Bible Standard May 1881

8/3/2019 Bible Standard May 1881

1/12

T f/ y R EC lV EO rH EWORD WITH AL L REA!)I--/liES'S' OF NI/lI!) All!)S'EARCIIEOTilE SCRIP--TIMES DA ILY WHEllIERl7I0SETHIHCS' WERSOTHEREFORE MANYOF THEN BEL. lEVEO."I /~ AcTS" ",, '

c ! 'W t n n t b ln. ." Q ;a l e t t o f t h e UQ I ; n u b i t i n n a l jf m l u n r t a l i t ! 1EDI'.rED BY OYRUS E. BROOKS.

c o The Wagesof Sin is Death; but the gift of God is Eternal Life through Jesus Chrut our Lord."

No. 8. Vol. IV. PRICE ONE PENNY.AY, 1881.TABLE OF CON'l'ENTS.

PAGE" Everlasting Punishment" ... 106Life Only in Christ 107Conditional Immortality. Part n. J 108The Genealogy of Jesus 109Dante: On Preachers and Preaching .. , 10~AChallenge... 110The Original" Apostles' Creed" ... 110An Exegetical Lunacy 111"What of the Night? " 111Members' Berean Class 112Correspondence Extracts 113Notes, News, and Reviews 113Church and Mission News 114

CONDITIONAL IMMORTALITYASSOCIATION,Publishing and Evangelistic,

HOME, COLONIAL, AND FOREIGN.TERMS Ol' MElIIBERSHIP.-Christian Faith and Life, with an AnnualSubscript ion of-Members, 5s.; Associates, 2s. 6d.; Life Members asingle subscription of Five Pounds. 'l'he Official Gazette (B 'ib leStandard) is statedly supplied to Members aud Assoei ates.

CORIIESPO:lDENCEANDLITERA,TURm.-ill communications, orders, andadvertisements should be forwarded to the Secretary, (at his postala-idress.] CYR.US E. BROOK3. The Link. Malvern,En zlaud. Booksellers' orders supplied by the London Agent,I 1


2/12

106 THE BIBLESPEC IA L NOTES .

Kindly note that all communications and orders are to be sent to the Secretary:SOLE POS'l'AL ADDUEss-Cyrus E. Brooks, The Link, MALYEIlN.Th~ Associatio~1 as such, assumes no responsibility for the views expressed by itshterary ccntrlbutors. Ofnecessity its members differ widely on minor polnts, andare beld personally responsible for their communications. 'l'be same is true of theworks published by the Assoclatiou.r .2S '" DUE SUBSCRIPTIONS.-T lwse M emb ers, Associates, andSubscribers who receive the present number in a COLOREDwrapper, willlcindly reqard it as an intlm ation. that their AnnualSubscriptions are now due; they unll.greatly obl-ige by forioardinq,

lIS early as convenient, to the SEC RETARY .MO:>lTHLYTATEMENT,rom March 1st to 31st, 1881.-New Members

1, Associates 0; total l.-S'Uoscl'iptions above 5s. :-None. Donations:J. S., Is. Od.; S. N. (Box), 11s.; M. N., 5s.; W. A., 2s. 6d. ; "A PoorReader," 28. 6d.-The Link, Malvern, .t!pl'ilI9.-CYRUS E. BROOKS.

" EVERLAST ING PUN IS H Iv IEN 'l'."

By R EV . D AV ID Iv IA CR AE .Extract /1'0111 a Discourse delivered in the Kinnaird. Hall,

