TheOldTestamentDoctrineofSalvation

or,HowMenwereSavedinOldTestamentTimes

BYWILLIAMDEASKERSWILL

ProfessorofHebrewLanguageandExegesisinTheTheologicalFacultyofLincolnUniversity,Pa.,U.S.A.,PHILADELPHIA

PRESBYTERIANBOARDOFPUBLICATIONANDSABBATH-SCHOOLWORK,1904.

COPYRIGHT,1904,BYTHETRUSTEESOFTHEPRESBYTERIANBOARDOFPUBLICATION

TableofContents

Preface

I.THEOLOGICALOVERSIGHTANDEMPHASIS

II.THEOLDTESTAMENTCONCEPTIONOFSIN

III.GOD'SATTITUDETOWARDTHESINNER

<IV.THEPLACEOFMESSIAHINOLDTESTAMENTSALVATION

V.JEHOVAH,THEGODOFREDEMPTION

VI.GRACEANDFAITHINOLDTESTAMENTSALVATION

VII.THEOLDTESTAMENTCONCEPTIONOFTHESAVEDLIFE

VIII. OLD TESTAMENT SALVATION IN RELATION TO THEINDIVIDUALANDTHEWORLD

Copyright

PREFACE

COMPARATIVELY fewChristians havemore than a vague idea of howmenweresavedinOldTestamenttimes.Theirattitudeisnothostile,butonlyagnostic.Itmay,ormaynot,affectseriouslytheirownfaith.ButtobethusindifferentastowhatmaybetheteachingoftheOldTestamentisatleasttoopenthewayforneglectoftheNew.

Fewwouldbepreparedtodenythatreligiousdistinctionsofsomenatureexistedamongmenofold:fewwouldhazard,eitherthatallwerelost,orthat all were saved. But few have taken the thought to determine forthemselvesexactlythelineofdivision.

OurLordplacedhighvalueupontheOldTestamentScriptureswhenhesaidof them:"Butall thiswasdone, that thescripturesof theprophetsmightbefulfilled";"Onejotoronetittleshall innowisepassfromthelaw, till all be fulfilled "; " They have Moses and the prophets." HehonoredtheOldTestamentScripturesinhisrebuke,"Haveyenotread?""Hathnotthescripturesaid?""Yedoerr,notknowingthescriptures."

Canweaffordtohaveindefiniteideasregardingthesame?

InthehopethatamoredefiniteandcorrectconceptionofwhattheOldTestament taught regarding salvation may be for the strengthening offaithand for the establishingof all truth, thesepages arewritten.Theyare the result of a careful exegesis of the entire Hebrew Scriptures,extendingoverseveralyears,duringwhichthissubjecthasbeenfaithfullykeptinview.

There isnoattemptwhatevermadehere togiveadigestofothermen'sviews. Thesemay be found in their own works. Indeed the absence ofanything at all comprehensive or satisfactory upon this subject issufficientapologyfortheappearanceofthepresentwork.AbrieftreatiselatelyfromthepenofDr.JuliusBonmer,DerAlttestamentlicheUnterbaudesReichesGottes,Leipzig,1902,dealswithakindredbutnotidenticalsubject. The various works upon the Biblical Theology of the OldTestamenttouchuponitinamoreorlessfragmentarymanner.Someofthese, notably Schultz, are unsatisfactory, because, as in his case, theScripture texts referred to,whenexamined,very frequentlydonotbearout the statements made or they have an arbitrary or paganinterpretationplaceduponthem.

In the following pages I have chosenwhen quoting Scripture proofs toinsert the Scripture passages themselves in the text. Experience musthavetaughteveryobservingreaderthatitisalmostuselessmerelytocitea list of proof texts in footnotes, without inserting the quotationsthemselves. Only one reader in a multitude then takes the trouble toverify them. Texts of doubtful application have been omitted, andwherever the English translation is specially at fault, I have taken itdirectlyfromtheHebrew.Themoreexactrendering"Jehovah"hasbeenusedinsteadof"TheLord"whererequired.

I have not labored tomake the conclusions squarewith any particular"school," but have sought to place in concise form, what the OldTestamentitselftaughttomenofitsdayastotheirsalvation.AuthoritiesotherthantheScriptureshavebeenread,andwheredefinitelyusedhavebeen carefully recognized, but the preparation has been predominantlyexegetical. The purpose has been to discover, not whatmen think, butwhattheOldTestamentsays.

Itiswiththeprayerfuldesirethatitmaybeusedfortheincreaseoffaiththatthisvolumeissentforth.

W.D.K.LincolnUniversity,Pa.,January26,1904.

Chapter1:TheOldTestamentDoctrineofSalvation

1.THEOLOGICALOVERSIGHTANDEMPHASIS

(1) SALVATION is the most absorbing topic of human thought.Notwithstandingtheapparentindifferenceofmen,thecommercialspirit,theskepticismofscienceitstillremainsthatthereisnosubjectwhichsovitallyinterestsmenasthequestionofsalvation.Everyonethinksaboutit.Andwearewidelymistakenifwesupposethatmenarenotinterestedinit.Theindifferenceofthemoralistisonlyapparent.Eventhesneerofthe scoffer is a confession; it is the braggart effort of his consciousweaknesstoresistitspressure.Afterall,nosubjectinterests,likethis,thewhole family of mankind the cultured scholar, the man of affairs, theinventivegenius,thetoilingmasses,thesin-scarredoutcast.Youseeitinthe stoicism of theMohammedan's (2) swarthy face turned toward hismosqueandhisMecca.YouhearitintheplaintivenoteoftheBrahman'sself-abnegation, and in the ruder jargons and superstitions of baserbeliefs.

Whetherthisinterestbeduemoretotheunspeakable,unchanging,ever-presentneedofthehumansoul,orwhether,asintheChristianreligion,tothematchlessperfectionandadaptationofthesalvationprovided,wemaynotnowtaketimetoconsider.

NowtherecanbenodoubttousasChristiansthattheNewTestament,inits own way, sets forth a salvation from sin, a salvation to meet theuniversalneedofsinfulmen,notinasystematicwayofttimes,itistrue,but better, in a largerway than could be compressed into a systematicsetting: and in a more vital, thrilling way than would be possible in aformaldidacticstatement.Indealingwithsogreataquestionitofttimesleavesus,itistrue,uponthedimborderlandwhichgirtsourfarthestfieldofview,butnotuntil ithasbroughtus far ina clearpathandgivenusunmistakably our bearings for eternity. But there is a fact which wecannot ignore, and yet which is frequently overlooked even by (3)evangelical theologians. It is, thatbefore theNewTestamentwasgiven,men livedanddied,men, sinfulmen,men likeourselveswitha similar

need.Was there for thema similar salvation?That is thequestion.Wesay similar. It could not have been absolutely the same: otherwise theactualityofChrist'slifeanddeathfillsnoplaceinChristiansalvation.Intreating of Christian theology few scholars have given due place to thefact that therewas a salvationwithout the actuality of Christ's life anddeath upon the earth, without the actuality of his incarnation,resurrection and ascension. It is not easy to give balanced fairness toeveryphaseofagreatquestion,muchlesstothisgreatestofallquestions.Asevery so-calledheresywhichhasvexed theChurchhasbeenbut theexaggerationofsometruthtotheexclusionofsomecompaniontruth,so,withoutwishing tobecritical, letussay,manyof thebest recentworksupontheologybybelievingtheologiansaremarredbydefect,bylimitingtheirrangetotheNewTestament,byunconsciouslyignoringthefactthattherewasanefficientwayofsalvationbeforethelifeandthepersonalityofChristbecameapracticalfactorinsalvation.

(4) Theologians have sought earnestly to determine what shall be thestartingpointof their system,andwhat shallbe thepivotalpoint,until"Christocentric"hascometorepresentthestructuralideaofperhapsthemajorpartofmodernevangelicaltheology,not,however,withoutraisingdifficulties,verygreatdifficulties.

If we were to remember that there was a way, an effective way ofsalvation, before the life and personality of Christ became a practicalfactor in salvation, in otherwords if wewere to beginwith theway ofsalvationasitexistedandwaseffectiveintheOldTestament,wouldnotthese later, additional features fall into theirmost excellent but properplace? Would we not avoid the complications which must arise fromthrustingintothefirstplaceinasystemthatwhichwaslongabsent?Allglory to the incarnateandrisenChrist!But let truthprevail.Wedonothonorhimbygiving tohis lifeorpersonalityaplace insalvationwhichthey do not hold. The thrust of James Martineau that we and he areequally Unitarian, that he believes in one God, and that we have onlymadeChristourGod,findsawhisperofwarrantinmuchevenofthebestTrinitariantheology.

(5)Atonementfillsalargeplaceinanysystemofbelievingtheology.Andthere are few of us who are not glad to admit that we have gained

something fromeachof thegreat theoriesof theAtonement.YetwouldnotsomeofthosetheoriesrequiretobemodifiedinordertoallowforaneffectivesalvationbeforetheIncarnation?Thevariousshadesofmysticalandpantheizing theories, from thePlatonizingFathers toOsianderandSchleiermacher, and themore cultured teachingofBishopWestcott, alltheorieswhich representmanas savedbyChrist's incarnation,bywhatChristdoesinus,havenaturallylittletosayaboutasalvationbeforethatIncarnation.Soall theorieswhich really eliminateatonementandplacemoral influence in its place, whether in the crude forms of Socinus orGrotius,orinthemorephilosophicalformofColeridgeorBushnell,orinthe evasiveness of Ritschl, all these meet a difficulty in making astatementofOldTestamentSalvation,prior to this influenceofChrist'sexampleorsufferingorloveorwhateverelse.

LetusnotunderestimatetheneednorthevalueoftheAtonement.Butletus see thatour theoryof itdoesnotdeny,butdoes ratheraffirm, (6)aplan of salvation for the multitudes of mankind before the actualincarnationandworkofourLord.

ReconciliationhasalargeplaceinChristianTheology,butinanysystemwhichmagnifiesthesubjectiveeffectwhichChristssufferingshaduponthe sinner, in any system which makes reconciliation consist in thereconciling ofman to God, rather than the reconciling of God toman,how was reconciliation effected and man saved before the scene uponCalvary?Theoldertheologianswouldhavesweptawayallsuchquestionsbysayingthatitwasbyanticipation,thatthesaintofoldforesawChrist'swork.Butcanitbeshownthatthatanticipationwassufficientlycleartobeofpracticalusetothesinnerofold?ThattherewereforeshadowingswhichfoundtheirfulfillmentintheactualworkofChristasnowrecordedin the New Testament, no one may dispute. But how will modernbelievingthoughtstatethequestionofsalvationsoasnottooverstateormisstate the placewhichChrist's actualwork holds in reconciliation ortheplaceofreconciliationinsalvation?HowdidtheOldTestamentwithitslimitedknowledgeofChristaspromised,leadmenoutofsininto(7)holiness?HowdidtheOldTestamentteachthesinnertobesaved?

If we say that men were saved in olden times without a practicalknowledgeofapromisedatonement,arewenotnowmakingtoomuchof

thesubjective influenceof theAtonement inman'ssalvation,at least insomeofthelatestandmostpopularviewsoftheAtonement?Arewenotoverweighting this side of the process of salvation and perhaps to theneglectofanotherphaseofit?

Or again, if we must say that men were once saved without thereconciling offices of a Mediator, are we not now exaggerating andtheorizingregardingreconciliationbeyondwhat is true?Well, itwilldous good to reflect upon a plan of salvation from which some of thefeatures, nowmost emphasized,were absent, or, if present at all, werepresentinaverydifferentproportiontothatcurrentlyassignedtothemnow in systems of theology. If we are not going to go with the latertheology in rejecting the emphasis once placed upon expiation andsatisfaction, are we going to fare any better by swinging to the otherextremeandconstruingeverything intoanargument that it ismanand(8)notGodwho,insalvation,requirestobereconciled?Inouraversiontolegalism,havewebeenworkingoutatheorywhichiswithoutwarrantintheScriptures,andwithoutpowertosave?

If in all this we take shelter in the fact that the sinner of old offeredsacrificeforhissin,whatmeaningandwhatplacearewetoassigntohissacrifice in a salvation which had efficiency without the actuality ofChrist's life and personality, but which nevertheless was capable ofreceiving such addition and fulfillment?Very evidently therewas somerelation, some correspondence between those sacrifices which passedawayandtheAtonementwhichendures.Letusrememberthatwhateverdifferences there are between the Old and the New Testament way ofsalvation, the Old was effective. Men were saved through it. If weunderstand that Old Testament plan, will it not go far to give properbalancetoeachfeatureoftheNew?

ItwillnotdotosaythattheOldhasnomeaningexceptasfulfilledintheNew.Thereisasenseinwhichnothinghasitscompletemeaningexceptin its relation to everything else. In the unity ofGod'swork everythingwaits upon everything else for the fullness of its function and (9)meaning.But inanothersense theOldTestamentplanofsalvationhadmeaning before the New Testament revelation was given; it meantsomethingtothesinnerofthatday; itmeanteverythingtohim.Arewe

thengoingtosaythatwecannotgathertogether itsmeaning, itssavingmeaning?Tounderstandit,andthentoallowNewTestamentadditionstofallintotheirproperplace,mayavoidmanyofthemisplacedemphasesofthebestofmoderntheology.

Wearegladtoacknowledgethedebtweowetothosewhohavegivenanexaggeratedemphasistoindividualfeaturesofsalvation.Wewouldhavebeenverymuchpoorerwithoutthem.Whowouldhavebeenwithoutthestatement of the Divine supremacy, even though exaggerated, ofAugustine,orthehumancapabilityofPelagius,ortheextremelegalismofAnselm? Have we not learned something from the ecclesiasticism ofBellarmin, the mysticism of Osiander, the "dependence" ofSchleiermacher,thesubjectivityofRitschl?

Yet,nomatterhow fascinating the treatmentmaybeby thesemen,westill want the truth, rather than its exaggeration. If the Old Testamentthen contains a plan of salvation which was (10) effective before theIncarnationandtheNewTestamentrevelation,asalvationwhichhadameaningtomenofold, letusdiscoverthatmeaning, inall itsdetailsasthen knowable. There is no theological treatise which does this, whichtells us in an exact and orderly way how men were saved in OldTestament times, andwhat that salvationmeant,notwhatwe can readinto it, but what it meant then, what it contained then to make itsufficientandeffective.Thisisourproblem.Itwillnotbeeasy,forseveralreasons.

In seeking to understand now the plan of salvation by which the OldTestamentbelieverwassaved,wemustremember,paradoxicalasitmayseem, that although we have a sum total ofmore light upon the greatquestionofsalvationthanhehad,yetofthatwhichhehadwehavelessthanhe.Wehavebeenaccustomedtowalkby thegreater lightso long,thatthelesserlightmeansstilllesstousthanitdidtohim.HenceitwillbeobservedthatwhilewemaybeindangerofplacingaNewTestamentmeaninguponanOldTestamentstatement,andthusmake itmeantoomuch,we,accustomedtothegreaterlightoftheNew(11)Testament,arein danger of seeing in theOld Testament too little.Without the use ofsomeofoursenses,theremainingsensesacquireadoubleefficiency,andwithout theNewTestament revelation,men of old lookedmore deeply

into,andmadethegreateruseof,theOld.As"Rabbi"Duncan,Ithinkitis,says,ineffect,themaninthedimcaveseesless,absolutely,thanthemanoutinthesunlight;butthemanstandinginthetwilightofthecavecanseemoreuponthewallsofhiscavethancanthemanoutsideinthesunlightseeuponthesamedimwalls.

