation of the church of God, or rather of the grace of God to the church — “that he might shew in the ages to come the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness towards us by Christ Jesus.”
I do not dwell on the alleged suitableness to the song of Moses. The song of the Lamb is forgotten in the explanation. If the next page be consulted, it will be found that “just and true are thy ways,” which is here connected with King of nations, is interpreted in an entirely opposite manner to what is made of the song of Moses here; and that what is said of Moses’ song here is attributed to the other part, “Great and marvellous are thy works,” as being just what the saints have therein said. But this, though shewing how little moral reason there is in all these assertions, I pass by as assertions that involve no important principle.
The first thing I have to remark is again the oft-recurring expression of the Israel of God, as being the whole body owned of God in heaven and earth. This has been repeated so very very often, that the reader will have got the habit of using it in this sense in his mind, and so lose the sense that it is quite unfounded. The expression is used once in Scripture, and with no possible connection with the subject, or the millennial state at all. It is found in Galatians 6: 16, where, false teachers having sought to introduce Judaism among Christians, the apostle (having closed his reasonings and exhortations on the subject, and shewn what was really valuable, namely, the new creature) says, “As many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God” — evidently in contrast with fleshly Judaism, which the false teachers were seeking to introduce. But they were those then and there owned of God as His Israel; and there is not an idea of the millennium, nor any gathering of all into an Israel of God in heaven and in earth. Such a thought is never found in Scripture anywhere. It is well to remember this — that it is merely an idea, an unscriptural association, of the author.
The church is proved “a constituent part of the Israel of God.” And symbols or expressions prove it. This Israel of God, of which the church forms a constituent part, is a dream of the author’s. It is a scriptural expression, but not used as he uses it, so as to make the church a mere constituent part of some other body. It certainly is not thus that Scripture ever speaks. The church is the body of Christ, and not a constituent part of anything, save (with Christ as head) of the redeemed universe in the time of its glory.
[p. 220] And then what is the proof? Why, that Jewish things are used as types, or symbols as the author calls them. And what then? Who denies it? Why does the use of circumstances of the fleshly Israel prove that the church is a constituent part of another Israel? We keep the paschal feast typically or figuratively. Well, and what then? I repeat. What does that prove? “Sons of Aaron.” We are priests — everyone owns that: and if it be merely that, in the whole creation, to all on earth, and I add even ostensibly to the unconverted during the millennium, we hold the place of priests: nobody will deny that. We are the children of the heavenly Jerusalem which is above. And what does that prove but just that we are a separate people, having a Jerusalem of our own? As to children of Abraham, and branches in the Abrahamic olive tree — I have already considered it. It is of more importance than the others, which really are of none.
There is one general principle, owned of all who believe John 3, that for earthly blessings as well as for heavenly, a man must be born again, must have the new creature. But it does not follow thence that if this be necessary for all association of man with God, even in the lowest place, that there can be no special place of glory. It would as much set aside degrees in glory as anything else, and I should pretend to be necessarily as exalted as Paul, because I was born again. But this is not so. The principle is quite false. There is a difference, and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour, though all be saved and born again.
But, branches in the olive tree and Abraham’s seed. Well, how are we Abraham’s seed? By being in Christ: that is, that we take the place of the promises down here, as Israel especially will hereafter, and therefore succeed them, and they us, as heirs of promises down here. Yet still God had reserved some better thing for us. We do so in virtue of being in Christ, who is in the highest sense Abraham’s Seed. But we are in Him in a way that makes us His body, His bride, as His own flesh. And it is quite clear that the principle alluded to has nothing to do with our highest privileges, because it is, as I have already remarked elsewhere, the own olive tree of the Jews, the seed according to the flesh, loved even in their unbelief for the fathers’ sake.
[p. 221] Further, it is a principle which is false in another way. It is only their own olive tree as descendants of Abraham specially called out as father of many nations down here before God. Now all the saints before Abraham will, I doubt not, be in glory. Yet they were not of this olive tree, or else the Jewish question never could have been raised. The question of Romans 9, 10 and 11, is the Jewish question, and so in Galatians, and to which the Israel of God evidently alludes. That the saints will be in a certain relation to Israel yet dwelling in the earth, everyone who has received the doctrine of the Lord’s pre-millennial advent believes. But the author leaves the reader here to draw some important conclusion from it as to his system: whereas it proves exactly nothing, and is believed as much by those who utterly reject his system, and believed more accurately and more scripturally: that is all. But it is true of all the world as of Israel. Yet here again this does not put Israel in the same place down here with all the world, because all saints will be born again. Nor does this latter truth set aside the special distinctive promises made to Israel, no more than the far more important distinctions which are true about the heavenly church.