Dundee, on J J J ay 20th.AFTER reading the 2.'ith chapter of M tu tlieu ; and pointing out that

these three parables of the Virgins, the Talents, and the Sheep andGoats referred immediately not to death and final judgment, but to theadvent of Christ, and the judgment of Jews and Gentiles in the light ofthe Christian dispensation, he proceeded to say that these parablesnevertheless involved principles of universal application, and illustratedthe judgment that seemed to follow every dispensation, or mou of oppor-tunity and trial, whether in time or in eternity. Every new dispensationbrought life to those who had under the previous dispensation beenfaithful to their light; and punishment to those who had not-punish-ment more or less severe, according to what was deserved and demanded.His purpose that night, he said, was to show that the words "Theseshall go away into everlasting punishment" supported and expressedthis view, and did not teach (as was so often assumed) the horribledogma of everlasting torment. Had anyone lost a father. or a brother.or a son, and feared that he had died unsaved? 'Was is not a questionthat mercy and truth demanded we should ask-whether the Bible reallyrequired us to believe (as the Churches said) that that loved one badpassed beyoud the reach of the mercy of God, and was doomed to existfor ever and ever agonizing iu unspeakable torment without even thehope, after millions of ages. of finding escape in death? Justice to theBible itself required that this question be thoroughly and fearlessly faced.The question was not as to future punishment, but as to whether th!ttpunishment was what orthodoxy declared it to be. The last time hespoke Oil the subject he showed how different the hell-fire of Scripturewas from the hell-fire of the Churches and the creeds. That night hewould endeavour to make it clear that this expression "everlastingpnnishment" had been equally perverted from its true meaning. Thepunishment of sin was certain and terrible; but it was a punishment iuharmony with the Divine character and purpose.

PuNISHMENTAND'l'ORMEN'l'.Mr. Macrae then proceeded to expound the text. He showed that the

words, even as they stood in the Euglish version, were sufficient tu warnpeople against" the meaning which had been commonly fastened uponthem. The text said, " These shall go away into everlasting punishment."Orthodoxy made it mean "These shall go away into everlasting andunspeakable torment." Punishment was not necessarily torment. Therewere innumerable forms and degrees of punishment which it would be aperfect outrage to speak of as torment. To say that a father punishes hischildren is a very different thing from saying that he subjects them totorment. Punishment does not always involve even pain. The punish.ments intlicted by the civil law arc very few of them attended with pain,

STANDARD.though all of them involve more or less serious and more or less pement loss Punishment indeed does not necessarily involve eventinued existence. The severest penalty which our law inflicts is ta man out of existence. To assume therefore that" everlasting pument" means everlasting and unspeakable torment is to outragelanguage, even as i1 stands in the English version.

'fHE GREEK wonns.The dogma of orthodoxy is still further discredited when we tu

the original. There we fiud that the Greek word here trans.' punishment" is kolasis, which means literally "pruning."pruning is an operation meant for the good of the tree or plant subjto it, and hence corresponds with the idea not of vindictive torbut of corrective discipline. Pruning as regards the tree sugimprovement. As regards what is cut off, it suggests destruction.one idea which is not suggested is the one expressed in the orthdogma. We also find that the word translated" everlasting"Greek word aionios, meaning literally" age-long "-that is, belongior extending over a certain age or period. That period may be loshort. It depends upon the nature and purpose of the thing spokAionios therefore no more supplies a measure of absolute durationsuch an expression as "a fifth" supplies an absolute measure of lIt depend. on what you are speaking about. If you are speakingthe circnmference of an orange, "a fifth" means about 2 inches ;are speaking, about the circumference of the earth, "a fifth" mabout 5,000 miles. The expression is precisely the same in bothbut the one "fifth" is twenty-six millions of times greater thanother. It is the same with the word aionios translated "everlastinH]!!VERLA.STING," "FOR EVER," AND" ETERKAL" IN THE ENGLISH BIAnyone can satisfy himself of this, even by comparing in the En