Moreover in this same connection we must remember that someelements of interpretation which were present to the Old Testamentinquirerareentirelyorpartiallywantingtous,awealthofsupplementaryoral tradition which has not been preserved, the presence of localcoloringandcustomwhichenlightenedandconfirmedtheteaching,themiracleswhich from time to timeencouraged faith in the supernatural,andthevoiceofthelivingprophet.

If possible we must keep these considerations in view if we wouldestimatecorrectlytheOldTestamentteachingofsalvation.

(12) But, if we cannot discover howmenwere saved inOld Testamenttimes,whattheOldTestamenttaughttheinquirerofthatday,bylookingatitfromexactlytheNewTestamentviewpoint,orbyreadingtheologicalsystemsintoit,muchlesscanwediscoverwhatthatOldTestamentplanofsalvationwas,bymaking itconformtosomepreconceivedsubjectiveorphilosophicaltheory.

IfwearegoingtoknowwhattheOldTestamenttaughtthemanofitsdayabouthowhewastobesaved,wemustnotbeginimmediatelytoexplainaway the Old Testament; wemust not try tomake the Old Testamentmeansomethingelse,somethingthatwouldaccordwithsometheoryofourown.Ifwewishtogetaplanofsalvationfromourowntheory,letusgetitthere;butifwearegoingtodiscovertheplanofsalvationwhichistaughtintheOldTestament,thenletusgetitfromthatsource,whetheritaccordswithourtheoriesornot.

Ifafterdiscoveringwhatitis,wearecompelledtorejectit, letusdoso.ButletusnotmaketheOldTestamentmeansomethingelsethanitdid,tothebelieverofold,inordertoderivefromitaplanofsalvationwhichitdoes (13)not contain,butwhichwouldaccordwith some theoryofourown. This then sends us straight to the Old Testament; to the Old

Testamentas themanof thatdayhad it, and,essentially,aswehave ityet.What does it teach as to salvation?Manwas a sinner.How did itteachhimtobesaved?

If,inthisinquiry,itwillnotdotoreadbacktheNewTestamentintotheOld, neither will it do to prejudge the Old to be myth, or legend, orfolklore,orseeksototranslateitastomakeitsmackofheathenism,orendeavor to render goodprosebymongrel poetrywhichmay themorehavethejingleofaheathenballad.ItistruetheNewTestament,eventhewordsof ourLordhimself,mightbe called in abundantly to refute anysuchmistakes.Butwhyshould therebeanecessityofmakinganysuchcorrection?WhyshouldwecometothestudyoftheOldTestamentwithsuspicion?Andifwedocomewithanysuspicion,willanycorrectionbelikelytoavail?IfwelookchieflyforerrorsintheOldTestament,shallwebelikelytodiscoveritstruth?Ifwearedeterminedbeforehandtomakethe Old Testament mean something different from what it says, ourinquirywillyieldlittle.

(14)Whatwewishtoknownowis,notwhatsomeheathenmythologyofotherpeoples reflects regarding religiousbeliefs,butwhatdoes theOldTestamentteachregardingman'ssalvation.HowwastheOldTestamentbelieversaved?

Chapter2:THEOLDTESTAMENTCONCEPTIONOFSIN

(15)ITwouldbestrangeifmanwereasinnerandhadnoknowledgeofit.Itwouldbestillmorestrangeifmanweresavedfromsin,andyethadnoconceptionofhisformerstate.Salvationimpliesperditionofsomekind.AnOldTestamentmessage of salvation presupposes anOldTestamentconception ofman as in some sense lost. There is a relativity here. Aslight is, tosomeextent,knownasdifferent fromdarkness, thewarmasdifferent from the cold, soman's salvation stands out in vivid contrastwiththedarkbackgroundofhisformerunsavedstate.

ButhowdoestheOldTestamentrepresenttheunsavedman?Whatwashisdistinctivecharacteristic? It is true,butnotsufficient,merely tosaythattheOldTestamentrepresentstheunsavedmanasasinner.Astothebarefactoftheexistenceofsininmeningeneral,fromallknown-time,

allareagreed.Thatisthemostabundantlyandvariantlyattestedfactonrecord.

(16) It is inscribedover every avenueofhumanachievement, carved inbroken letters upon all ofman's best efforts. It is the dark coloring ineverypictureofhuman failure. It iswritten in lettersof bloodover thefieldofhumanstrife.ThereisnodifferenceofopinionaboutthebarefactoftheexistenceofsininOldTestamenttimes.Butwhatdiditmeantobeasinner?Immediatelythatwebegintoinquireregardingthemeaningofsin, its nature, its origin, its scope, its effect, the air is charged withcontroversy.Norcanweheretakeaccountofalltheanswersgiven.Manyofthemareingeniousandinterestingintheirownway,buthavenothingtodowiththeOldTestamentconceptionofsin,donotpretendtobeanexpressionofit.

Turning to the Old Testament, the first teaching concerning sin whichmeets us is a momentous one, and it is even more far reaching andluminousthanmightatfirstappear.Itis,first,thatthisstateofsinwasnotman'soriginalstate.

Whetherwelikeitornot,thissetsasideatonestrokeverymuchofthetheorizinginwhichgoodandablemenhavebeenengaged,anditgivesusawelldefinedstartingpointfromwhichtounderstandthenatureofsin.If this state of (17) sin was not man's original state, then sin was notessential to his nature. To speak of human sin as a necessity, either ofman's original constitution, or of his finiteness or of any othercontingency would not be to state the Old Testament conception; andthat iswhatweareconcerned toknownow.Onotherand independentgrounds, the theoryofanecessitatedsinfulnessofhumanity isnotonlyutterly untenable, if we were here interested in refuting it, but it iscontrarytoallthatisnoblestinhumanaspiration.

ButreturningtotheOldTestamentteachingsthatthissinfulstateofmanwas not his original state, listen to its testimony. Could anything beclearer? "So God created man in his own image, in the image of Godcreatedhehim."Gen.1:27.Absolutely,thiscouldnotrefertothephysicalnature,buttothemoralandspiritualnature;thatman,asfirstcreated,waslikeGodmorallyholyorsinless.

Second, thedecidednesswithwhichthisaccountof thecreationofmananticipatesandforestallstheevolutionarytheoryofman'soriginanditsimplicationsregardingsin,isremarkable.IfwegobacktotheprecedingversesnotonlydoesitassertthatmanwasmadeintheimageofGodas(18)differentiatedfromtheimageoftheanimalspeciesalreadycreated,and to which a hasty judgment might have found him allied, but theteachingisasexactandexplicituponthispointasifithadbeenwrittenby some post-Darwinian, anti- Darwinian, interpolator. Thus in Gen.1:21-25, we read, "And God created the great sea monsters, and everylivingcreature. . .aftertheirkind,andeverywingedbirdafteritskind.AndGodsaid,Lettheearthbringforthlivingcreaturesaftertheirkind,cattle,andcreepingthings,andbeastsoftheearthaftertheirkind,"etc.Then how striking is the language of verse 26, "And God said, Let usmakeman inour image, afterour likeness."Not after theanimal typesalreadymentioned,whichaccordingtothisOldTestamentteachingweresospecifically limitedinreproductionto"theirownkind,"butmanwasmadeastohisrealbeing,hismoralandspiritualnature,afterGod'skind.TheHebrewwordmin,"kind"or"species"hereused,isfromarootwhichmeans to "divide," to "separate," and expresses the impassablelimitationsanddivisionsofspecies,whichtherecordheresoclearlyandrepeatedly asserts. Even the more limited theory of evolution as (19)bearing upon man's origin, the view which supposes that only man'sphysical nature was evolved from the lower animal species, and thatman'smoralandspiritualnaturewastheresultofadivineactofcreationimposed upon this product of evolution, the view presented by RusselWallace,andwhichmanyevangelicalChristianswouldliketohold,eventhis limited view of evolution as applied toman's origin, appears to beanticipated and debarred in theOld Testament record. For on the onehandtheseveralspeciesofanimalswereordainedtobringforthnotmankind,buttheirownkind,andontheotherhandmanwasmadenotaftertheanimalkind,butaftertheGodkind.

We are not here concerned to plead either for or against the theory ofevolution. Admittedly, so far as applied, at least to the origin of thespeciesorofman, it isonlyatheory.Itdoesnotclaimtohaveafacttorestupon.Itisafascinatinghypothesis,butthereisnotonefacttocite,notone casewhereagenuine typehaseverdescended fromadifferent

type.Tohangitbackinthemillionsofantiquity,onlyhangsitsomuchmoreinair;itdoesnotsecureonecaseoffactuponwhichtorestit.Ifwelikethetheory(20)andholdit,letusbecandidwithourselvesthatasyetitisatheory,inthissphere,withoutafact.Therearefactsrelatedtothistheory,runningparalleltoit.Itisafactthattherearestrikingsimilaritiesbetween the several species, even between the lower animals andman.Buttosaythattherearestrikingsimilaritiesbetweenoneandtheother,isverydifferentfromsayingthatoneisevolvedfromtheother,thatthesimilarity inone isevolved fromthesimilarity in theother.Thatwouldrequireacaseoffacttoconfirmit.Andthescientististhelastmanwhoshould claim currency for a theory without fact. But although thesesimilarities traversingthe faceofcreationdonotprovethatonespecieswas evolved from another, they do perform a very important function.They render the world, including the creature world, a studiable,knowableworld.Itissoarrangedinlinesofrelativesimilaritythatwhenwehavediscoveredtheconstructionandfunctionoftheorganismofoneclass or one sphere, we have, through that similarity, an open door tobegin our investigation and understanding of another class. In otherwords,thisworldisanorderlyrelatedworld,auniverse,notachaos.Itisalongtheselinesof(21)similaritiesthatphysicalandmedicalsciencehasmoved, and placed humanity under so great a debt of obligation. Andmuch of themost successful investigation in physical science has beenpursueduponthesuppositionthatthetheoryofevolutionistrue.Asanincentive, as a working hypothesis, it has promoted investigation. Butthat toowouldnotprove the theoryofevolution tobe true.Tobore forwater,uponthetheorythatthereiswaterthere,andstrikeoil,doesnotspoil the oil. But neither does it prove that the theory uponwhich youwereworkingwascorrect.So,veryprofitableresultsmaybederivedfrominvestigationwhichhasbeenpursueduponafalsesupposition,inspiredevenbyafalsetheory.

Nowallthatthereisoffactrunningparallelwiththetheoryofevolution,the Old Testament allows for. The similarities are implied in thedistinctionsmade.Thesimilaritiesare the facts.But to imposeacausalnexusbetweentheseseveralsimilaritiesandclassesorspecies,wouldbesomethingmore,andwewouldrequireacaseoffacttoestablishit.Hastherenotbeenaconfusionmadeherebytheevolutionaltheory,between

orderedsimilarityandcausal(22)sequence?TheOldTestamenthoweverhas carefully distinguished. It teaches that each class of animalsreproducedafter theirownkind,and thatmanwasmade,notafter theanimalkind,butaftertheGodkind,intheimageofGod."

Hence,althoughasaworkinghypothesisinphysicalsciencethetheoryofevolutionhasbeenassumedinmuchofthemostfruitfulinvestigation,itisnotforthisreasonrenderedtrue,nor,sofarasitrelatestotheoriginofman,canacaseoffactbecited.Butwhatisespeciallytoourpurposehereis,thatitisdefinitelyanticipatedanddebarredbytheteachingoftheOldTestament.Everyone isat libertyofcoursetomakehischoicebetweenDarwinandMoses,toclaimkinshipwiththebeastorwithGod,to lookupward or downward for his origin "to Paradise or to the Zoo," but hecannot choose both. They are clearly exclusive, the one of the other. Itwouldnotbepossiblenow,withallthedetailsoflatertheoriesbeforeus,to make a statement of man's origin and primitive state which wouldmore definitely forestall the evolution theory of man's origin. Man'sphysical organism hasmany resemblances to the various types of (23)animal organisms, resemblances which have served a most beneficentpurpose, as in medicine and surgery, so that much investigationprofitable and applicable toman has been pursued by reference to theorganismoftheloweranimals.

There is no inherent reason why the physique of manmight not havebeenproducedbyevolution fromthatof the loweranimals;yet there isnofacttoshowthatitwassoproduced.Eminentscientistsdifferamongthemselvesregardingevolution,evenasaworkinghypothesis,andthereisevidencethatinsomeplacesitislosingitshold.RecentdeliverancesofLordKelvin,theequalifnotthesuperiorofanyphysicistoftheday,havecalledtheattentionoffellow-scientiststothisfact.Prof.KarlPearsonhaslately described one of Lord Kelvin's statements as "an attack on theDarwinian theory of evolution." And Sir William Thiselton Dyer isreported to have said that LordKelvin had in effect "wiped out by onestrokeofthepenthewholepositionwonforusbyDarwin."

Indeed,whileIhavemetmanyevangelicalbelieverswhohavebeenreadyto give a" wide-open" assent to the theory of evolution, upon (24)pressing the inquiry into things definite and detailed, I have seldom (I

thinknever)foundonewhowaswillingtooutlineexactlyhischimpanzeepedigreeanddeliberatelyandpositivelyassert thathereallybelieved it.Manyhavethoughtthattheybelievedit,untiltheyattemptedtomakearational statement of it. Then they have found that itwas one thing tomakelightofthecreationrecordinGenesis,butquiteanotherthingtosubstitutesomethingbetter.

But returning to theOld Testament record, not only does it teach thatman's now sinful naturewasnot his original state, but aswehave justseen,itteachesthathedidnotderivehisnatureasitnowis,eitherinpartorinwhole,byevolutionfromtheloweranimals.Howthendidhecometopossessasinfulnature?Howdidhecometobeasinner?Forsuchwesoon,atleast,findhim,ashisactstestifiedandashestillis.

Hereinthethirdplacewemeetthenextgreatfactabouthumansin,thatalthoughsinwasnotanoriginalelementinman'snature,neitherwasitaresultofhisoriginthroughevolutionfromtheloweranimals,yetitwasapossibility.Thisisassumedinthefirstrecordedcommandgiven(25)toman,inthefirstdutyimposed,inthefirstcovenantformed.Itisassumedthatitwaspossibleformantodotheopposite,todothewronginsteadofthe right. Not only was the possibility of sin assumed, but the resultwhich would follow actual sin was positively announced," Thou shaltsurelydie."

Indeed,tohavecreatedmansinless,insuchsenseastomakehimutterlyunable to sin, would have been to make moral action on his partimpossible, it would have been to create him without the dignity of amoralbeing,withoutitsresponsibility,ofcourse,butwithoutitsloftiest,and almost infinite, possibilities. If man had been necessitated in thissensetodothegood,thentherehadreallybeennosuchthingasgoodforhim.

TheOldTestament isdefiniteupon these twopoints, thatnotonlywassinnotman'soriginalstatenoranecessaryconditionofhisfinitenessorof any other contingency, but neither was his continuance in hissinlessness a necessity. TheOld Testament teaches that itwas possibleforsinlessmantosin.Thismayseemtousametaphysicalcontradiction.Butwhyshouldwesayso?Itisimpossiblenow.Itneveroccursnow,(26)

tobesure:thereisnosinlessmannow,asmanwasoriginallysinless.Itseemstoruncountertoaprincipleuniversallyrecognizedinthedomainofhumanaction aswenowknowhumanity.Andyet to the evangelicalChristianthereisoneanalogue:"SinlessmancansinthatisthemysteryoftheFall.AnungodlymancanbelievethatisthemysteryoftheRise."AccordingtotheOldTestamenthumansinwasapossibility.