When it is said, Israel will not be of the earth any more than the church of the firstborn, it is partly true and partly false. Israel, as Israel, will be of the earth, and Isaiah 65 proves that some will be wholly so, though such will be cut off when manifested. But the spared remnant, and all who really enjoy millennial blessedness, will be born again, and that life which they receive will not be of the earth. It will be the new creature. But it is true of everyone else then and now, and has nothing particularly to do with Israel. But the very passage (if passage were needed) which specially proves it calls this whole state of things earthly, in contrast with heavenly things which belong to the church; and therefore, though they have a life which is not of the earth, their whole condition and state will be then earthly, in contrast with what is heavenly.
Nor is it at all true that the moment when the church receives its actual, Israel will receive its virtual, deliverance. There is no connection in Scripture between the actual placing the church in its heavenly glory, and the quickening of individual Israelites, which is their virtual deliverance; nor is this latter the placing Israel as a nation or a body in the place of their earthly glory as purposed of God. The statements we have already considered as to the Jews — Ezekiel 20 as to Israel, Isaiah 66 — all prove the contrary, as indeed do Ezekiel 36 and 37. It is never said that Israel are to be individually born again at the coming of the Lord to receive the church; nor all individually born again at the same time; nor all restored at the same time, if public manifestation be referred to; but the contrary in the chapters I have cited. That they have their life from Christ, I do not doubt. That the resurrection of Christ secures to them the sure mercies of David, we are expressly taught in Acts 13. But it is never said they are of the one body, nor the bride of Christ in glory. They+ are not His body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.
+I speak here of the millennial state.
[p. 222] That all things will be headed up in Him in earth and heaven, all admit, and thus far they will have one centre; but so will all creation; and earthly and heavenly are definitely distinguished in this very passage — we having part in the heavenly.
Besides, this statement is a contradiction to itself. In the beginning of the sentence, Ephesians 1:10 is applied to the millennial state of the Jews. In the end of the passage it is said to be a dispensation which is not then yet come, and in which the millennial arrangements cease. In the beginning the author, speaking of the millennium, says, “they will have one centre (for all things have been headed up in Him)” referring to Ephesians 1:10, and a few lines lower down, “when the dispensation of the fulness of times has come, and the millennial arrangements ceased.” It is rather too bad to have two opposite explanations in the same paragraph. It is in vain to say it is in both, because the passage is treated as speaking of a time not come, during the millennium, and in which the millennial arrangements cease.
I do not believe that the passage applies to the post-millennial state, which cannot properly be called a dispensation, for it is eternity; and the heading up all things to be administered by Him in whom we have received an inheritance who have first trusted (or pre-trusted) in Christ (that is before His manifestation in glory), evidently speaks of the special time of Christ’s administration as the glorified Man, and our association with Him in that glory. The fulness of times itself is not an expression for eternity. That would not be called “times” or “seasons,” and the heading up all things in the man, as administrator, is not God being all in all, and the Son subject, as in 1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 21; and this view of the passage is completely confirmed by verses 22, 23. That Christ will be the centre of all in heaven and earth in the millennium is clear; but this does not hinder the church being in the proper, special, peculiar place of the bride, the body of Christ, the fulness of Him who filleth all in all when He is in glory. Israel moreover has its place as Israel, distinct, and in many respects in contrast. “They are” not “together engaged in the government of the earth.”
[p. 223] Nor is it ever said that Israel will govern the earth at all. That they are the favoured glorious nation on the earth, where the government of Christ is placed which extends over the earth, is true: but they do not govern nor judge the earth. It is the heavenly saints who do this. They are governed by Christ, who will be “great to the ends of the earth,” and “all nations call him blessed.” That they will celebrate the ways of God in justice and judgment, I fully believe. But what then? There is nothing at all like the knowledge, the anticipative knowledge, of the mind of Christ, and of His glory, which we find in verses 9-11. When the things are accomplished, they will understand them and celebrate them.