Bible some of the passages in which the words "everlasting,"ever," and" eternal" occur. They will be found applied not othings that come to an end, but to things immeasurably differetheir periods of duration. In Pliilemon; verse 15, "for ever"the few years of a man's life; in Jude, verse 6, " everlasting " is apto a period which might cover a thousand or a million of years; in7, "eternal" is applied to a conflagration which accomplished thoroits terr ible work, but could scarcely have lasted many weeks, andnot have lasted many days. Yet in all these cases the same word iiu the Greek-the word aionios, which occurs, and is translatedlasting" in our text. The well-known Greek version of the Oldment, familiar to the Jews in Christ's time, is full of similar proofword is applied to things of short duration, long duration, and eduration indiscriminately. It is applied to the Jewish ritual, thehood of Aarou, the Temple, and the Messiah's kingdom. It is ato God Himself, rising in such a case from the idea of mere duratthat of absolute existence. The same word is also applied to thilimited in duration as a servant's lifetime and Gehazi's leprosy.bearing of all this upon the term "everlasting punishment" is obThe word translated "everlasting" supplies no measure of duratiall, apart from the nature and purpose of the thing to whichapplied. The question therefore is--" Will punishment in the baGod ever serve its purpose; or is the sin which He hates to maitself in His universe for ever, so as to require everlastingly fresequally abortive inflictions of punishment?" The whole Bibleanswer to this-God reigns and sin is doomed. The wages odeath. Every plant that the Heavenly Father has not plantedrooted up.

ARE}'UTUBESUFFERINGANDFUTUREBLISS EQUALLYEVERLASMr. Mecrae proceeded, in conclusion, to deal with the diff iculty

notwithstanding the evidence, prevented so many good people


3/12

THE BIBLE STANDARD . 107accepting this conclusion as to the doom of sin because of the alarminginference it seemed to justify, in this very text, with regard to et-rnallife. They s&id-" The same word is applied both to the punishmentof the wicked and the life of tbe righteous. If, therefore, the one comes. to an end, so may the other. If hell goes, heaven goes with it." Evenif such an argument were sound, its selfishness should brand it withcondemnation. If hell is what orthodoxy represents it to be, no onewith Christ's spirit of pity and self. sacrifice-no one with even theheart of common humanity-but would sacrifice for himself the im-mortality of heaven, if that would terminate for others the unspeakabletorments of hell.But the argument itself will not bear examination. For instance, in

1 Tim, i. 17, God is spoken of as "ekmal," and the same word isapplied in Jude to the fire that destroyed Sodom. Do we argue thatbecause the fire went out in a few days or weeks so may the life of God '!In Rom. xvi. 26, God is spoken of as" everlasting," and in Gen. xlix. 26,the same word is applied to the hills. Do we therefore argue that if Godis really to endure for ever, so must tbe hills; and if the hills are to cometo an end, so may God? Yet tbis is the argument of those who holdthat because tbe same word-aionios-is applied in this verse both to tbepunishment of the bad and the life of the good, then if the one isendless 80 is the other, It overlooks the nature and purpose cf the twothings spoken of, and therefore overlooks the very thing on which themeaning of aionios depends. Tbe mon or lifetime of punishment isbounded by its need; the reon or lifetime of goodness is tbe lifetime ofGod. "Because I live ye shall live also." Take a Psalm like the 37th,or a chapter like the 15th of 1 Cor. The Bible from beginning to end-apart altogether from texts where aionios is used-literally teems witbdeclarations and proofs of what we might infer from the character ofGod, from His purpose in man, from the whole object of Divine govern-ment, namely-that evil is to perish and goodness to endure. Thepathway of sin is tberefore a pathway on which no light of hope canever break ahead. Man after zeou , as long as it exists, it can only leadto suffering and loss, to bitter disappointment and wailing and death.The one bope of life was in turning to God; and there was nothing butfolly and madness in delay. Nothing could be gained by delay; every-thing might be lost. Why go into the punishment of another age,another world, when we are freely offered its life and joy in Christ?

LIFE ONLY IN CHRISTBy ROBT. P. GARDINER.

Ten Reasons why Ido not believe in the Inherent bnmo1"t(tlity of theHuman Soul.