Fourth,thereisonemoreteachingwhichtheOldTestamentsetsforthinthis connection. It is that man thus originally sinless, and with thepossibility of sinning before him,was yet never the less not to be keptforever in this state of uncertainty. He was to be tested as to hisobedience to God. He was tested. That a sinless being should beindefinitely facing the possibility of falling into sin, would surely havebeen undesirable. Human existence would have lacked the splendidcompleteness and peace of an ultimate certainty. At least, the OldTestamentteachesthat,whetherornot,manshouldfallintosin,hewasnot to be kept in endless suspense and uncertainty. To effect this adefinite,clearly-stated,(27)butlimited,testwasimposeduponman.AstheOldTestamentreflectshereandlater,ifmanhadsuccessfullybornethattestforalimitedtime,hewouldhavebeenconfirmedinsinlessnesswithoutdoingviolencetohisfreeandmoralnature.

As for the test, itwasboth real andpersistent. Itwas a test alsowhichwould determine whether or not man would conform his life to theexpressedwillofGod,whichwillofGodishereincidentallytaughttobethestandardofhumanconduct.Asatestitwasreal.Ithadtodowithafrequentlyandnecessarilyrecurringappetite.Yetitwasnotanappealtoasinfulappetite,forsuchman,asasinlessbeing,didnotyetpossess.Norwasitevenanappealtoanappetitewhichcouldnothavebeensupplied,withoutdisobeyingGod'sexpressedwill,i.e.,withoutsin.Allotherfruitswere allowed, this one only was forbidden. So the mere appetite ofhungercouldhavebeensatisfiedequallywellwithoutdisobedience.

Itwasnot arbitrariness, of course, to forbidman theone tree; itwas amerenecessityofmakingthetest.Itwasthen,notatestofthestrengthofa certainappetite,buta testofhisobedience, (28)ofhis conformity totheexpressedwillofGod.Thetestwasthustheleastexactingpossibleifitweretobeatestoftheattitudewhichmanwouldmaintaintowardthe

known will of God. Some decided test was necessary. The onlyalternative,aswehavealreadyseen,wouldhavebeen,eitheranendlesssuspense with the possibility of a fall into sin at any time, or else, anecessitatednon-moralnature.

TheOld Testament has preserved an account of this testing, and of itsresult.It isasplainasthatsimplestofall languages, theHebrew,couldmakeit.Yetitiswonderfulhowmanyplanshavebeeninventedtomakeit difficult. Different men of very different ideas have alike sought tomakeitanexploitinggroundfortheirfavoritetheories.Evengreatmenhavetheirweaknesses,andmanyhavemadeuseofthispassagetoprovethis. Some men of philosophic turn naturally have endeavored tointerpret this incident in accordance with their philosophic theories.Others who have specialized upon heathen religions have tried to findtheirtotemismortheirfetichisminit,andtheskeptic,ofcourse,seeksforsomething in it which will cast doubt upon the teaching of Scriptureelsewhere,or(29)somethingwhichwilloffendtheidealsoftheChristian.Eachwithhisownbias,somefriendlyandsomeunfriendlytoScripture,finds an interpretation to suit him. But the discerning believer, whobrings no theory from elsewhere, should have little difficulty indiscovering the main drift of the passage. He sees that the event heredescribed is represented as a crisis in human history.Whatever else itwas, itwasacrisis.Afteritmanwasnotthesameashewasbefore,therelationsbetweenGodandmanwerealtered:man'soutlookwasaltered;hisveryrelationtonaturewasaltered.Itwasacrisisevent.

Furthermore every one must see that in this record a third party isrepresented,anagencyofevilastemptingmantodisobeytheexpressedwill of God. That although sin or evil was hitherto not existent in thehumanrace,yetitalreadyexistedsomewhereintheuniverseandthatanagentofthatevilnowsoughttotemptmantodisobeyGod.Thiswastheotherfactor inthetest.Thisassuredthatthetestwouldtakeplace.Thevisible agentusedwasa serpent.Hadnovisible agencybeenemployedman might have confused that tempting voice (30) with that of hisCreator. Of course man did not consider that the visible serpent overwhich, togetherwith the restof theanimal creation,hehadbeengivendominion,wastherealtempter.Wedonotknowhowmuchinformation,

if any, God had already given man about the existence of evil beings,whenhehadcomedown,aslaterhedid,doubtlessinhumanform,andtalked with man and initiated him into his great heritage. But in theconversationwhichfollowsbetweenGodandman,thedignityandpowerattributed to theTemptermakes it veryevident that thevisible serpentwasnotconsidered,evenbytheman,astherealagent,butthattherewaspresentapowerfulevilspirit,whichtheScriptureselsewherecharacterizeas"thatoldserpentthedevil."Whatisclearinthisrecordandsufficient,ah,sadsufficiency!Isthatmanwastemptedbyanevilpowerthroughthevisiblepresenceofaserpent.Menmay object that this is crude, butmen have been engaged almostfromthattimeuntilthepresenttryingtodevisesomeotherexplanationto supersede it, and have failed. As to the exact means which wereemployedtopresentthesuggestionofdisobedience,therecord(31)doesnotsay.WhetheritwasbyvocalutterancewithwhichSatanempoweredhis visible agent, or whether he simply made use of the action of theserpent as it ate of this particular fruit, in order to suggest tomankindtheir restriction, and to insinuate to man that God was arbitrarilyforbidding them from partaking of the same, the record does not say.Eitherof thesemeansfindsanalogyelsewhere inScripture.Sufficient ismade clear, viz., that theTempter suggested (through the serpent) thatGodwasarbitrarilyandunfairlywithholdingfrommankindthefruitofacertain tree,called" the treeof theknowledgeofgoodandevil." Itwaspresented in that most effective of all forms, as an insinuation, asuspicion of God's beneficent fairness, a suspicion which disarmssuspicion.

Itisnotofcourseimpliedinthisrecordthatthisfruitwasnotfruit,northat itwas intrinsically different from the fruit of any other tree of theGarden.Aswehavealreadyseen,atestwasnecessary.Somethinghadtobesingledouttomakethetestandthiswastheonlyrecordeddifferencebetweenthisfruitandanyother.Hereagain,theoristshavebeenactive,sometryingtomakeitmeanmore,sometrying(32)tomakeitmeanless.But whether we like it or not, whether it appeals to our bent ofmind,philosophical, mythological, skeptical or other wise, there cannot bemuchdoubtaboutwhatthisOldTestamentrecordintendsheretosay.Tosum it up, man was placed upon a limited and definite trial as to his

obediencebybeingforbiddentoeatofthefruitofacertaintreecalledthe"treeof theknowledgeof goodandevil."Through the visible formof aserpent theunfairnessofGod'sbeneficencewas insinuated tomanandsuspicion cast upon it, and he disobeyedGod's expressed command byeatingofthefruit.Thatisenough.Ifthereismoreinit,verywell.Butifthereisnotmoreinit,thisissufficient.

Now this brings before us another vital feature of the Old Testamentteaching concerning human sin. It is, fifthly, that the initiator, thesuggester of this sin was not man. Man sinned "being tempted." Howcould sinless man initiate sin? What would be the moral status of asinlessmanwho,absolutely,couldnotsin?Weneedastandinggroundbetween these two, and it is found nowhere in the whole realm ofthought,except inthisOldTestamentexplanation(33)thattherewasatempter.Itavoidsthecontradictionsandaccountsforthefactsinvolvedineach.Withoutittheoriginofhumansinisahopelessperplexity.

Ofcoursesomeonewillsaythatthisonlypushesbackthedifficultyonestepfarther.Butletusnotbeconfusedbymerewords.WedonotexpecttotakeupSatan'saccount.Ifweclearourownhorizonwedowell.InitsteachingtheOldTestamentrecorddoestwothings.

First, it relieves the difficulty so far asmankind is concerned; ifwe dothatwedowell.Andsecondly,itplacestheinitiationandexplanationofsinuponafact.Thatfactisthefactofapowerfulevilagency,thefactofSatan, as he is later definitely named. Did you ever try to explain theworld-wide leagueship of human sin apart from its origin in one evilpersonage,orapartfromitscontinuanceunderoneevilleadership?Themapof theworld iscrossedandrecrossedbysocial, racialandpoliticallines,butcanyouexplaintheunityofthehouseofevil,itsdevilishintent,except upon the ground implied by our Lord, -If Satan were dividedagainsthimselfhowwouldhiskingdomstand? It iswith this fact then,this fact all too evident, (34) this fact, however mysterious, of theexistence of an evil being, the fact of Satan, that the Old Testamentaccountoftheoriginofsinbegins.Thatsadfactistheonlyexplanationofhow human sin began, how sinless man could sin. To attempt to gobeyondthisfact,however,totheexplanationofevil inSatanhimself,togo beyond fact to fancy, would be futile, or at least uncertain. The

psychologyofSatanwouldbetoolargelyspeculative.

ButthemostimportantteachingoftheOldTestamentconcerningsinisyettobementioned.Itis,inthesixthplace,thatbeingtestedandbeingtemptedheyieldedtothetemptation,hedisobeyedGod,hesinned.Butwhat did this involve? What did it comprise? What does the OldTestament teach that human sin, from its beginning, was? As we havealreadysaid,wedonotneedtodebateaboutthemerefactofman'ssin.Itistraceable inhisfootprintseverywhere; itmarsthefairestpagesofhisliterature and makes tragic all his history. But what did human sinaccordingtothisOldTestamentteachinginvolve?

It unspeakably altered both his status and his nature.Hitherto he hadbeenobedient;nowhe(35)hadbeendisobedient.Hithertohehadactedin harmony with God's desire; now he had disregarded that desire.Hitherto he had hadno sense of the displeasure ofGod, for it had nothithertoexistedtowardman;nowhecarriedaboutwithhimeverywherethatsenseofhavingdispleasedGod.HithertohehadkeptGod'slaw;nowhehadbrokenit.HithertohehadhadadesiretomeetwithGod,Godhadbeen his Associate and Friend; now he shrank from seeing him, orhearinghisvoice.

Cananyoneimagineachangemorecomprehensivethanthatwhichthisoneactofdisobediencewroughtforman?Theextentofthischangewasdue, not to the grossness or the enormity of the act of disobedience initself,nottothedegreeofhateful intentionwhichwasthrownintoitbyman,butitwasduetothefactthatitbegansomething,beganachangedrelation to God, began a type of life pulsating from its depths withanother set of desires, swayed by another kind of motives, seekinganother type of ideals. How unspeakable the change! It could not beundone; it could not be arrested; it had become a current in an ever-moving stream, the stream of human existence; (36) it would affecteverythingwhichhisactivitywouldtouch.

Manhasbecomechanged.Hedoesnot,asheoncedid,delight tomeetGod.He feels his guilt. He seeks to hide from him, when he hears hisapproach. Ah, he is different from what he was, sadly different! Thedifferenceisthathehassinnedandheisasinner.

Itisuselesstoobjectthatthatoneactofdisobediencewasinsignificant,outofallproportiontothemomentousresultsinthenatureandstatusofman,whichtheOldTestamentteachesthatitinitiated.Thatwouldbetoshutoureyestosimilarfactsintheprocessofsinintheworldto-day.Themost revolting and monstrous depravity of to-day, had a precursor insomefirst,andapparentlytrifling,actofwrongdoing.

Therearedegreesofdepravityinsin,ofcourse;anditisnottaughtherethat mankind immediately reached the lowest depths of depravity,though,asyoureadtherecord,howsoondidmanmanifestsomeofthemost revolting traits,Cain andLamech theirhomicide!Even thebetterAbelfeltasenseofwrongdoingasexpressedinhisoffering.

Whether the depravitywere extreme in certain (37) individuals or not,thefactremainsthattherehadcomeadifferenceinman'snatureandinhisrelationtoGod.HehadbecomedifferentfromwhathewaswhenGodhadmadehiminhisownimage;adifferencewhichisalltooevidentinman's subsequent history. That difference is most distinctively andcomprehensivelydescribedassin.Sinisthewordwhichischaracteristicofthatdifference.

Many less important incidents of sin are left unmentioned. The OldTestament does not tell us how long man remained sinless, how longbefore this change came. That is a question which sinks intoinsignificancebeforethemomentousquestionofsavingmenagainfromtheirsin.Fromtherecordwecanhoweverestimatetheextremelimitofhissinlessstate.AdamwasonehundredandthirtyyearsoldwhenSethwasbegotten.Butbefore thishad takenplace, other sons, at leastCainandAbel,hadbeenbornandhadgrowntomanhood,foreachhadchosenhisrespectivepursuitinlife.Thesesonswerethereforeprobablytwenty-five or thirty years of age before the untimely death of Abel at hisbrother'shand,andtheywerebornafterthefall.Hence,deductingthis,wehaveaboutonehundred(38)yearsastheextremepossiblelimitofthesinlessportionofman'scareer.Thereisnominimumlimitstated,andsothe actual period of his sinlessnessmay have beenmuch less than onehundredyears,butnotmore.

Whetheranychildrenwereborn,notinsin,i.e.,duringthissinlessperiod

or not, we are not told. It would not affect the universality of sinultimately, as we shall see, nor the necessity of a salvation. There isnothing in the Old Testament teaching to show that childrenwere notborntoourfirstparentsbeforetheirfall.Thecommand,"Befruitful,andmultiply,andreplenishtheearth,"Gen.1:28,didnotwaitfortheFall.Itwasgivenwiththeirfirstblessing,wasapartofitindeed.Readitagain,"SoGodcreatedman inhisown image, in the imageofGodcreatedhehim;maleandfemalecreatedhethem.AndGodblessedthem,andGodsaiduntothem,Befruitful,andmultiply,"etc.Gen.1:27,28.

Ofmorevaluehowever than theviewsofanywhoseek to interpret theScriptures, istheteachingoftheOldTestamentitself.While itdoesnotaffirmthatchildrenwerebornbeforetheFall,itrecordsthefactthat"tomultiply"wasan(39)originalcommand,acommandgiventomaninhissinlessness.Itfurtherstatesmoreover,andlikewisebeforetheFall,that"Adamcalledhiswife'snameEve[whichisfromtheroottolive]becauseshe was the mother of all living." If this latter, "because she was themotherof all living,"was spokenbyAdam itwould seem to imply thatchildrenwerealreadyborn toour firstparents,and that, in the timeoftheir sinlessness, unless it were spoken in anticipation of the relationwhichEvewouldholdtothewholehumanrace.If,ofcourse,thesewordswere simply the explanation given byMoses, and not the statement ofAdam, then theywouldhavenobearingupon thisparticularmatter. If,however,theOldTestamentisintendedtoimplythatchildrenwereborntoourfirstparentsintheirsinlessness,wemayperhapsfindareferenceto the union of the sinless and the sinful of their descendants in thatmuchdebatedpassage, "And . . . the sonsofGod saw thedaughters ofmen that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which theychose." Gen. 6:2. If this be its reference it would account for thesinfulnessoftheirposterityingeneral.Thispassageisofcourseopentoother and (40) possibly more deserving interpretation. The idea,occasionallysuggested,thatitrepresentsanearlyOldTestamentbeliefintheintermarriageofangelsorothersuperhumanbeingswithmankind,isofcourseentirelyborrowedfromheathenmythologyof later times,andhasnowarrant inthisrecord.It isapartofatendencyinskepticismatpresent,toendeavortodegradetheloftyteachingsoftheOldTestament,to the level of heathen mythology; but discerning believers will easily

makethedistinction.