But the peculiar character of the church’s place is to know and celebrate them before by faith — not to know the justice and judgment merely which are the habitation of His throne, but His counsels and thoughts. The mind of Christ is more than the works or the ways of God in judgment. It is all His counsels in Christ. Who hath known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit, for the Spirit searcheth all things, even the deep things of God.” Thus it is we have the mind of Christ — as Joseph yet unexalted was the interpreter of the revelations of God. And Christ is the wisdom of God, and the power of God. Power will be displayed hereafter; we have but samples of it now, the display of which confirmed faith. But Christ is made unto us wisdom: and if in infirmity we know only in part, still, as regards the object of knowledge, and the source of knowing, the whole wisdom of God is in Christ, and we have an unction from the Holy One, and know all things — we have the mind of Christ. But it is never said that Israel has the mind of Christ. They will see the displays of His power, recognise and celebrate them. But is that having the mind of Christ as we have it? The Egyptians knew what Joseph knew, when the things came: but had they the mind of Joseph?
[p. 224] The Holy Spirit will be poured out on all flesh in the millennium. They will prophesy and see visions; but, though the lump is holy, it is not that separate consecrated first-fruits. The Holy Ghost will enable them to enjoy, but will not in identity with the sufferings of Christ make saints the vessel of the outgoings of His heart in the sorrow of a groaning world, nor in the joy of its deliverance by power, as the day when their love is answered. They will profit by the answer themselves, but they will not as in the love which has thought of others, though in it itself “according to God.” This place they will never have, they can never have. It is reserved for us who have gone before the day of His power, and fore-trusted in Him. Blessed privilege! If sovereign grace has given it us, shall we disown or depreciate it?
“In all essential blessings (we are told) the calling of Israel then so nearly resembles that of the church of the first-born now, that they may truly be said to be its successors. We are the first-fruits, they the lump.” The passage is clearly misapplied. They as to calling on earth were the first-fruits, and we the lump. They are not the lump of which we are the first-fruits in heaven; for in the time of glory we are in heaven, and they are on earth. Nor will they even be glorified together with Christ, whatever their eternal blessedness may be. They have not suffered with Him. This may seem a trifling thing to the author. It is not to the Scriptures, nor I believe to the saint’s heart who is led in this by the Spirit of God.
We have succeeded Israel on earth: are we in the same condition? Israel will succeed us again. But that says nothing at all as to the consequences of the difference of our position as so succeeding. And when it is said, “If the root on which we are now growing gives holiness to us, they will be graffed in on the same root,” etc. It is never said we are graffed in on the same root. It is all a confusion. Nor is it ever said that what they are graffed in gives holiness. If it had been Christ the root giving holiness, could they have been broken off, and then graffed in again? Or how could it have been called “their own olive tree”? The author has confounded the source and root of promises (which indeed gives holiness, makes us partakers of His holiness), and the depositary of them here below, elect and called.
[p. 225] That they will partake of life from Christ, all at first, and all called of God afterwards, is not questioned: but that is not the question here. If resemblance is traced, so is contrast. “Because thou hast seen, thou hast believed: blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed.” And I wot that those whom Jesus calls blessed are blessed. “That we might be to the praise of His glory who first trusted in Christ.” “If we suffer with him we shall reign with him.” And therefore when it is said, “in whose government they are engaged together,” it is quite contrary to Scripture (and see all John 17).
One thing is quite clear from all these statements of the author, and that is, the anxious desire to reduce the heavenly saints to the level of the earthly. A few casual expressions which may suppose something else may be found, but the constant laborious effort is to say that all are alike.
As to the details, I have no reason for opposing the idea that they are called children, but I do not believe it. They do enter into a place very analogous to that of Christ on earth, except His rejection. They are much associated with Him there. So far from analogy I might suppose it. But it would be questionable if this went beyond those that suffered, and were removed from earth: for, “if children then heirs, heirs of God and joint-heirs of Christ.” And this during the millennium they certainly are not; because it is to this that is attached the condition “if so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be glorified together.” All this I leave to the consideration of the reader. The only passage quoted, or which can be quoted, is one from Hosea, which I do not believe applies to them — for this reason, that where Paul refers to these passages of Hosea, he quotes this and another as to the Jews: when Peter refers to them, he quotes only that other, which has distinct reference to Israel’s blessings. This makes me think that the Spirit of God had a covert reference to the Gentiles, and therefore He says “there” when it was said to them. Peter does not quote this when he refers to the prophecy, though he uses chapter 2: 23, as does also Paul as to the called of the Jews, as we have said, and as is evident to me, chapter 1: 10, of the Gentiles.