I. BECAUSE-Man by the Fall incltr?"ed the penrtlty of death, which'was meant to put an end to his existence. "Of every tree of the

garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of goodand evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day tbat thou eatest thereofthou shalt surely die." (Gen. ii. 16, 17.) "In tbe sweat of thy faceshalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of itwast thou taken : for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."(Gen. iii. 19.) "Then (at death) shall tbe dust return to the earth as itwas: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." (Eec. xii, 7.)If. Because-Man was expelled froni Paradise to preoesit his li'ving for

ever. "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is hecome as one ofus, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, andtake also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: therefore theLord God sent him forth from the garden of Erlen, to till the groundfrom wheuce he was taken." (Gen. iii. 22, 23.) Scott, commenting onthis passage, says-" Tbe Lord was pleased to point out, ill ironicallanguage, e;xpressive both of pity and indignation, the sad change

which bad taken place, by thus alluding to the ambitious desire andvain expectation of being as Gods, excited in Adam and Eve, and totheir woeful disappointment. As they had forfeited the blessing of im-mortality, it was very proper that they should be deprived of thesacramental pledge of it," i.e., access to the tree of life.Ill. Because-The seed of the woman was promised to bring man back

to communion with God, and so to re-establish. him in that position whichhe had lost. Man was lost by the Fall, and his hope of immortalitydied for tbe time. But a seed was promised, One who would bruise theserpent's head, and, by conquering man's greatest enemy, pave the wayback to God, and the hope of immortality.IV. Because-Christ always and distinctly asserts that He a/olle

the Fountain. of Life. Speaking to Nicodemus, He says, in languagewhich cannot be mistaken-" As Moses lifted up the serpent in thwilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up : that whosoeverbelieveth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (Johniii. 14, 15.) And again, in the same conversation, He says-" He thabelieveth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that bel ieveth nothe Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him,(vel'. 36.) When speaking to Martha' about the death of her brotheLazurus, He most emphatically declares-" I am the Resurrection, anthe Life: he that beJieveth in Me, though he were dead, yet shalllive: and whosoever liveth and believeth in Me shall never die," (shall not die for ever]. (xi. 25, 26.)* These are plain statements.Who would dare to deny their truth? We might also compare tnumerous statements all running in the same strain which are scatterethrough the 4th, 5th, and 6th chapters.V. Becanse- God has threatened to pun'ish sin with death. "Th

wages of sin is death." (Rom. vi. 23.) "For if ye live after the flesye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of tbody, ye shall live." (viii. 13.) "Let him know, that he which coverteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul frodeath, and shall hide a multitude of sins." (Jas. v. 20.)VI. Because-If man can live apart from Christ, it 100uld rend

the teaching of the Bible of none effect. The Bible distinctly declarthat man can only reach eternal life through belief in Christ, andmost certainly follows that if he can live on ill the future, apart froChrist, that the teaching of the Bible under this head is misleadingChrist died for the redemption of man; He died to redeem him frthe power of death. But where was tbe need of Christ's death if mcould never die, if he apart from any interest in Christ could liveever? The New Testament teaches that man can only inherit eternlife by believing in Christ.VII. Because If man cOltld live apart from Christ, it would rob G

of one of His "LOst essential attributes, viz., immortality. The AposPaul says, in speaking of the second coming of Christ-by the revelatioof God-" Who (that is God) only hath immortality, dwelling inlight which no man can approach uuto; Whom no man hath seen,can see: to whom be honour and power everlastiug." (1 'I'im, vi.Now it is surely plain, that if God only hath immortality, man cannalso have it. True, he may win it, by patient continuance in wdoing. The apostle is speaking of God, mau, and the present timand is urgiug Timothy to "lay hold on eternal life;" ending withdeclaration that God only (now) bath immortality.VIII. Because-If man has an inherent immortality, it wo1l(l invo

the eternity of evil, and so make the work of Christ useless. Chcame, not only to redeem U3 from sin and death, but He also camedestroy these. He has pledged Himself to destroy all tbat is evil,to doubt is, to our mind, the ext reme of infidelity.. 'Rather-as Christ is speaking of the resu,r'rectio'U-he then liviug and believing

nerer we.-ED. B.S.


4/12

108 THE BIBLEIX. Because-Ete1"l7allife is to be the reward (only) nf all those who

continue faithful to the end. Christ openly avowed that, all whobelieved on Him should live for ever j and all the New 'I'estam-ntwriters point to Him as the fountain of life. If we can live apart fromChrist, how can Christ hold out a future life as a reward (only) for ourservice?X. Beeause-c-Our death is a positive and practical proof that we do

not posse .s an inherent immortality. An example is worth a thousandspeculations, which too often prove to be false, and in this instancepractical examples are occurring daily around us.