The Old Testament therefore teaches, in the seventh place, that thenatureofsinwas,toincreasebothinextensionandinintentionandthisbothintheindividualandintherace.Whenoncebegun,itdidnotcease,itdidnotevenremainstative.Itincreasedinextentandindepravity.Itisadmittedlydifficult,uponmereethicalgrounds,toshowwhythisonesinofAdamshouldresultnotonlyinsubsequentsininhimself,butalsointhesubsequentsinfulnessofallhisdescendants,andneitherFederalism,norRealism,noranyothertheologicaltheorymayentirelyrelieveit.Yet,wouldnottheoppositealternativebeevenmoredifficultandhazardous?Whatwouldbetheresult,inthe(41)moralworld,ifsincouldbringforthsinlessness, if sin were at no disadvantage, if the results of sin andsinlessnesswerethesame?Wherewouldmoraldistinctionfindaplaceinsuchaworld?

Whetherwecanexplaintheethicaljusticeofitornot,theOldTestamentteaching here seems to be the only alternative that sin, once begun,shouldpropagateitself intheindividualandintherace.InthistheOldTestamentteachingisconfirmedbyfacts,bytheuniversalhistoryofman.Havesinfulparentseverbegottenachildwhodidnotintimeevincethetraitsofsin,somemore,someless?Itdoesnotteachthatallthechildrenborn to Adam after his disobedience were great sinners. Herein therecordisinaccordwithhumanhistorystill.Thechildrenofgodlyparentsyet are, some Abels, some Seths, but, alas! Also some Cains, but allsinners.EventheAbelsneedasacrifice.Inallthesubsequenthistoryofmankind,hasiteverbeenknownthatanymemberofourfallenracehaseverbegottenachildwhodidnot, in time,manifest theevidenceofhissinfulness?ThisisonlywhattheOldTestamentteachesinthesuccessionofAdam's sin.Why shouldwe (42)quarrelwith theOldTestament forteaching something which everyone recognizes to be a fact the worldover?

ThustheOldTestament leads to this, thatnotonlydid theonesin, theonedisobedienceofAdam, lead toother sin inhimselfand in the race,but thatsinbecameuniversal inmankind. It teaches theuniversalityofsin. Not only at a later date had "all flesh corrupted his way upon theearth," Gen. 6:12; "the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and

everyimaginationofthethoughtsofhisheartwasonlyevilcontinually,"Gen.6:5;buteventheapparentexceptionsareonlyexceptionalindegree(andingraceasweshalllatersee),forsinisdefinitelyrecordedevenofNoah,whowassaid tohavebeen"a just [or, righteous,R.V.]manandperfect inhisgenerations."Gen.6:9.Justso,sinis foundto-dayinthebeliever, though, inmanywayswedistinguishhimfromtheabandonedsinner.Schultzhaslaboredhardtoshowthattheuniversalityofsinwasalater conception of Old Testament teaching, but he has done so byendeavoring to make almost every passage which he quotes meansomethingelsethanwhatitsays.

Hehasenslavedhimselftothe"development"(43)theory,andseemstoprize it infinitely more than the truth of the Old Testament. Hisunconcealed determination, that theOld Testament shall suffer and itsstatementsbemisrepresented toanyextent, rather than thathis theoryshallfail,rendershistreatmentofthissubjectofalmostnovalue.

Schultz, for example, tries to show that the earliest Old Testamentdocuments"nowhereattributesin to themenofGodof thosedays,butspeak of righteous men whose careers were unblemished and who'walked with God', " and he cites the case of "Noah." Gen. 6:9,22. Butevery beginner in Hebrew knows that the Hebrew word for righteousdoesnotmeansinless.And further, ifhehadquotedonemorepassageregardingNoah,hewouldhavefoundthattheOldTestamentrepresentsevenNoahasguiltyofrevoltingintemperance.Butthatwouldhavebeenstating the truth, theory or no theory to the contrary notwithstanding;whichistheverythingthatDr.Schultz,wearesorrytosay,tooseldomdoes. We can take little notice, even by way of refutation of suchunabashed misrepresentation of what (44) the Old Testament reallystates. Our chief object here is to sum up the Old Testament teachingregardingsalvation,irrespectiveastowhattheorieshavetocomeorgo.Thatsinwasuniversalamongmen,eveninbelievers,justasitisto-day,istaughtbythisverycaseofNoah.

Not only was sin universal, but irreparable so far asman's power wasconcerned.Thetendencyofsinoncebeguninthehumanrace,accordingtoOldTestamentteaching,wastocontinue,nottocease;toincrease,notto decrease; to becomeworse, not better.How rapidwas the course of

evil from the apparently trifling sin of Adam's disobedience to themurderousactofCain!FromtheremorseandregretevenofCain,tothedefiant impenitence of Lamech! From the occasional crime of the firstgenerationstothegenerallawlessnessoftheDelugeperiod!

Butoncemore,beforewepass fromthisquestionof theOldTestamentteachingregardingsin,itwillbeasked,wasnotthestandardlowerthenthaninNewTestamentteaching?AretherenotactscountenancedintheOld Testament which could not now be other than unsparingly (45)condemned?Herewemustnotconfusethestandardofrightandwrongwiththedegreeofpunishmentorcondemnationmetedout.ThestandardisalwaysthewillofGod;thepunishmentis,(oughttobe,wewouldsay,)suited to the circumstances. Different circumstances ormore completeknowledge,changeverymuchthecharacteroftheact,renderitreallyadifferentact,sothatitshouldreceiveadifferentformofcondemnation.Totramplesomewhat thoughtlesslyover theestateofanotherwouldbevery different from going in the face of a definite trespass notice, andwoulddeservedifferentpunishment.

Wesaid thestandardwas thewillofGod.That isveryclearly taught inthefirstcaserecorded.Manwasnottoeatofthetree,becauseforbiddenbytheexpressedcommandofGod.Toeatofthattree,ortodoanythingelsecontrarytothewillofGod,wouldbewrong,wouldbesin.ItwasnotrightorwronguponthegroundofutilitythatwastheTempter's theorythough utility is involved. Nor was it upon the ground of happiness,thoughthattooisinvolved.Allotherconsiderationsgiveplace,accordingto the Old Testament teaching, to the one consideration, (46) does itaccordwiththewillofGod?Thegroundofcondemnationlaynotintheeatingofthefruit,butintheeatingofthefruit"whichIcommandedtheesaying,Thoushaltnoteatofit."Thereareothertheoriesofthestandardof conduct, but this is theOldTestament theory.The standardwas thewill ofGod.Every act contrary to thewill ofGod is sin.Every suchactwhetherdoneinignoranceornot!Whetherdonebychildoradult!Yes,thereisonlyonestandard,andthattheperfectwillofGod.Butisallsinpunished upon the individual? Ah! That is another question. Sin ispunished in accordance with responsibility. With New Testamentknowledgeandlargeresponsibility,thepunishmentisrighteouslygreat;

theoffense isgreat.Butwith lesserknowledge,aswasoftenthecase inthe Old Testament, the responsibility was less; the act was reallydifferent,thepunishmentwasless.Ifknowledgeandresponsibilitywouldentirely vanish,what then? Itwould still be sin.Would punishment bevisited upon the irresponsible individual? Surely not. For manifestreasonstheOldTestament,aswellastheNew,haslittletosayuponthisquestion.Itcouldnotbenefitthosewhodiscuss(47)it,fortheywouldbeamongthenumberoftheresponsible.

Equally evident is it that it couldnot benefit the irresponsible; and theBiblealwaysaddressessomeone.Itistruethatinsomesense"thetimesofignoranceGodwinkedat[R.V.overlooked];butnowcommandethallmen every where to repent." As men's knowledge and responsibilityincreased, so did the punishment due to their sin, for the sin itselfbecame more sinful, became different. This is a very necessity of theunchangcableness of God's character. To maintain exactly the sameattitude toward the penitent as toward the impenitent, toward theignorant as toward the informed, toward the responsible as toward theirresponsible, would be the very antithesis of the unchangeableness ofGodwhich is taught in theScriptures.Butas to thestandardofhumanconductintheOldTestament,itwasthehighestpossible,theperfectwillofGod.The firstactofmanandeverysucceedingactwere testedby it,andeverythingcontraryto itwassin.ButwhetherGodcondemnedandpunishedsinandtowhatdegreedependeduponcircumstances.

Thus we have made a survey of the Old Testament (48) teachingregardingsin.Whetheritsdoctrinebepleasingtousornot,itseemstobetruetothefacts.

Theremainsofextra-biblicalrecords,sofarastheyhaveanythingtosay,givesimilartestimonyregardingtheuniversalityandeffectofhumansin.If,however,therewereconflictbetweenthebiblicalandthenon-biblicalrepresentation, we would be compelled to discriminate in favor of therecord given bymen of lofty character such asMoses, reared upon therigidcodeofOldTestamentmorals,asagainsteventhebestofheathenchroniclers,knowingwhatwedoofthedisadvantagesoftheircivilization.Butthereisnoconflictuponthisquestion.

This thenwas sin as theOld Testament taught of it: It was notman soriginal state. It was not a necessity either of his limitations or of hisevolution. But it was a possibility, the result of which was to bemademanifestbyadefinite test. In its initiativeasasuggestionsincamenotfromsinlessmanbutfromtheTempter.ItsfirstandrepeatedexpressionwasdisobediencetothewillofGodwhichalteredbothman'snatureandhisstatusandpersisted inrapidly increasing(49)formsthroughoutthewhole succeeding race. Didman need a salvation?Was there such forhim?

Chapter3:GOD'SATTITUDETOWARDTHESINNER

(50)WEhavetracedtheOldTestamentconceptionofsin.Andwehavenoted the effect which sin had uponman. Butwhat effect had it uponGod?OrwhatwasGod'sattitude towardman in thisalteredandsinfulstate?HowdidGodregardthesinner?

Aswenowstand inthis favoredtimebeforetheCross,wherethe lightsandshadowsareinterpreted,aswereaditsmeaning,weknowwhathisattitude to man is now. The Christian world echoes it with unceasingsong, and the lives of believers are a present testimony which noargument can refute, "He sawme ruined in the fall, yet lovedme."Butthere is some difference of opinion perhaps, regarding what the OldTestament teaches upon this question. Some scholars will admit only,and that even somewhat grudgingly, that the prophets of the eighthcenturyandonwardgivesomeideaofGod'slovetowardthesinner.

(51)Butwecannothalthismercyhere.CanitbethatthesameGodwhohas bestowed such grace upon us was indifferent to the yearnings ofsimilarmeninotherdays?Ifhewere,thefactwouldhavetobeaccepted,andanexplanationlookedforlater.Factsmustrule.Wemustnotfetterourselves,ontheonesideortheother,withatheorywhichwillprohibitfreeinvestigation.Godstoodinsomeattitudetowardthemillionsofmen

before the utterances of the eighth century prophets, stood in someattitude toward the first sinfulman and every succeeding sinner.Whatwas that attitude? The Old Testament has told us somuch about howmanbecameasinnerandhowsinchangedhim.Doesitleavehimthere?DoesittellusnothingabouthowGodlookeduponhimnowthathehadbecomeasinner?WhenmandisobeyedGod'sexpresscommand,turnedhisbackuponGod'sauthority,didGodshutthedooruponman,ordidhe tenderly follow him, and, like a loving parent,watch from the opendoorwhichwayhewent,andyearnforhissometimereturn?Or,nowthatthisbreachhadcome,whowasitthatrequiredtoberestored?WasitGodtoman,ormantoGod,orwasitboth,orwasit(52)neither?Especially,wasitGod?Theologians,manyofwhomhavelargelyoverlookedthefactthat there was an Old Testament plan of salvation, have differed verywidely among themselves as to whom Christ's atonement took effectupon primarily. All "moral influence " theories including of course allRitschliantypesmaketheAtonement,orwhattheyhaveleftinitsplace,takeeffectfirstuponman,toovercomehisoppositionormisconception;while systems as different among themselves as those of Arius, andMcLeod Campbell and Hodge make it take effect by sympathy, or bysatisfaction,primarilyuponGod.

Itisbothuselessandpresumptuoustospeculateaboutthis.Weneedtogotosomesourceofinformation.Men'spredilectionsandtheorieswarptheir conclusions. If theevolutionistbeginsbysupposing thatback inadim age man was passing slowly, gradually into consciousness ofresponsibility,flounderinginanamelessstagebetweenthebeastandtheman, it is useless to ask him anything about primitive man's religiousstatus, orGod's redemptive relation towardhim. If he disobeyedGod'swillthen,wouldhebeasinner?IfheobeyedGod'scommand,wouldhe(53)beasaint?Suchquestionswouldbeunaskable.Toseektointerpretman's spiritual status at a stage when he was too highly evolved to beassignedhisplacewiththebeastthatperished,andyetnothighlyenoughevolvedtobeafellow-dwellerthroughouteternitywiththeangelsandtheredeemedoflaterdays,istoseetheabsurdityofthetheorywhichleadstoit.

Oragain, if theskepticbeginsbysupposingthattheprimaryreligionof

man was a degraded fetichism or totemism or polytheism, and thenbegins to cut out every statement in the Old Testament or elsewherewhichdoesnotsuithistheory,whatwillhedowhenhewantssomefactstosupporthistheory?Ifthoseotherportionsdeservedonlytobethrownaway or branded as deception, will he put himself upon record as atrickster and pretend to build a theory upon just the parts that pleasehim?

It requiresnoargument toshowthathewhowishes toknowthe truth,whether believer or unbeliever, cannot take any suchmethod. TheOldTestamenthasgivenusanexplanationoftheoriginofsinandwhatthatsinfulnessinvolvedinman,anexplanationwhich,beyondallcomparisonwithothers,meetsthefactsinthecase.

(54) Let us examine further what it teaches regarding God's attitudetowardthesinnerfromthebeginningandeverafterwards.Letusnotcastaside those passages or their interpretationwhichwill not support ourtheory,neitherletussuspectthetruthfulnessofanarrativebecauseithasbeen condemned by some writer for having clashed with his theory.Whenwe hear very imperfect and sinfulmen dealing very imperiouslyandevencontemptiblywiththeOldTestamentwecannotbutask,intheinterestoftruth,whoknowsthebetterregardingthoseeventsoflongago,"holymenof old" (and if you are a believer in theNewTestament, "astheyweremovedbytheHolySpirit"),orthemoderncritic,whodoesnotevenclaimtobespeciallymovedbyanyone?Onethingwhichimpressestheimpartialmindashefollowsthemethodsofskepticalcriticismisthetriflingcomplaint(anditisoftenduetoamisunderstanding)uponwhichapassageisrejected,andontheotherhandtheservileflatterywithwhichsomesubjectiveorskepticalopinionisquoted.

If itbeaquestionofknowledge,betweentheOldTestamentwriterandhismoderncritic,astotheeventsofthoselong-pastdays,wethink(55)that the advantagewould restwith theOld Testamentwriter. And if itshould ever be a question as to scruple in regard to the use of earlierwritings,inthistoothecritichasshownarecklessnessandinconsistencyofttimes which has placed his work in unfavorable contrast with theexceedingreverenceoftheOldTestamentwriter.