[p. 226] This passage being disposed of, there is absolutely no other.+ The nation is figuratively called God’s son — His firstborn; and Ephraim, a dear son, a pleasant child. But this has nothing to do with the matter at all. It has nothing to do with individual sonship and the Spirit of adoption. The passage quoted is used of the house of Israel, not of the individuals who compose it. But this is as distinct as possible to the spiritual mind.
As to the quotation of 1 Corinthians 15, I have already spoken of the word “in.” That in Christ all will be made alive, and that in the sense of partaking of life they are in Christ, I do not doubt. Still, the use of this passage is untenable, because it speaks of resurrection, and very distinctively indeed of those that are Christ’s, at His coming, which the author insists is specifically and exclusively the moment of His arriving at which they are raised. If so, no other resurrection is spoken of in that chapter. Nor is any resurrection to life spoken of but one — the resurrection of life, and then another, the resurrection of judgment. The truth is, the reasoning is a mere blunder. In Christ all will be made alive is a very different thing from saying all made alive are in Christ; nor does one prove the other. Do not let the reader be startled as if I supposed some were alive who were not in Christ. But here is the importance of a remark which as to reasoning is undoubtedly true.++ If we take the scriptural use of the term made alive, in 1 Corinthians 15, it applies to resurrection only; and then the fullest distinction possible is drawn between those whom the author seeks to identify. That is, the Holy Ghost applies it to making alive from an actual state of death, wherein there is nothing common to us and them. If it be applied to spiritual life in general, if “in Christ” be used of union, then they are alive already and have not to be made alive if they are in Christ. Applied to the resurrection, it is very simple. But if it be used of spiritual life, there is no doubt they have it from Christ; but if in Him, they have not to be made alive. The argument as an argument is unsound, most certainly illogical and unsound. About that there can be no difference in those who are accustomed to reason.
+Isaiah also says in a figurative way, “bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth.”
++The author’s use of it is merely the logical error of converting a universal affirmative into a universal negative: one of which he is not uncommonly guilty.
[p. 227] If then I take the scriptural use of the passage, I find the exactly opposite account from the author’s; that is, I find a special and peculiar distinction of classes. It is not true that all will die and be made alive. It is never said that the saints in the millennium will: I do not believe myself that they will. The use of the word alive in 1 Corinthians 15 goes to shew that the apostle is only speaking of resurrection. If it be anything else, it merely amounts to saying that the life of Christ is in all the finally blessed, which nobody denies. The truth is, the words “in Christ” do not imply union, though union may exist. This is evident from the passage itself, because “in Adam” is not union. All who come into resurrection to life, do so through the power of Christ, and by the life of Christ; but all do not come into resurrection to life, because we shall not all die. And it is never said that those here treated of, that is, the millennial saints, will die, nor is their resurrection ever spoken of directly. So that the argument from the passage wholly fails. When the apostle wrote, it was needful to treat this question, because death was not considered as the natural portion of the saints as now: Christ was looked for to come and receive the saints.
It is never said “they are baptised by the same Spirit.” That He will be poured out as the latter rain, I do not doubt. But what is stated here is an unscriptural statement. The unity of the body into which we are baptised will not exist during the millennium. The Jews and Gentiles will be distinct as heretofore. I have already spoken of the olive tree, which is Abraham as heir of promises, and then his seed. They could not call Christ their olive tree, and be cut off, and graffed in again, in a real living spiritual sense. “We are married to the Lord-so will they.” Does the author mean to say that they will be the bride, the Lamb’s wife? If not, why thus, by the vague term Lord, seek to destroy and efface the special blessing of the church? We are never said to be married to the Lord, that is, to Jehovah. It is Christ, the Lamb, who is the bridegroom of the church. We are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones. Is not this a different thing from saying, “Thy maker is thy husband; the Lord of hosts is his name”? Because the Spirit of God has taken the images of the Old Testament to represent the far superior blessings of the heavenly family and bride, to shew that they had come into the place of blessing, perfectly bringing out the difference, the author would reduce all the plainly taught blessings and glories of the church to an equality with the figures from which illustrations are drawn. Though indeed as to the marriage, it is from Adam more than from Jewish images.