For the above ten reasons I do not believe in the inherent immortalityof the human soul. There is only one way to secure the great pr ize,-that is by belief in Christ. Those who do not believe cannot expect toli ve for ever, since there is none other name given under Heavenwhereby we may be saved. If we have not a belief in Christ, an activefaith, let us-Mary.like-try to secure that better part. Seek then tosecure that better part which no man can take from you. The wordsof Scripture are-" Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt besaved."

1I Then' Up with thy hands to Jesus/o guilty, tempest-tost ;

Up with thy hands to Jesns,'Or, ainner, thou art lost."

CONDITIONAL IMMORTALITY. No. tt.Lecture by the Rev. Thomas Child, published. in three recent numbers

of "Morning Light," a New Church weekly journal.REVIEWED IlY H. H. IIORSlIUN.

HAVING examined the assumptions of the theory, the writer proceedsto the consideration of the theory itself in relation to Scripture j

and attempts to evade the force of the testimony that" man was madeof the dust of the ground." He says" this statement is contained inthe second chapter of Genesis, but there is quite another statement inthe first chapter, viz., God created man in His own image." Nowwhat difference is shewn in this" other statement" we certainly fail tosee, and cannot accept the interpretation so kindly given, that" man isfirst brought into being, created, as to his spiritual part." Let it beshown that the image of God is not the form into which the dust of theground was fashioned, and there might be some excuse for such atheory j but facts are against it. The angels who have appeared tomen in past ages have been in the same form as men, and these beingsare in multitudes of passages of Scripture termed" Elohim," renderedGod in our translation. Reversing the illustration in order to apply it-man is in the image of Elohim (God), who has appeared to men(Gen. xviii. 1), as regards bodily form j hence the quotation from Gen. i.26, cannot be held to prove anything contrary to the passage, " theLord God formed man of the dust of the ground."

With reference to tlie statement that " everywhere man is held asmade of the dust of the ground," he admits the truth of it, sa) ing,Yes! truly, man iu his natural part is so made." This, then, is allwe contend for. If the whole of the natural part of man be that whichis of the dust of the ground, we conceive the point is admitted that it isunnatural to speak of any other part.

The penalty threatened to Adam is next taken into account, andobjection taken to the fact that the carrying out of it appears-out ofharmony with it. That whereas the warning was in the day thatthou eatest thereof, dying, thou shalt die," the fact was that ,\ damlived some 800 years afterward, The same difficulty.must also appearin considering the deliverances of Israel from Egypt, and J udah fromBabylon j for whereas the prediction was that Abraham's seed shouldbe affllcted !o\l.r hundred ;years, their deliverance WIIS not. effected until

STANDARD.four hundred and thirty years had expired j and the close ofyears' servitude of Judah to the King of Babylon was onlythe turn of events in a promising direction. So, in the casthe time of his transgression was marked by cutting off actree of life which alone could preserve him in being, thus scertainty of the threat, " Dying, thou SHALT die."

The writer has next a difficulty respecting "the immAdam," and asks, If he was created mortal, what effect hadof the fruit upon him?" It had the effect of preventing himimmortal, as indicated above, for the way of the tree of lifthat time carefully guarded, "Lest he should eat and live(Gen. iii. 22.)

A number of passages are then quoted containing the wand" death," but with very little bearing on the subjectcussion. The use of the terms by the Apostle Paul, in Rpressed into service to show that they are not always used literahowever, is admitted, the only difficulty being to persuadethat a literal interpretation must sometimes be given.Rom: vii. 8, "Without the law sin was dead," and asks, "sin be physically dead?" In his sense of the word thesimply inexplicable, for but a few lint'S further on he statedeath." When the commandment came," sal's the Apostlvived,"-did death live again? The meaning of the Apostleif we examine two or three passages. "Sin is the transgressio(1 John iii. ,1 ) j therefore, "Where no law is, there is no transor sin (Rom. iv, 15) j or, in other words as quoted," withosin was dead," or powerless, or non-existent. Surely this is aof the sense in which Scripture \VI iters use the word" deaunfavourable to our friend?