Setting aside therefore human speculation, whether believing orunbelieving, let us listen with sympathetic interest to what the OldTestament has to say regardingGod's attitude toward sinfulman fromthebeginning,mercyifitismercy,vengeanceifitbevengeance.

It was "in the cool of the day," Gen. 3:8, that God approached manregarding his sin. There is a meaning in it. Divine consideration ismanifest in thevery timewhichwaschosen tochargemanwith thesinwhichhecouldnotoverlook.Godcametomannotintheheatoftheday,assomeone(I thinkit isMcCheyne)hasremarked,whenman's"bloodwas up," when he might have added to his transgression by hastyintemperateness of reply. But he came to him in the (ruahh) "cool,"literallythe"wind"oftheday,presumablythecoolof(56)theevening,the evening, the friend of meditation, the hour of solemn deliberatedecisionwhenmen's thoughtsrunslow.The loveofGodforestalledtheimpetuousness of man. Thus the Old Testament teaches that from thefirsthumansin,andonward,Godtookcognizanceofsin,butthateveninchargingmanwithsin,God'sconsideratenesswasmanifest.

ThesameistruewhenhedrovemanforthfromtheGardenlestheshould"take also of the tree of life." Gen. 3:22. At first thought the expulsionfromEdenmightseemtobevengeance,buton thecontrary thereasonannexedshowsthat itwasthe indispensableprerequisiteofalleffectivemercy.Itwas"lestheshouldtakealsoofthetreeoflifeandeatandliveforever."Wehavealreadyseen thatman inhis sinless statewasplacedupontrial.Thetestwasnottocontinueforever.Thistreeoflifewasthatwhich would, in a limited time, have given permanence, fixity, to hissinlessness,ifhehadremainedsinlessforalimitedtime,ifhehadbornethetestwhichwasappointedhim.Butnowthathehassinned,everythinghasbecomechanged in itseffect.Thatwhichbeforewasablessing,hasnowbecomeadanger, justas the (57)wealthwhich isablessing to thegoodmanmaybeacursetothedepraved.Topartakeofthistreeoflife,nowthathisnaturehadbecomesinful,wouldhavebeentogivefixitytothat sinful nature. Itwould have rendered his regeneration impossible.Whatevervariationsofinterpretationastodetailmaybearrivedat,therecanbelittledoubtastothegreatcentralteachingoftheOldTestamenthere. Man's probation was not to be an endless one. Permanence of

naturecouldbereachedwithinalimitedtime;andthetreeoflifewastheprovision appointed for confirming man's nature in sinlessness if heremainedsinless.Buttheawfulalternativewasthatifheshouldsin,hissinful nature would likewise be confirmed andmade permanent, if hewere allowed to remain in the same circumstances. A provision whichoffered such untold advantage of good involved also the possibility ofuntold ill. To have continued to partake of this tree in his sinfulness,wouldhavemeantimmortalityinwickedness.

ItwasmercythereforethatdrovehimfromtheGarden,thatalteredthisfeature of his circumstances that his nature might not be irreversiblyfixed in evil as yet, but that hemight (58) be within the possibility ofrestoration,thathemightbesalvablestill.

God's attitude toward the great sinner iswell portrayed in his dealingswithCain. "If thoudoestwell, shalt thounot be accepted?, and if thoudoest not well [hhattath], sin [or a sin offering] lieth at the door."Gen.4:7.Thesewordswerespokennotsomuchasawarningagainsttheconsequencesofsinifpersistedin,asourAuthorizedVersionrendersit(thoughsuchawarningwouldhavebeenmerciful),butratherasalovingreminder of the opportunity formercy. Theword here translated " sin"may also be translated " sin offering " as it is so translated some onehundredtimesintheBooksofMoses,e.g.,Lev.4:21,"Itisthesinofferingforthecongregation."Lev.5:7,"Oneforasinoffering,andtheotherforaburnt offering," etc., etc. So that this passage, instead of warning Cainthatifhedidnotdogoodhissinwouldlielikeabeastofpreyatthedoorofhistent,readytoseizehimwithitsconsequences,mayperhapsmorecorrectlybetranslated"Ifthoudoestnotgood,asinofferingliethatthedoor." That is, even if he had done wrong, or would in the future dowrong, let him remember that God had appointed (59) a way offorgiveness,asinofferingwasnotfartoseek,aprovisionhadbeenmade.Cainhadbeen instructed,ashadAdamandAbel,notonly in regard totheoffering from the soil, in thankful recognitionofGodas theGodofnature and providence, but also in regard to the offering of a life, inpenitentacknowledgmentandfortheforgivenessofsin.

It isasignificant fact thatCainofferedonly thatkindofsacrificewhichwasarecognitionofGod'sprovidence:hedidnotofferthatwhichwould

havebeenaconfessionofhisownlife-forfeitingsin.Thesinofferingwasnear at hand, but he did not offer it. There aremanywhowould classthemselvesasChristianscholars,whoyetwouldliketodenythatthefirstmanandhisfamilyhadanysuchclearconceptionofsin.ButtheunbeliefofmencanneverchangethefactthatthisistheOldTestamentteaching.And even if it were a matter of debate, why should it be thoughtsuspicious that God should teach the first sinner something of theoffensivenessofsinandofthewayofforgiveness?Howmuchlargerandearlier isGod'sgrace than the small theoriesofunbelief!Wecannotbeexpected to give much space to what mere theories (60) have to sayregardingGod'sattitudetowardthesinner.

ThesamemercifulattitudeuponthepartofGodtowardCain,tokeepthedoor of opportunity open, is expressed later. Cain having carried hissinfulpurposeintoexecution,becameoverwhelmedwithasenseoffearor guilt. He gave vent to his feelings in the cry, as rendered in theAuthorized Version, "My punishment is greater than I can bear." Theword woni translated "my punishment" is commonly translated "myiniquity." It is so translatedsome forty timeselsewhere in theBooksofMosesandmorethantwohundredtimes intheOldTestament.Soalsothe word rendered "bear," from a Hebrew root (nasa)meaning to "liftup,"was also one of thewords commonlyused to denote to lift up thefaceofanother,or to"forgive."Henceanother,andperhapsmoreexacttranslationofthepassageis,"Myiniquityistoogreattobeforgiven."Ifthis was Cain's state ofmind, therewas hope. AndGod protected himfrom immediate violence anddeath at thehands of his fellow-men.Heplaced amark uponCain lest any one finding himmight slay him.Hegavehimtimeforrepentance.God'shandof(61)mercyintervenedevenonbehalfofthemurderer.

Thiswas,accordingtotheOldTestamentteaching,God'sattitude,nottotheindividualsinneraloneastoCain,buttosinfulmankindingeneral.When "all flesh had corrupted hisway upon the earth,"God said, "Myspiritshallnotalwaysstrivewithman."Gen.6:12,3.Someinterventionwasimperativelynecessary,andyet,howpatientwasGod!Intheaboveverse (Gen. 6:3) the word rendered to "strive," may also have themeaning to "be low" to "be humble," while the tripartiteHebrewword

translated "in that also" is capable of an entirely different derivationwhichwouldmean rather "in theirwanderingaway." Inwhichcase themeaningwould be "My spirit shall not be humbled forever inman, intheir[orhis]wanderingaway,heis[orhasbecome]flesh."Althoughatfirst created and animated by the very Spirit ofGod, he hadwanderedawayuntilanothernature,alower(orasitisfrequentlycharacterizedinScripturea"fleshly"or"carnal")naturehadbecomedominant,andGod'sSpirit,bothascreativeandgracious,washumbledthereby.

(62)Yet,notwithstandingallthis,Godwasforbearing,"hisdaysshallbeanhundredandtwentyyears."Gen.6:3.Interpretershavedifferedastowhetherthe"onehundredandtwentyyears"referredtothetimewhichwastoelapsebeforetheDeluge,ortothemaximumperiodofhumanlifehenceforth,after theDeluge.Probably thecorrect interpretation is, thatinthis,asinmanyOldTestamentpassages,thereisacomprehensivenessofmeaningembracingboth.Notonlywouldtheracethenlivingbegivenonehundred and twenty years longer to repent before theDeluge, but,when the race should begin anew, after theDeluge, the normal humanlifetimewouldlikewisebeonehundredandtwentyyears.Wickednesssoprevalent and defiant would be curtailed. For the elects sake, in theinterestsofsalvation,thosedayswereshortened.Nevertheless,althoughDeluge and death must come, how long suffering! One hundred andtwenty years! InwrathGod rememberedmercy. This, according to theOldTestamentwasGod'sattitudetowardthesinner.

Everynewexhibitionofman'sperversitybecameanewopportunityforGod's forbearance.When the race, or a considerable portion of it, had(63) planned to defeat the original purpose and command of God,"replenish the earth, and subdue it," they resolved that theywould notmigrateabroadoverall theearth.To this intent theydevised tobuildalofty tower, amonument to their own self-will, a great central rallyingsignalwhichmightbeseenfromafar,"Letusmakeusaname,lestwebescattered abroadupon the face of thewhole earth."Gen. 11:4.ButGodknewhowmuchmanneeded thedisciplinewhichwould come throughnationalizationandcounternationaleffort.Howmercifulwasthemethodwhichheadoptedtothwarttheirplanofself-glorifyingunity,andattainhispurpose!Hecausedthemtodesistfromtheirplanby"confounding"

(theHebrewword is to "makeweak") their language (literally "lip") sothat they might not understand one another's speech. It is not theHebrew word regularly used to denote "understand," but the Hebrewwordwhichmeansto"hear."Accordingtothispassagetheconfusionwasdue,nottoadifferenceofdialectspokenbytheseveralworkmen,nottoadifficulty to understand each other (it is not the Hebrew word for"understand ") but to inability tomake themselves heard. Itmay havebeendue(64)alsotounintelligibledialect:thatmaybetaughtelsewhere,but not in this particular passage. It should be observedmoreover thatthis passage does not teach, as some have thought, that the differentlanguages, which subsequently arose in the human family, were thecontinuation and extension of the various languages, unintelligible toeachother,whichmiraculouslyaroseatthistime.Suchcouldhavebeen:we have no reason to be jealous ofmiracles. But that is not what thispassagesays.Itteachesnootherconfusionexceptthatwhicharosefromfaintness or weakness of speech, which, with the accompanying fearwhichthislossofspeechengendered,madeitimpracticableforthemtocontinuetobuild,thoughitisnotimpossiblethattherewasconfusionofdialectalso.

Indirectly of course the various languagesof the earthweredue to thisincident,which caused them to desist from their centralizingplan, andallowed emigration to take its natural and divinely-ordered course,begetting in due time by continued separation differences of language.Moredirectly,themultiplicationoflanguageswasdue,accordingtothispassage, to the separating of the people consequent upon the defeat oftheir(65)planofcentralization.Theconsequentemigrations,justaslateremigrations,gaverisetovarietiesoflanguage,as,e.g.,theEnglishfromtheGerman. Inall this, theOldTestamentanticipates,oraccordswith,recognizedphilologicalprinciplesasappliedtoethnologytoday.

But what shall be said of God'smercy in the face of the so-called OldTestamentdoctrineof election? "And Iwill bless them thatbless thee."Gen.12:3.Isitdefendable?Thefirstfactthatweshouldrememberinthisconnectionis,that,whateverbethetheologicalforminwhichmenhavecast this truth, or however it may appear to our view-point, it nevermeantarbitrarinessonthepartofGod,who"workethallthingsafterthe

counsel of his own will." After his own will, but according to counsel,never arbitrary.Whether the condition or reason bementioned or not,therewas reason, highest reason; it was not arbitrary but according tocounsel.IntheOldTestamenttheconditionisfrequentlyattached,"Gettheeoutofthycountry,andfromthykindred...andIwillmakeoftheeagreatnation."Gen.12:1,2.But if thereasonbenotstated,e.g.whyGod(66)lovedJacobbuthatedEsau,thatwouldnotprovethattherewasnoreason.

We should remember also, that according to the Old Testament, theungodlyandtheso-calledGentileworldpossessedtheknowledgeofGodand his will, as did Abel andNoah and Abraham and the righteous ingeneral.Theconsiderablerevelation,whichGodgavetoAdamandAbeland Seth and their early kindred, was unquestionably repeated andtaught by them to their descendantswith varying success, and becameknowledgecommontoall.TherecordinGenesisdoesnotteachthattheonlytimethatGodcamedowntoconversewithmanwaswhenhecameto rebuke him. The record rather implies that God's visits had beenfrequent, themanknewhis approach.Theknowledge thus imparted toman, perhaps during many years of his sinlessness, and even after,becamethecommonheritageoftherace.Butsinwasnowalsoatwork,and a pass had been reached in ungodliness where this commonknowledgeofGod,andthebestowmentofcommonblessings,hadceasedtoarresttheattentionandcallforththeworshipofmen,exceptinafewcases. ItpleasedGod therefore to singleout,withdivine (67) reasonofcourse,certainindividualsandfamiliesforthereceptionofevengreaterblessings and larger revelation, so that by contrast, if in no otherway,menmightdiscernthedifferencebetweenhimthatservethGodandhimthatservethhimnot."Inthisplan,whethermenlikeitornot,weseetheonlyapparentmeansbywhichGodcouldmakehismercyeffectivetoanyconsiderable number of the human race. Common revelation andcommonblessingshadceasedtobeofmuchavailspiritually;andspecialrevelationandspecialblessingwasthemeansusedtosupplementit,andturn,atleastaremnant,toGod.IntheheartlessejectionofHagarfromthe home of Abraham, God's part was merciful, the heartlessnessbelongedtothefar-from-faultlessAbrahamandSarah.ThetendernessofGod'sattitudewasshowninhisappearing,notbyanordinaryangel,but

inthepersonofhisSon"AngelofJehovah"asheisfrequentlycalledintheOldTestament)atthewelloftheLivingOnethatseethme."Ah!Didhe, theblessedSaviour, recall this incident,when,nearly two thousandyearslaterand"intheflesh,"wearyhimselfwithhisjourneyhemet(68)thatotheroutcastatanotherwell,thewellofSamaria,where,likewiseformercy'ssake,hemanifestedalikeomniscience?Forshetoosaid,"Seeaman,who toldmeall things thatever Idid."Verily thatwell toomighthavebeencalledBeer-lahai-roi"thewelloftheLivingOneseeingme."

ButGod'smercy,sogreat,wasyetdiscriminative.Themodernclamorfornothing but the love of God, finds no support in the Old Testament.Sinful Sodom must be destroyed. Yet "peradventure there be fiftyrighteouswithinthecity,"Gen.18:24,andevenless,itwouldhavebeenspared.Tospareawickedcity,merely that its inhabitantsmightescapepunishment, would not be mercy. There is a modern sumptuousnesswhichconfusessufferingwithevil.Undercertaincircumstancessufferingis as necessary to human well-being, as is exemption therefrom. Thequestionhere is not one of pleasure as against pain. It is a deeper andmore spiritual one. It is between sin and holiness. The Old TestamentteachingregardingGod'smercytakesthisloftyview-point.ThesalvationofthosemenofSodomfromsinwasparamount.Merephysicalpainwasoflittleaccount,(69)exceptasitaffectedthisresult.Ifitwasimpossiblefor the righteous leaven to work in that sinful mass, then like theAntediluvians,or likeancientBabylonorCanaanorRome, thoughbyadifferentprocess, itwouldbemercifulanddesirabletoremoveit.God'sdesire to spare (theHebrew is " forgive ") the city, looked especially totheirsalvationfromtheirsin.