The differences are merely “circumstantial and official” — that is all by which the Holy Ghost acts in our hearts. All the joy, the privilege, that which Christ has pronounced blessed, suffering with Him, reigning with Him, His willing that we should be where He is, the blessedness and holiness of those who have part in the first resurrection — all, all by which Christ has spiritually touched the springs of hope in the soul, is withered in this system to circumstantial and official differences — unessential — the author does not say none. The best answer is: — The whole New Testament from the gift of the Holy Ghost (even much of it before) is occupied about them, to act on our hearts by them, save about three passages where the eternal state is mentioned, namely, a passage in 1 Corinthians 15, “God shall be all in all”; 2 Peter 3; Revelation 21: 1-8 That the millennial saints will have to look for a new heaven, and a new earth, is true; and evidently it is to the exclusion of our proper hopes by this that the author’s statements tend. It yet remains to be proved, that there will be no difference then. There are very strong passages to shew there will: but into this I do not enter. But even when the author says “So will they,” on what does he found this in Scripture? It seems to me an evil thing, when God has not been pleased to unfold to us the state of soul of the saints then (and He has not) to use our apprehensions of them, even supposing they are just, as a peremptory argument to establish a system whose object is to reduce our feelings and blessings to the level of theirs, and so destroy the influence of the special hopes God has given us.
As to the man-child, supposing there is an allusion to the manner of bringing a people into heavenly glory, and another people into earthly glory, how does this prove that the difference is merely circumstantial? I should rather say the resemblance was circumstantial. Nobody denies that figures of the Old are used in the New, though greatly changed. It is the use of this to destroy the difference in the counsels of God which is so objectionable. Corresponding in figurative circumstances is not denied to a certain extent, though only a shadow, and not the very image. But is that only a circumstantial difference? Aaron’s family had an everlasting priesthood; they went into the holy place, not without blood; they had a priesthood of Urim and Thummim; but suppose I were to conclude from all this, that the difference between Christ’s priesthood and this was merely circumstantial and official? This is what the author is doing. Because the circumstances are figuratively the same, “the language, types, and symbols,” he concludes that there is a circumstantial difference and an essential identity. Would not any reasonable person conclude that there was a circumstantial assimilation, and a real difference, essential as to the state of things, though life might be in all? And the truth is, that in the strict use of the word essential, the differences are essential. An essential quality is that without which a thing would not be what it is; and heaven cannot be heaven if it is earth, nor earth earth if it be heaven. As to Israel’s heavenly and glorified priesthood, we have already seen on what it rests. And why Israel’s? Are the Gentiles to have none in that day?
[p. 229] As to the note on the Greek, hosios, the word is used for favour, benignity, gracious goodwill. It is this word is used in the expressions, “His mercy endureth for ever”; “forsake their own mercy”; “I will sing of the mercies of the Lord for ever,” Psalm 89. It is interesting here, because it is the same word used in the singular in verse 19: “Thou spakest in vision to [query if it should not be ‘of’ or ‘about,’ as in the title of Psalm 72] thy holy one,” where the word is different from verse 18, the Holy One. The same word is used in the sure mercies of David; Isaiah 55:3. The reading is more doubtful. I am disposed to think the received reading right, that is hosios. The God of mercy or favour, as in Jonah 2:9, and Psalm 144:2: compare Psalm 62:12, for the spirit of the passage we are speaking of. The whole tenor of their song savours very much of the Old Testament, for the Lamb’s wrath is of the same character. The reader may with a concordance search out the passages where mercy and truth are used together in the Psalms. Mercy is always the same word. But as to the reading, these references confirm the conviction that it is hosios. Still there is not quite the certainty which the author presents in the note. The very great majority of MSS read hagios, and one of the three ancient. I suppose the other two read hosios, though they are not actually cited in the books I can refer to. C contains this passage; Griesbach gives it as a questionable reading, but the evidence not such as to induce him to change the text. I would add that in Psalm 43 an “ungodly nation” is a nation “not chased”; not having this character of grace.