He next directs attention to the fact that there are two def,; death" and" life" in Scripture j bnt contends that alphysical death is meant the dissolution of the body, by spiris meant "carnal.mindedne3s, de;truction of spiritual powprimeval purity, and 80 on." 'I'his we will admit, if "so on"to its proper Scriptural issue. Carnal-mindedness, is mflesh, or gratifying the lusts of the flesh. In the languaApostle James (i. H, 15), Every man is tempted when heaway of his own lust and enticed j and when lust hath cobringeth forth sin j and sin, when it is finished, bringeth foThe beginning of sin is tile spiritual death. contended for bybut the ending of it is the death of the being, entirely.Rom, vi. 20 to 23, taking sin to be spiritual death, " The wis death,,,-the wages of spiritual death is literal death.were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness,"fore, spiritually dead; "The END of those things is deasimple fact in connection with the use of so-called figurativeis, that the word "cl eath " is applied to some actions whievitably result in death, such as " Let. the dead bury their de

A sample of the sophistry necessary to sustain these theortained in the following passage, "Supposing a man or a wosplendid musical voice. Suddenly a paralysis of the vocalin j and the man or woman may be able to speak or sing, wheffects of the paralys is are gone by, as before, and not asassemblies they used to enthral before would not listen tobecause they would say, 'His voice is destroyed j' but theis not destroyed. Again, we have heard of people goingtheir minds being destroyed. Their minds remain whatbefore, but their clear-thiukiug powers are destroyed."

We would ask any unprejudiced man, whose thinking powdestroyed, to what purpose is such an argument as theconcerning the word destruction r Does it lessen its fo


5/12

THE BIBLE STANDARD. 109slightest? Doe s it rob it of any strength whatever as used bythose who accept its literal meaning? Not in the least! It. isonly by trying to divert attention from the thing destroyed, that it canbe to any degree successful. Would an audience say and mean that~he voice itself was destroyed? No! but simply, as explained by ourfriend, that its qualities as a "splendid musical" voice are destroyed.And in this respect the word destroy is capable of bearing its absolutemeaning, for as regards music there is none left in it; connected withtbat voice there is no splendid music; that has been utterly destroyed;and it is music that an audience wants, and pays a high premium tohear. And so with the destruction of the mind; it is scarcely fair todescribe tbe mind as being destroyed, aud immediately say, "I do notmean the mind, but only its thinking powers," and argue that the worddestroy therefore does not mean destroy. Wha t shall we say about the" thinking powers?" Do you really mean that they are destroyed insuch a case? If the thinking powers are not destroyed, then do not usethe word destroy in relation to them.Then the writer states that "the eternity of life does not consist in

its duration; 'eternal' is merely the English translation of a Greek wordwhich does not signify duration in its radical import, but rather thequality of life to which the man attains. It is the recovery by theman of the perfect image and likeness of God." Seeing that the wordeverlasting is also used with reference to the destruction of the wicked,the above definition is certainly somewhat incongruous.But is man Immortal? No! the whole superstructure of the Bible

goes on this foundation. To assert his present immortality is to robwords of their meaning throughout the sacred volume. We have therecord, that he was fashioned in the image or form of God from thedust of the ground, and that in consequence of sin he died. Why wasnot the dread sentence quoted in connection with this part of thesubject.? "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Thesewords were addressed to a living though dying man. Whatever con-stituted Adam, that was sentenced to a return to the ground, and thetree of l ife guarded to prevent evasion of the decree of the Lord.Generat.ion after generation have come forth like flowers, but have

withered and perished like grass of the field, and were it not for theprovision which has been made, would indeed have all perished. Butsince by man came death, by the man Christ Jesus has come a resurrec-tion-or standing again-of dead ones, and by the forbearance andforgiveness of God immortality is still a possibility for the sons of men.Although the wages of sin is death, the gift of God through Jesus Christour Lord is eternal life.

oTHE GENEALOGY OF JESUS.