ButistherenotadifficultyinreconcilingtheattitudeofGodintheOldTestament toward Israel, with such statements as "and I will hardenPharaoh's heart "? Ex. 7:3. Before entering upon this question let usrememberthatmercyinthehighestsensecannotbesuchaswoulddebarnecessarypunishment.Ifso,therecouldbenosuchthingasmercy.Letus admit frankly that there is a place for judgment, and that in theexercising of it mercy may not be outwardly prominent. God's mercytoward Pharaoh had been abundantly shown in the opportunities forrepentance which he had repeatedly granted. Nevertheless the

unqualified assertion that God "hardened Pharaoh's heart" requires anexplanation, if God's attitude toward the sinner, according to the OldTestament,wasmercy.

(70)The explanation is found in theOldTestament itself. Every event,whetherinthematerialorinthespiritualworld,standsrelatednotonlytoa"Firstcause,"butalso toan intermediatechainofeventswhichwecall "second causes." It is too late in the history of human thought todebateaboutthefactofthesetwokindsofso-called"causes."Everyoneadmitstheexistenceofboth,thoughsomemaybereluctanttoallowtheFirst cause his proper name. But while there is no difference aboutadmittingthefactofthesetwokindsof"causes,"thereisavastdifferenceof habit as to the emphasiswhich is placed upon the one or the other.Modernscienceandphilosophy,whicharespeciallyconversantwiththeintermediate causes, the "secondary causes," the laws of nature, etc.,naturally emphasize thesemore than did the ancients. In explaining aphenomenon, the modern scientist seldom goes back beyond these"secondarycauses"thoughheknowsthatbehindthemis:

"AflashoftheWillthatcan;Existentbehindalllawsthatmadethem,Andlotheyare!"

Ontheotherhand,theJews,incommonwith(71)ancientpeoples,whoknewlittleabouttheworkingofso-calledsecondarycauses,emphasizedthatwhichtheydidknow,theoriginandmainspringofallcauseGod.

In accounting for the religious history of any one, the moderneremphasizes the secondary human influences, the Christian orantichristianforceswhichplayeduponhim;whiletheJewwouldperhapsomitall this, andemphasize theprimaryactivityofGod in theheartofthe individual or his permitting sin to take its course. Progress inrighteousness was ascribed to the help derived from God, not to theintermediate agencies. On the other hand by the same habit ofexpression, immorality and irreligion were often ascribed not to thesecondaryagencies,buttotheattitudeofGodwhichpermittedthem.

Butbeitnoted,theOldTestamentbelieverneverthoughtthatthismade

God the author of evil, or freed the sinner fromhis own responsibility.HisconfessionofsinsofrequentlyrecordedintheOldTestament,provesthatthiswasmerelytheemphasisofstatement,andthathewasasclearas we are that God never actively encouraged any one to sin. If somescholarstodayareconfuseduponthispoint, theconfusion(72) is theirown: therewasno confusion to themenofOldTestament times. TheyknewthatGodneverpositivelyhardenedtheheartofanymen,buttheyalso knew that ifGodwithdrewhis grace or ceased to actuate themanarightman'sheartwouldbehardened.Thewithdrawalofhisgracewasafundamental, though not responsible, cause of the hardening ofPharaoh's heart. They took their own way of stating it, we take ours.Neitherclaimstostatethecompletecause.ThuswhentheHebrewidiomis taken into account, God's "hardening of Pharaoh's heart" is just thesequel to God's forbearance repeatedly shown toward Pharaoh'sdisobedience.

NothingrequirestobesaidinevidenceofGod'smercifulattitudetowardhispeopleinthewilderness.ItisincomparablysummedupbyMosesinthe Ninetieth Psalm, though a pardonable mistranslation mars its fullexpressioninourEnglishVersion.Inversethree,theHebrewworddaka,which is there translated "destruction," and is generally understood torefertothedestructionofthebodybydeath,isfromarootmeaningto"break in pieces," to "break fine," to " pulverize," and is therefore (73)frequentlyusedtodenotethebreakingofman'sstubbornself,todenotecontrition,orrepentance.ItisthewordwhichisusedinIsa.57:15,"Withhimalso that is of a contrite andhumble spirit." So inPs. 34:18, "Andsavethsuchasbeofacontritespirit."Likewise in thisNinetiethPsalm,the merciful purpose of God's dealings with Israel is more clearlyexpressed in a similar rendering of this word: "Thou turnest man tocontrition [or repentance, not destruction] and sayest, Return [i.e., tome],yechildrenofmen."Abovethesadnessofthedeathlamentofthosehomeless journeyers, doomed to fall in the wilderness before thecompanywould reach the earthlyCanaan, arose this songof faith, "Wehave a home," "Thou art our dwelling place." And even in this sterndiscipline,MosesdiscernedthatGodhadamercifulpurposetoturnmanto"contrition,""andsayest,Return,yechildrenofmen."

FromtheentirehistoricalwritingsofMoses it isveryevident that fromthebeginningofman'ssinfulnessuntilthetimeofMoses,atleast,itwaswellunderstoodthatGodwaswillingtohavemercyuponthesinner.Thatwas his characteristic attitude. Themore we look into these (74) earlyrecords, the more manifest is God's forbearance, the more tender andconsideratedohispurposeandhisdealingsappear.Assuredly,ifmenofourdayhavepicturedtothemselvesthecountenanceoftheGodofoldasstorm-cast and threatening toward the children of men, they have notreadithere.FromhiscomingtoAdaminthe"cooloftheday"untilhisloving appeal in this lofty psalm, the spirit, if not thewords that comefromtheopendoorofGod'scompassionisever,"Return,yechildrenofmen."

But what shall be said of God's attitude as reflected in Old Testamentlaws,moralandceremonial?Aswehear thesaintofoldexclaim,"HowloveIthylaw!"weareremindedthatlawhadadifferentsignificanceinhis day. Many words have undergone a change of meaning. The nowundesirableterm"pagan"oncehadthehonorablemeaningof"villager.""Law," has now tomany, perhaps tomostmen, a forbiddingmeaning.Theveryoppositewasitsoriginalmeaning,ameaningwhichitretained,in large measure, throughout the Old Testament. The Hebrew wordtorah, "law," is froma rootwhich in thisHiphilor causative (75) form,means"toshow,""topointout,"etc.Theoriginalsignificanceoflawwasguidance, instruction. As a kind parent would give instruction for theguidance of his unknowing or thoughtless child, so God, in hismercy,gave lawstomantoaidhim, toguidehimifhewouldacceptguidance.Hadman always used these laws for this kindly purpose, "law" wouldnever have acquired another and forbidding meaning. But throughgenerations of wrongdoing, man transgressed these laws, therebybringing evil upon himself. He took up another attitude than wasintended toward these laws,until, in theircounter relation tohim, theytoo came to have an altered significance, until the most prominentconception connected with the idea of "law" became its retaliatingconsequences,notitskindlyguidance.

Addedtothis,themonstrousiniquityoftheGreekandRomanworld,asitdashedagainst thebarriersof law (lessperfect it is true)of thatday,

madethe ideaofprohibitionandpunishment thedominant,almost theexclusive,conceptionoflaw.Itwasinthisalteredsensethatitwasusedgenerally, though not exclusively, in the New Testament. But in thebeginning, (76) largely in theOldTestament, theconceptionof lawwasguidance, not prohibition. As our Lord interpreted the fourthcommandment as intended for "mercy andnot sacrifice," sowe shouldinterpret not only all of the Ten Commandments, but also all the lawsgiven by Moses, moral and even ceremonial. They were intended toseparatemenfromthehabitsoftheworld,andschooltheminhigherlifeandfaith.IfwekeepinmindthisoriginalandprevailinglyOldTestamentconception of law, we will not be in danger of seeking for harshnesswhere itwasnot intended, andwe shall thebetterunderstandhow thebeliever of old could say, "How love I thy law!" That unbelievers andtransgressorsshouldnotloveit,mustcausenosurprise.

IntheOldTestamentrecord,whichrecountstheeventsoftheconquestofCanaan,thedegeneratedaysofthejudgesandthestormydaysoftheearly kingdom,wemust be careful not tomake theseHistorical Booksstand sponsor for the iniquity ofmen, or justify their cruelty.Wemustnever make the actual life of even believers the measure of God'steaching.Fewmenareasgoodastheircreed.ThelivesofChristiansto-day do not adequately reflect what the New (77) Testament teaches ofGod's mercy. Nor must we be surprised that God in his providenceemployed human agents so imperfect and unsanctified as Samson andJephthah.Hadhenotemployedthese,hewouldhaveemployedworse,ornone.Hemakesuseofveryimperfectagentsstill,inthepreservingofhischurch and in the saving of sinners. But this rather magnifies God'smercy, without justifying the faults of his agents. The persistentdisobedience of Israel in not thoroughly conquering the land, theirmakingcompromisewith the idolatrouspeople, theirgeneralneglectofthe divinely appointed ceremonials which had been given to them ontheir way, all resulting in their decline into semi-heathenism, onlymagnify themore,God'smercy inretainingtheminhis favoratall.Heseizesuponeveryelementofgood in Israel,however imperfect, thathemayfoster itandmake itanoccasionofblessing,evenaSamsonandaJephthah.

When,asapeople,IsraelrejectedGod'srule,anddesiredanearthlyking,he spake through Samuel, "They have not rejected thee, but they haverejected me." I Sam. 8:7. Yet he said, "Hearken unto the voice of thepeopleinallthat(78)theysayuntothee."Hedidnotrejectthem.Onthecontrary,asyoufollowthenarrativehowgreatwashisforbearance,withSaul,withDavid,withSolomon!Abovethedinofbattleinthosestormydays,youheartheclearaccentsofGod'slovethatwouldnotleavemantohimself.Ineverylullofthestrifehismercyappears.Sothat,sofarfromthe record of those rude and apostate days representing God as anunrelentingdespot,itreallymagnifieshismercy.

SometimesthemercyofGodtowardsinfulmanisnotsomuchassertedasimplied.ThiswastheconceptionofGodwhichlaybehindtheprayerofSolomonatthededicationoftheTemple."Whatprayerandsupplicationbemadebyanyman,orbyallthypeopleIsrael,whichshallknoweverymantheplagueofhisownheart,andspreadforthhishandstowardthishouse:thenhearthouinheaventhydwellingplace,andforgive."IKings8:38,39.

Therecordsoftheeventsofthedividedkingdomandthemessagesofthepre-exilicprophets,revealamongothersthisgreatfact, that itwashardforGodtoresignthesinnertohissin,eventhemostungrateful.ListentothemessageofHosea!Whereisthereelsewheresuchan(79)expressionof Divine compassion, except the Saviour's prayer, " Father, forgivethem?"EventhesterndeclarationofdoombyAmosisaccompaniedwithitsmessageofmercy."AndIwillbringagainthecaptivityofmypeopleofIsrael."Amos9:14. "Seekyeme,andyeshall live."Amos5:4. Indeed itmaybesaidtobecharacteristicofOldTestamentprophecythat,howeversevereitsdenunciationofsin,itneverleftmanthere.Beforethevoiceofthe prophet ceased he ever announced the mercy of God. These verydeclarations of mercy, which are found side by side with his sterndenunciationofsin,andwhichmanytoohastilyrejectas interpolationsinconsistent with the body of the prophecy or narrative, are really itscrowning complement. The critic frequently sees only one thing, whilethe Old Testament writer saw two, God's hatred of sin, and his lovingdesire to save the sinner. Isaiah, although intensely sensitive to theenormity of the sin of his day, yet believed that the door ofmercy still

swung open: "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord:thoughyoursinsbeasscarlet,"etc.Isa.1:18.Jeremiahfeltthatbeforethesinfulmultitudeofhisday,therewasnotonly(80)thewayofdeath,butalso,"Ihavesetbeforeyouthewayoflife."Jer.21:8.Andinthelandofexile,Ezekielwithgreat clearnessproclaimed the truth, that the fateofthesinnerwasnotirrevocablyfixed."AsIlive,saiththeLordGod,Ihavenopleasureinthedeathofthewicked;butthatthewickedturnfromhiswayand live."Ezek.33:11.Norwillanyonemiss thissametruth in thepost-exilicutterancesofZechariahandMalachi.

Itisofttimesintheundesignedexpressionsofdevotionthatmenreflectmost correctly their belief. For this reason the Book of Psalms has adoctrinal value far beyond its strictly didactic statements. The greatpenitential psalms would be a mockery, apart from themercy of God.Sometimesevenhere it isdefinitelyasserted,"TheLord ismercifulandgracious,slowtoanger,andplenteousinmercy."Psalms103:8."Likeasafatherpitiethhischildren,sotheLordpitieth,"etc.Psalms103:13.Howoften the invocation, "Have mercy upon me," and how frequent therefrain,"Hismercyendurethforever"!

Throughout these references to themercy ofGod, as taught in theOldTestament, it will be (81) observed that it was a mercy which lookedtoward deliverance from sin. Sometimes it would bring evidentdeliverancefromphysicalills,asvirtueandhappinessoftenrunparallel,but it is mercy looking to deliverance, not so much from suffering, asfromsin.Itwasthe"plagueofhisownheart."Itwas"Thoughyoursinsbeasscarlet."Itwas"Havemercyuponme...mysiniseverbeforeme."

Butitmaybeobjected,wasitafterallaworldwidemercyforthesinful?Was it not for Israel only? And was it not for even Israel collectively,ratherthanindividually?Astothelast,thereis, intheveryconstitutionofsociety,acommunityofgoodaswellasacommunityofevil,andmanyblessingsweresharedbyallIsraelingeneralbecauseofthevirtuesofthefaithfuleventhoughtheyweresometimesveryfew.Thepresenceoftenrighteous would have meant temporary immunity to the wholepopulationofSodom.Yet inthelastanalysismercylookingtosalvationfromsin,wasalways restricted to "those that fearhim."OldTestamentmercywascollectiveonlyinareflexway,andinthesamesensethatNew

Testamentmercyiscollective.Menofoldasmenoftoday(82)arepronetotakeshelter init, thoughitwasnever intendedforthatpurpose.It isthismistakeexactlywhichEzekiel sought to correct. "The sonshallnotbeartheiniquityofthefather,neithershallthefatherbeartheiniquityofthe son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and thewickednessofthewickedshallbeuponhim."Ezek.18:20.ThiswasnotanewteachinginEzekielsday.ItisessentiallythesameasthatannouncedtoCain. "If thoudoestwell is therenot forgiveness?"etc.The fact thatmento-dayrelyuponakindofcollectivemercy,doesnotprovethatitistheteachingoftheNewTestament,exceptinareflexsense.NeitherdidthesimilarmistakeofmenofoldprovethattheOldTestamenttaughtacollectivemercylookingtowardforgivenessofsin.

As towhetherornot, thismercywas forIsraelonly, itwasofcourse toIsrael only on the condition of their receiving it, and how often theythrustitfromthemordefeateditspurpose,theirhistorysadlytells.Theoffer of mercy was to the Israelite especially, because, with all hisindifference,hehearkenedmorethanothers.Theconditionuponwhichheobtainedmercyforhis(83)sinwasexactlythesameconditionuponwhichallmankind likewisecouldhavehad it.Theofferofmercy to theIsraelitedidnotwithdrawitfromtheGentile.