“Clothed in fine linen.” All that is said about this, Greek and Hebrew, is mere confusion. Properly speaking, the Hebrew word ‘bad‘ (which means originally separated in parts, or to be alone) signifies thread, and then linen. This, being white, may often be used for purity. The Hebrew shesh means properly white, and thus is used for linen sometimes, if it be not rather cotton.+ It is used for white marble, Canticles 5: 15; Esther 1: 6. And in Exodus 39:28 we have linen breeches of fine twined linen, that is, breeches of bad or shesh, thus wholly subverting the alleged distinction as in the intention of Scripture. This was for Aaron and for his sons. For which dispensation here bad was of shesh. If we refer to Ezekiel 27: 7-16, we shall find that “buz” (from which probably Bussinos++) came from Syria, and shesh from Egypt The shesh was used for sails, and buz for what was costly. Shesh being from Egypt makes plain its use in the tabernacle, where, observe, it was used for the outward court as much as for Aaron’s robes, as his and his sons’ robes were made of bad as of shesh, yea, of bad of shesh. I apprehend that it is more likely Bussinos comes from buz, and not from shesh. In Leviticus 6: 10 (Hebrews 3) we have the breeches of bad, chapter 16: 4, and so Exodus 28:42, the same word is used, we know that they were made of shesh. Further, in Ezekiel 9, Daniel 10, we have it used for an angelic manifestation as man. So here the angels are clothed with linen. And how is it applied in Ezekiel and Daniel to this dispensation?
As to Bussos,+++ it is vain to say “it belongs to the next dispensation when seen,” etc. For it is used in two passages as far as I can discover in the New Testament: Revelation 19: 8, 14, and chapter 18: 12, 16. Bussos is used in Luke 16: 19. In Revelation 19: 8 and 14 it is used for the armies that followed Christ. But then its use is to be proved for this; and there is no other passage to prove it by, unless passages where it cannot have this signification, as Revelation 18, where it is used of Babylon, where, it is hardly, I suppose, used for beauty and excellency of character (in Hebrew, shesh); and in Luke 16: 19, an analogous word is used for the clothing of the rich man who went to hell.
+It appears that by recent microscopic examinations it has been ascertained (at least what has been found in Egypt) to be linen.
++Bussinos (and Bussos, Greek), are used for “fine linen” in Luke 16: 19; Revelation 18: 12, 16; 19: 8, 14.
+++Ditto
[p. 231] Further, Bussinos is used for the Hebrew buz in 1 Chronicles 15: 27; byssus for bad (said to mean linen) in the same verse fine linen; and for shesh in Genesis 41: 42. Though in the Pentateuch it is used for shesh. The result of the examination, therefore, sustains in no way the statements of the author.
The conclusion from chapter 16: 7 is curious. The scripture says, taking the reading proposed as the right one, the altar said; and then it is assumed that it was the souls spoken of before, and that shews that they were still in their disembodied state! Well, I should think it was the altar if Scripture says so, and not the souls. If it implies anything, it implies that they were gone. But it implies nothing about them, that I see. The altar, which had witnessed all the blood of these sacrifices for Christ, bore witness of the justice of the judgment that fell on their persecutors. Conclusions thus drawn are indeed easy to arrive at.
The note on the throne of the beast is almost equally without force. The king of Babylon says that he will set his throne above the stars of God, and that he will sit, at Jerusalem: but why that makes Jerusalem the throne of the beast, it would be hard to tell.
As to the note on the kings of the East, it will come under Babylon; only I remark that what is given as “I think,” in the note is stated with certainty in the text (page 227). I will only say in passing that Isaiah 13 being the day of the Lord, the saints must be gathered before. But the author is mistaken, I have no doubt, in his division of Isaiah 13, and in his use of “day of the Lord”: but this I reserve for the discussion of Babylon.
As to the note on Armageddon (see Judges 5: 19), I have touched on it already. They are gathered to the battle, and they are gathered to Armageddon, which is a symbolic name. There is no such place mentioned in Scripture. I apprehend it is so of Jehoshaphat. I also dissent from the interpretation of Daniel 11. However I once thought myself that the passage did relate to Antichrist, but I believe it to be the king of the North who is spoken of.
The use of the Greek translated “the habitable earth” for the Roman world, we have seen is entirely unproved. I see no reason at all to think it is. It is very much oftener used in another sense; but all these uncertain points are necessary to the author’s system, because this is his counter gathering against the Eastern kings. If they fall, his system falls: but they are wholly unproved.