By GEORGE C. HERRLEIN.Imay, perhaps, be not unimportant for me to give some explanationof prophecy touching the genealogy of our Lord. Oftentimes in

conversation, with my Jewish countrymen, I have heard the expression," We know all about where Joseph comes from, the foster-father (asyou say) of Jesus of Nazareth, but where does Mary come from?Does she come from the lineage of David? Else, how is Jesus theMessiah ?" With others, I have prayed and thought much about thi-,difficulty, and have been rewarded with some light, gleaned from theVulgate.

Matt. i. reveals to us the line of the generation of Joseph. Luke iii.23, states that Joseph was the son of Heli. In fact, MaIy was Heli'sdauqhier, and Joseph only his son-in-law. The Jews have no words forcousin, sister, brother, or son.iu.law, so it follows that Josephwas called the "son," for son-In-law "of Heli," Neverthelessthe natural ~father of Joseph was not Heli, but Jacob.,-(compare

Luke iii. 23, with Matt. i. 16.) Mary, and not Joseph, was thenof Heli, for Luke solely brings forth the genealogy of theVirgin, and thus shows Christ's descent from David, through Mary.That she herself is not mentioned, but her husband, rests solely on themanners of the Jews=-us of other Oriental nations-that men whomarried heiresses (as l\lary was, see Luke ii. 5), are cai rled in, in thetablets of generations, as the sons of their wives' fathers, so that theywere indeed snpposed to be their very sons. It should be remarkedhere that Heli, Heliakirn, and Joakim are one and the same person.Now take Luke Hi. 23, and compare with Isa. xxii. 20; Luke iii, 29-31, and compare with Zech. xii. 12-14. Notice: (1) Eliakim, the son oHilkiah (compare Isa. xxii. 20-25, with Rev. Hi. 7), above you findEllakim, Joaehim, Heli, are one and the same, and so is Hilkiah.(2) Luke iii, 29-31, with Zech. xii, 12-14, you will find David, Nathan,Levi, Simeon (or Shimei ), are one and the same; there we have threewitnesses (Deut. xvii. 6, xix. 15; Matt. xviii, 16; 2 Cor. xiii, 1; Heb, x28 ; John viii. 17; 1 John v, 7-10;) Isaiah, Zeehariah, Luke, and John.Joseph came from Solomon (Matt. i. 6), and was the natural son o

Jacob (Matt. i. 16). Mary came from Nathan (Luke iii. 31), and wathe natural daughter of Heli (Luke iii. 23). Nathan and Solomon wertwo natural brothers, sons of David (Luke iii. 31; Matt. i. 6), of onand the same mother, Bathsheba, (2 Sam, xii. 14-24; 1 Chron, xv. 4iii. 5). Mary was the last of Nathans line, the only. child of Heli (oHilkia, Eliakim, Joakim), an heiress (Luke ii. 5, iii. 23). And so waRuth (Ruth i. and iii.), hence, the singular and peculiar expression iZech, xii. 12-14. "Their. wives apart," is now clear! 'rhus we finDavid derived from Ruth (Ruth iv.), and the Messiah from M~ry(Matt. i. 18-25). The Messiah came out of the root of Jesse (Rom. xi15). Thus Christ is of the seed of David, indirectly on His supposedfather's side, and directly on His real mother's side. Thus He claimsby descent, as well as promise, to sit upon His father Davids tbrone.

oDANTE: ON PREACHERS AND PREACHING.

SELECTED BY H. BRITTAIN, F.B.A." S O that men, thus at. variance with the truth,Dream, though their eyes be open; reckless some,

Of error; others well aware they err,To whom more guilt and shame are justly due.Each the known track of sage philosophyDeserts, and has a byeway of his own:So much the restless eagerness to shineAnd love of singularity prevail,Yet this, offensive as it is, provokesHeaven's anger less, than when the Book of GodIs forced to yield to man's authority,Or, from its straightness warped; so reok'ning madeWhat blood the sowing of it in the worldHas cost; what favour tor himself he winsWho meekly clings to it. The aim of allIs how to sliiue ; e'en they, whose office i.

Documents

Bible Standard May 1881