OnthecontrarythegivingofmercyexplicitlytoIsrael,waslinkedtotheirmakingitknowntothewholeworld.FromthetimeofAbrahamonwardit was proclaimed to be God's purpose, that "all nations should beblessed."BeforethetimeofAbrahamthisquestioncouldnothavebeenraised; there was hitherto no nationally separated people of God. Butafter the time of Abraham, i.e., as soon as the question of nationaldiscrimination couldbe raised, itwasdefinitely announced tobeGod'spurpose to show mercy in the bestowal of spiritual blessing upon allnations. The announcement of thisworld-widemercy ofGodwould, ofcourse,bemadethroughtheinstrumentwhichhehasalwaysseenfittochoose, namely those who have already accepted his mercy, a veryimperfect instrument indeed,yet thebestathand, theChristianchurchtoday,theIsraelitishchurchthen.

Righthere is the reasonwhymorewasnot said to Israel regarding thepromise of mercy to the whole world. The low level of Israel's (84)

spiritualityandtheinconsistencyandhypocrisyoftheirownlivesforbadeit. To have commissioned often rebellious and apostate Israel toemphasize this offer of mercy to the Gentiles (though it could not bealtogetherwithheld),wouldhavecalled forthresentment in theGentile,and self-righteousdeception in the Israelite. Israelneeded to learn thislessonherselfmore thoroughly, before she could go forth to teach it toothers.Itwouldhavebeenill-timedtohavesaidmuchatthatparticulartimetothepeopleofIsrael,aboutdeclaringGod'smercytotheworld.Itwould, at many periods of their history, have been like addressing anaudience of hardened hypocrites today, and flattering them by urgingthemtogoouttowarnthedebauchedortheheathen.Littlecouldbesaidthrough Israel to the Gentile or even regarding the Gentile, until theIsraelite himself evidenced a genuineness and stability of spiritual life.Nor was there any other possible medium better than Israel. With alltheirfaultsthedescendantsofAbrahamobeyedpartiallythecallofGod,whileotherpeoples,withapparentlyrareexceptions,utterlydisregardedGod.Underthesecircumstances,theuniversalityofGod'smercy,andhisannouncement of it so far (85) as possible, is themorewonderful. ThelimitationofGod'smercyregardingtheGentilesisonlyapparent.Itwaslimited, to the Gentile as to the Israelite, only by unbelief. From thebeginningofhumansin,God'smercyaswehaveseenhasflowedwithaworld-wide stream for all who would receive it. According to the OldTestamentaswehavetraceditsteaching,thismercywasnothiddenforlongages,norwasit lost inthemass,for"untothee,OLord,belongethmercy:forthourenderesttoeverymanaccordingtohiswork,"norwasitlimitedtoonenationasthemodernpoethassungit,"There'sawidenessinGod'smercylikethewidenessofthesea."

"There'sawidenessinGod'smercy,Likethewidenessofthesea."

Chapter4:THEPLACEOFMESSIAHINOLDTESTAMENTSALVATION

(86)WEhavenowarrivedatapointofdifference.Up to thispoint theseveral factors in the Old Testament problem of salvation have beenessentiallythesameasthecorrespondingfactorsintheNewTestament:

Sin was the same, in its nature, and in its effects, less varied and lessextremeasyetperhaps,but essentially the same.God's attitude towardsinandthesinnerwasessentiallythesameasintheNewTestament,withthis necessary consequence, that in the "days of their ignorance"responsibility andpunishmentwere less.Godwasunrelenting tonone,butmerciful to all, manifesting hismercy especially toward those whoavailedthemselvesofit,amercylookingtotheirsalvationfromsin.Andin that early time somemen of themass ofmankind were saved. Thequestion unavoidably arises,What place did theMessiah occupy in thesalvationofthosemenofold?Redeemedmennow,haveOnewhomtheyemphatically(87)regardastheirSaviour,whomtheyregardasessentialto their salvation, throughwhom theyhave redemption:whose life anddeathinsomewaymadeprovisionfortheirpardonandrestoration:whooccupies a foremost place in their salvation. What position did theMessiah occupy in the plan of salvation which is taught in the OldTestament,andthroughwhichmenofoldweresaved?

Itwillnotdo tobeginbypointing to theannouncementsof avicariousSuffererfardowntheages,e.g.,byIsaiah,evenifhisidentificationthenwereundisputed.For,aswehaveseen,therewassomewayofsalvationknownandeffectivefromthetimeofAbelandonward.NormustwenowreadbackintoOldTestamentpassagesaNewTestamentmeaningwhichwas unknowable and unpracticable for men of that day. As a part ofChristological studywemay profitably do that; but in seeking to knowwhattheOldTestamenttaughtthesinnerofitsday,astohowhemightbesavedfromhissin,wemustviewthatteachingratherfromhisstandpoint.Theoldertheologiansmademuchof"types"intheOldTestament,as shadowing forth the coming and work of Christ. The New (88)Testament writers place verymuch emphasis upon the fact that Christfulfilled these types,but indoing so they seem to teach thatChristhadshedsomuchnewlightuponthesetypes,astoimplythatheretofore,tothemselves at least, they had contained comparatively little redemptiveinformation.

Letusleaveasidethetheoriesof"theschools"asto"theMessiah's"placeinOldTestamentsalvation,andseeexactlywhattheOldTestamentitselfteachesuponthisquestion.

Theearliestpassagewhichbearsuponit,andapassagewhichthereforemust be of initial importance in interpreting the meaning of othersucceeding passages, is Gen. 3:15, wherein God in speaking to theTempter said, "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, andbetween thy seed and her seed; he shall bruise thy head," not a verydetailedstatementofanything,disappointing in its indefiniteness.Andyettwofactsmustbekeptinmind,First,thatinotherinterviewswithourfirstparents,Goddoubtlesshadgivenmuchsupplementaryinformation,whichthenecessarilybriefstatementsofScripturedonotpreserve,andsecondly, that predictive prophecy was necessarily obscure, (89)otherwiseitwouldhavedefeateditsownpurpose, itwouldhavehadnojustification for its having been announced at all, and the eventsthemselveswithheld: if itwere tobemadeentirelyexplicit, theremightratherhavebeenbroughttopassitsfulfillmentatonce.

Butwhatdidthisstatementmean,comingattheparticulartimewhenitdid?ThattheTempter(whoseheadtheseedofthewomanwastobruise)was not the literal serpent, but a more powerful and spiritual agency,seemstobeplacedbeyonddoubt,bytheimportanceattachedtohiminthispassage,andisconfirmedbytheuniformteachingofotherScriptureregardingthatoldserpentthedevil.Ontheotherhand,itisequallyclearfrom this passage, that a literal serpent was the visible agent used tosuggestdisobedience.Hadnosuchvisibleagentoftheevilonebeenused,ourfirstparentsmighthaveconfusedthisunseenactorwithGodhimself.

Some modern scholars even, with the complete Old Testament beforethem,havebeenconfusedupon thequestionof thedistinctionbetweenGod and Satan. This much is plain, that man had become sinful, byyieldingtotemptationto(90)disobeyGod,atemptationwhichhadbeenpresentedbyaTempterunderthepretextofhisbeinginterestedinman'slarger good. But the Tempter, upon the one hand, was not thus to beallowed to gain a friendship. That would have been fatal to man. Heratherarousedanantagonism.Ontheotherhand,manwasnottobeableimmediately to reverse entirely his folly and defeat and sin. Whenaccomplisheditwouldbe,notbythefirsthumanpair,butbytheir"seed."Thefinaloutcomeissummedup inthebriefstatementthat theseedofthewomanwouldfinallybruisetheheadorvitalpoweroftheTempter.

Any right exegesis of this passagemust not lose sight of the historicalcircumstances.Themeaningofthispromisemustbetakeninthelightofthecatastrophewhichcalleditforth.Thatmusthavebeentherelationinwhichitwasfirstunderstood,andthecommentarybywhichitwaseverafterwards explained. The outstanding event which had made thispromiseeithernecessaryoruseful,was,thatmanhadsinned,hadsinnedbeingtempted,hadfallenspiritually,hadsinned.Theonlyinterpretationof this promise, then,which is to thepoint, is (91) onewhichmakes itdeal with sin, and withman as a sinner, and to some extent with theTempterwhohad temptedman. Itwas, in someway, a promise of thereversalofthisnewconditionofman,assinful,apromiseofarestorationfrom this sinful state into which he had fallen. A promise, necessarilyvagueastothemethodofitsfulfillment,butnonethelesspositiveastoits certainty and result. It was by the "seed of the woman," that theTempterwastobeovercome,thathisheadwastobebruised.

But whom did our first parents and their immediate descendantsunderstand to bemeant by the "seed of the woman"?What could thisreasonablyhavemeanttothem?LaterMessianicpassages,iftheyrefertothis sameDeliverer, are helpful anddefinitive for us; the adaptation ofhistorical events to theMessianicplanmay throw lightuponMessianicteaching now: many later so-called Messianic passages, although notreallyannouncementsofnewinformationregardingacomingOne,wereneverthelesswitnessestoanalreadyexistinghopeofaDeliverer,ahopewhichmanywillbelievehaditsorigininthispromiseofthe"seedofthewoman."

(92)Apart,however,fromtheselaterteachings,whethertothepointornot, who was understood by the "seed of the woman," in this passagebeforeus,andatthattime,byourfirstparents?

Undoubtedly it was in their understanding to be some one born ofwoman, and in that sense like themselves, human. But one of the firstteachingswhich emerges here is that this "some one"was not, even tothem, merely human. Doubtless to them, as to the later saints andprophets, itwas far frombeing entirely clear.Was it their descendantscollectively who were to crush the Tempter? Yet the promise meantsomethingtothem.Perhapstheirownbeliefregardingthe"personnel"of

this"seedofthewoman"whowastodeliverthem,isbestexpressedinapassage in the succeedingchapter, in connectionwith thebirthof theirson."IhavegottenamanJehovah."Gen.4:1.Themeaningofthisversedepends upon the rendering of the Hebrew word eth, which in ourAuthorizedVersion is translated "from"andwhich theRevisedVersiontranslates"with"andsuppliesforthesakeoftheidiom"thehelpof";neitherofwhich translations is literal.This (93)Hebrewwordhasverycommonlyaverydifferentusage;itisfrequentlyusedmerelyasasigntodenotethatthatwhichfollowsisgrammaticallyadirectdefiniteobject;itis thenawordwithoutanyEnglishtranslation; it thendoesnotrequireanywordintheEnglishtranslationtorepresentit.

Taking theword in thisusage the translationof theversewouldsimplybe, "I have gotten aman (viz.), Jehovah." It is used in this latter sensefifteentimesinthissamechapter,inseveralofwhichcasesalso,ashere,it precedes a proper name. In the face of this it is not easy to see howanythingexcept theboldnessandabruptnessof the ideacouldhave ledthe translatorsofeither theAuthorizedor theRevisedVersion tomakethedeparturewhich theyhave fromthis literal rendering.Andyetafterall is the idea too bold? A great promise had been made to our firstparents, that the "seed of the woman" should bruise the head of theTempter;theyhadhadtimetobemoantheirdisobedience,torealizethepowerandtenaciousnessofsin.

Wemaybelievetheylongedtobebackagain,freefromthedominionofevil.Theyhadhadtimetomeditatewhattypeorstatusofbeing(94)thispromisedDeliverer,thisseedofthewomanwouldbe.Theyhadrealizednow,doubtless, ifnotbefore, thathewouldnecessarilybegreater thanthemselves,fortheyknewtheirowninability.Godhadalreadyappearedto them, presumably as he did later to the Old Testament saints, toAbrahamandothers,inhumanform.Hencewhenthechildwasborntoourfirstparents,hemight,inthelightofallthis,andinthelightofthatunspeakably importantbutvery indefinitepromiseofaDeliverer, seemtothemtofulfilltheseconditions,theseedofthewomanyetmorethanman.Andwiththeir limitedvocabularyhewasinsomesensebothmanandGod, "aman,Jehovah." Inhermistaken identification,with lessofverbiagethantheNiceneFathers,Eveexpressedinherhopeandfaitha

profound truth regarding the dual nature of the Saviour to come. Butmore to our point here, this unstudied utterance of Eve, like many aclumsy statement, told her real understanding regarding this promisedDeliverer.PossiblythereisasimilarbeliefvoicedbythepiousLamechinGenesis 5:28, when he called the name of his son "Noah" ("rest"),expressing his hope that now, at length, the promised (95) "seed" hadcometogivemanrestfromthecurseofsin.

Later prophecies defined more exactly the character and work of thispromisedDeliverermakinguseofmanydifferentnamestoemphasizethedifferentphasesofhischaracterandwork.But,be itremembered,Abelandhissuccessorsinfaithdidnotrequiretowaitforaneffectiveplanofsalvation. All that was essential to their salvation must have beenembraced in this early teaching. And why not? The increasingdefiniteness of the Old Testament prophecies regarding the Messiah,werenotsomuchessentialtothesalvationoftheindividualsinner,butratherpreparatoryforhisadvent,andforhisidentificationwhenthetimeofhiscomingshouldbefulfilled.NorareeventhestillgreaterlightanddetailsoftheNewTestamentessential, inthissense,tosalvation.Manyhumble-mindedbelieversto-dayaresavedwithverylittleunderstandingofthesedetails.SofarasexplicitknowledgeaboutthepersonofChrist,orthequestionsinvolvedinatonement,areconcerned,theyhavelittleifanyinformation more than the Old Testament believer. Even the mostenlightenedbelieverisstillmuchinignoranceregarding(96)thefulnessof things. There has been a sliding scale as to knowledge of details,especiallyofChrist'snatureandperson.Butaspecificknowledgeofthesehasnotbeenanessentialofpersonalsalvation.Theessentialshavebeenfromthebeginningmadeknown,andarecontainedinthisfirstpromise,illuminedinthefirstplaceperhapsbyoralexplanationorteaching,whichhasnotbeenpreserved.Manhadbecomeasinner,butGod'smercykeptopen the way of return, and here was immediately the promise of aDeliverer, littlemore thanabarepromise, andyet aDelivererwhoourfirstparentsconsideredwouldbemorethanhuman.Thispromisewasascertain of fulfillment as the character of God who gave it wasunchangeable. What difference did it make, that men as yet did notpossess its details? The believer today has not learned its heights anddepths.Hewas tobeadeliverer fromsin, for sinwas thecircumstance

which called forth the promise: the guarantee of Jehovahwas upon it;whatmorewasessential!

A questionmay be raised as to how far the individual character of theDelivererwaspreservedinlaterpromises,e.g.,inthepromiseasrenewedin several forms to Abraham. For the (97) word for " seed,"notwithstandingPaul'spointedandvaliddistinctionbetweenthesingularandtheplural,isfrequentlyusedasacollectiveintheHebrewScriptures.Wemust,however,takeintoaccountthefactthatourfirstparents,aswehaveseen,understoodtheDelivererasindividual,thatthisindividualisticidea had probably prevailed, and had been handed down among thefaithful,sothatAbrahamalsoinheritedthatview.WhenGodsawwelltomakeacertainportionofmankindthespecialmessengersandcustodiansofhis truth,whenhe calledoutAbrahamand sethimapart to foundabelieving nation as such, therewas naturally an emphasis placed uponthe intermediate part which he and his descendants, as a nation orchurch, shouldperform in thisdeliverance,or in thebringing inof thisDeliverer.ThisemphasisdidnotatallexcludetheideathattheDelivererwouldintheendbe,nottheintermediatenation,butanindividual.Justas Isaiahuses the term"ServantofJehovah," sometimes todenote theindividual Messiah, and sometimes to denote the chosen people incooperative servicewith him, so the "seed of Abraham," although "oneseed,"hadbothanindividualandacollectiveusage.

(98)ButitisveryevidentthatthedescendantsofAbrahamhadapartinthedeliveranceonlyuponthegroundandpresumptionof theirrelationto the individual Deliverer, concerning whom it had already beenpromised, that he would bruise the head of the Tempter. If there hadbeenno"servantofJehovah" inthesenseofan individualMessiah, thenationwouldnothavebeenthe"servantofJehovah"inacollectiveandintermediatesense.Andiftherehadbeenno"seedofthewoman"inthesense of an individual Saviour, the seed of Abraham would not haveaccomplished its intermediate work, the salvation or "blessing" of allnations.

That this Deliverer and blessing as thus anew promised to the worldthrough the seed of Abraham were, in the first place, spiritual, ratherthanmaterial, isevident.Thatwas thecharacteristic inwhichAbraham

wasdistinguishedfromothermenofhistime.ItisnottothepointtosaythatthescribesandPhariseesofourLord'sdayunderstooditdifferently,for theywere rebuked for theirmisunderstanding and perversion of it.OurLord'sreproof,ifwemayrefertoit,impliedthatthecorrectteachingoftheOldTestament(99)wasthatthedeliverancewastobeaspiritualdeliverance.

Here then was a promise from earliest times, Guaranteeing to man aDelivererfromsin.AstudyoflaterMessianicpassagesonlyconfirmsandelucidates this first promise, sometimes by implying or assuming thatsome such ground of faith had already been made known, and sometimesbydefiningmoreexactly the character andworkof thepromisedDeliverer as both human and divine, in consistence with this firstpromise.

Omittingdoubtfulpassages,andthosewhichvoicetheMessianichopeinonly a general way, there are many passages, which, if they meananything at all, give promise anew of this Deliverer from sin, fromincidental ills also, but from sin. These givemore specific informationregardinghimselfandhiswork.

TheexactconceptionwhichtheOldTestamenthadofthedignityofthepersonofthisDeliverer,isnoteasilystated.Thismuch,however,isclear,that in keepingwith the first promise, he is conceived of asmore thanmerelyhuman.ThisisexpressedintherelationwhichheoccupiestowardJehovah.He ispartnerwithJehovah incontrast to "kingsof theearth"(100) who take counsel against Jehovah and against his Anointed. Ps.2:2.OrinPs.2:7(asconfirmedbyHeb.1:5),heistheeternallybegottenSonofGod.InPs.2:8,heisdescribedasakingwhoistohaveworldwidedominion. "I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and theuttermostpartsoftheearthforthypossession."IngainingthisdominionhewouldhavethesanctionandsupportofJehovah,"Sitthouatmyrighthand,untilImakethineenemiesthyfootstool."Ps.110:1.Moreover,hewould conquer the headship of evil, the Tempter. "He shall wound theheadsovermanycountries [or,overawideregion],"Ps.110:6,alludingprobablytothepromisedbruisingoftheheadoftheTempterasrecordedinGen.3:15.

The representations of his dignity are frequently stated in such aconnectionastoshowthatthisdignitywasnotregardedasincompatiblewithhisbeingthe"seedofthewoman,"i.e.,withhishumanity.Whenheiscalled"Wonderful,""Counsellor,""MightyGod,""EverlastingFather,""PrinceofPeace,"heislikewise,inthesameverse,spokenofasa"childtobeborn."Isa.9:6.

It isnot to thepoint to say that thismust (101)havebeenmeaninglesscontradictiontotheOldTestamentreader.TheNewTestamentbelieverisaskedtoacceptasimilardifficultyintheunionofChrist'stwonatures,divine and human, omniscient and limited, in one Person. It is indeedstill, the "mystery of godliness: God manifest in the flesh." TheevangelicalChristianshouldraisenoobjectiontothisfeatureoftheOldTestamentrepresentationoftheMessiah;heshouldwelcomeit.Many of those passages which represent the superhuman dignity andnature of the Promised One in the Old Testament, have been muchmisunderstood. The mistake has been twofold: There has been anexcessive zeal upon the part of many scholars to eliminate thesuperhuman from the Old Testament conception of the Delivererpromised.Therehasbeenafailuretocomprehendthebearingofearlier,andespeciallythisfirstpromise,uponthemeaningoflaterreferencestohim.

IftheOldTestamenthearerhadnotalreadypossessedandbelievedthefirst promise of "the seed of the woman," he might indeed have beenpuzzled toknowtowhomthose laterprophecies referred.But,with thefirstpromiseknownand(102)believed,hewatchedforeveryrayoflight,and discerned it, even though from other angles. He eagerly treasuredeverynewrepresentationoftheMessiah'snatureorhiswork,begrudginghimneitherthehumannorthedivine.Humanterminology,such,e.g.,as"king"had,ofnecessity,tobeusedtodescribecertainphasesofhiswork.Buttherewasnomisunderstandinginthemindofthebeliever,especiallywhen his kingship was described in terms of world-wide rulership, orothercharacteristicsinapplicable,eveninJewishhyperbole,toanymerehumanruler.Westillcontinuetocallhimour"King."Butwhenwedosowe expect that, without further explanation, men who have scripturalknowledge,willunderstandus.

NotonlydidtheOldTestamentrepresenthiskinglyofficeasmorethanhuman,but it likewiseconceivedofhimaspossessingano lessuniquepriesthood."ThouartapriestforeveraftertheorderofMelchizedek,"Ps.110:4, one who received his priesthood, not from the Levitical line ofsuccession,butinsomeotherway,afterwardstobemorefullyrevealed,aunique priesthood, of original appointment. Without using the word"priest" he is frequently (103) represented in the Old Testament asindependentlyinitiatingintercessoryorpriestlywork.Thisistrueoftheso-called"theophanies"of theOldTestament,whereheappearsas"theAngel of Jehovah." "Then the Angel of Jehovah answered and said, OJehovahofhosts,how longwilt thounothavemercyonJerusalemandonthecitiesofJudah?"etc.Zech1:12.

Hereagain,althoughtheOldTestamentrepresentedhimnowas"King"andnowas"Priest,"itconceivedofnonecessarydifficultyinhisunitingthese or even other attributes.On the contrary, it explicitly affirms theunionofthekinglyandthepriestlyofficeinhim."Andheshallbeapriestupon his throne," and this without conflict; "and the counsel of peaceshallbebetweenthemboth."Zech.6:13.Thesametruthisexpressedinthe symbolical act of crowning the high priest Joshua, as a type orforerunner of the "Branch," one of the well-known designations of thePromised One to represent his lowly human relation. The twooutstanding functions of the Saviour were increasingly emphasized hisKingship and his Priesthood. Each was gradually revealed more fully,"lineuponline"accordingasthereligiouseducationand(104)experienceoftheOldTestamentChurch,madeitpracticable.Thefirstidea,thatofRulership or Kingship, was very evidently implied in the first promise.Gen.3:15.IfheweretobruisetheheadoftheTempter,hemustbearmedwithpower.Hemustgainrule.

Thesecondideawouldnotbesopatentatfirst.Butverysoonmanmusthaverealizedthatmorethanmerepowerandconquestwasneeded,thatsinneededatonement, that sinneededsacrifice, that thesinnerneededintercession.Thesinnerneedednotonlyaking tosubduetheTempter,butheneededalsoapriesttointercedeforhim.Aspriesttointercedehemusthaveasacrifice.Thefirsthumanfamilyhadbeentaughtenoughtoappreciate this. Abel offered his sacrifice. It had some meaning, some

meaningrelatedtothegreatcatastrophewhichhadbefallenman,somerelation tosin.So, in time,and inamannerasclearaswascompatiblewith the purpose of prophecy, he is represented as being his ownsacrifice."Hewaswoundedforourtransgressions,hewasbruisedforouriniquities:thechastisementofourpeacewasuponhim;andwithhis stripeswearehealed." Isa. 53:5. "Hewasoppressed,andhewasafflicted,(105)yetheopenednothismouth:heisbroughtasa lamb to the slaughter." Isa. 53:7. It is difficult to see how these twooutstanding features of theSaviour, aswenowknowhim, could in theages before his incarnation have been more wisely revealed, moreappropriately blended, so that neither idea would suffer from theemphasis placed upon the other, and so thatmenmight both have thehopeofhiskinglypower to conquerevil, andat the same time (in thathope of conquest) remember that sin committed required more thanconquest,requiredatonement.

There was, then, according to the Old Testament teaching, from thebeginningofman'scareerasasinner,apromiseofaDelivererfromsin.Withuniqueconsistency itpreservesas itunfolds the twofoldnatureofthis Deliverer, the human and the superhuman, the divine-human;thoughitmakesnoefforttoexplainhowthesewouldorcouldbeunitedin one person. Parallel with this revealing of his twofold nature, is anincreasingrevelationofhistwofold,perhapsmanifold,work,kinglyandpriestly. Some have thought that there is a direct reference to hispropheticalwork inDeut. 18: 15. "TheLord thyGodwill raise upunto(106)theeaProphetfromthemidstofthee,ofthybrethren,likeuntome[Moses];untohimyeshallhearken."ThishoweverprobablyreferstothesuccessionofinspiredleaderswhomGodwouldfromtimetotimeraiseup, afterMoses shouldhavepassedaway, rather than to the individualMessiah; that God would not leave his people without supernaturalinstruction,butwouldgivethemaprophetfromtimetotime,torevealtothem with certainty his will. It refers to Christ it is probably onlyindirectly,asthecompletionofthatlineofteachers.

But omitting passages of doubtful interpretation it will be observed byevery one that in the various statements inwhich the essentials of thepromise of a Deliverer are renewed the emphasis varies. In different

announcementsitisplacedupondifferentfeaturesofthisdeliverance.

Thereasonsforthesedifferencescannotbenarrowlyaccountedforbythepassinghistorical events, nor by thepolitical character of theperiod inwhich these prophecies are supposed to have been first spoken. Everyprophecy had, of course, an application to its own time. But mucharbitrary interpretation has arisen from a narrow application of thisprinciple. The Old (107) Testament teaching was larger than the agewhich gave it birth. As Professor Robertson has put it, "The OldTestamentprophetswerenotonlymenoftheirtime,butmenabovetheirtime, and also men for all time." So wemay say of their message. Itsapplication to its own day was ofttimes the lesser part by far of itspurpose.Aprophecy regarding thepromisedDeliverermayormaynothavehadaspecialapplicationtotheageinwhichitwasfirstannounced.The main purpose of it was not transient, but abiding. Its immediatevalue, whatever it might be, was dependent upon this more abidingmeaning. It is like the banker's securities. Their present value isdependentupontheirhavingafuturevalue;iftheywillbeworthnothingto-morrow,theyareworthlittletoday.

Neither can the date of a prophecy regarding the Messiah bemechanically determined by the fullness of the revelation which itcontains.Itistruethereis,inageneralway,anunfolding"frommoretomore." But not even the human agency in prophecy would be somechanicallyordered.Menofmostripenedknowledgeoften(108)returntostudyandtostateanewthemostelementarytruths.Thephilosopherofto-dayrepeats,indifferentform,theteachingsoftwothousandyearsago.HegelrepeatsPlato.

But especially, the Spirit of God, in prophecy, was not mechanicallycontrolled ; but worked "how and where and when " he would, thetheories of confident men to the contrary, notwithstanding. EvenDelitzsch falls into thismistake and seeks to decide the date of certainpropheciesbythefullnessoftheMessianicideawhichtheycontain.Itisonlyinageneralway,thatthelaterpromisescanbeknowntobelatebyreasonoftheircontainingamoreadvancedordetailedrepresentationoftheMessiah.Even,then,thisincreaseddetaildoesnotsomuchaddtothesufficiency of the original promise of a Deliverer from sin, but makes

moredefinitehisnatureandwork,andespeciallypreparesforhisadvent.Theoriginalpromise,thatthe"seedofthewoman"wouldbruisetheheadoftheTempter,containedallthatwasessential.UponthatpromiseAbel,anddoubtlessverymanyothers,weresaved.

Many so-claimed Messianic passages are at (109) first sightdisappointing,andiftheystoodalonewouldnotseverallyteach,beyonddoubt, that a unique, divine-humanMessiah, was the hope of the OldTestament.This is trueofmanyreferencestohiminthe laterandevenpost-exilicprophets.Andyetisnotthis,insomesense,atestimonytotheexistenceofsuchabelief,thatitwasnotunknownordoubtful;thatithadalreadybeentaughtinsomepriorpromise?Forexample,wheninZech.3:8, theprophet, speaking forGod, says, "Behold, Iwill bring forthmyservant theBranch," it is assumed that there is no necessity to explainwho is meant. It was he who filled the hopes of all Old Testamentbelievers.Hehadbeensooftenreferredto,thatfurtheridentificationwasunnecessary.Or inMal.3:1, "Behold, Iwill sendmymessenger,andheshall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shallsuddenly come tohis temple," etc.Therewasbut one,whom, from thedays of Adam, they had been looking forward to, "The Lord, whom yeseek." It is not the Hebrew word which is, in our Authorized Version,commonly translated "Lord"; but which would more correctly betranslated,"Jehovah."Itisthewordadhon,"lord,"whichdenotes(110)asuperior or ruler, either human or divine, and is here fitly used todesignate the divine-human Lord or Messiah. Many of the Messianicpassages of the Old Testament therefore are allusions or references,rather thannewor independentpromises.Tohave formally introducedhim repeatedly,whowas already so generally known,would have beensuperfluousandinappropriate.Andalthoughlongpromisedandknown,hewasyetbutveryvaguelyconceived.

Butitwillstillbeasked,WhatplaceexactlydidthispromisedDeliverer(as theOld Testament conceived of him) occupy in theOld Testamentbeliever's salvation? What practical part did this One, promised, andrepromised,andlookedforwardtowithexpectancy,actuallyfulfillintheplanof salvation, bywhichmenwere saved from sin inOldTestamenttimes?

It is very evident, that in these earlier days,when as yet very little hadbeen revealed concerning the person of this Deliverer, or of the exactcharacter of his work, he could serve very little as the object of thebeliever'sconsciousfaith.ToJehovah,whoknewallthings,hecouldbe,ascompletelyasnow,thegrounduponwhichthepenitentsinnermightbepardoned.

(111)Buttothesinnerhimself,hewas,asyet,toovaguelyrevealedtobethe object of explicit faith. This explains why the Old TestamentrepresentsthebelieverasputtinghistrustnotsomuchinthispromisedDeliverer or his work, but rather in the Promiser, Jehovah himself."Abraham . . . believed in Jehovah; and he counted it to him forrighteousness." Gen. 15:6. It was upon the mercy of Jehovah that thesinner of old cast himself, rather than upon the vicarious work whichMessiahwouldaccomplish, "Remember,OJehovah, thy tendermerciesandthylovingkindnesses;fortheyhavebeeneverofold.Remembernotthe sins of my youth, nor my transgressions: according to thy mercyrememberthoumeforthygoodnesssake,OJehovah."Ps.25:6,7.Wedonotmeanthat thevicariousworkofMessiahwasnottaughtatallintheOldTestament,forweread,"Hewaswoundedforourtransgressions,hewasbruisedforouriniquities:thechastisementofourpeacewasuponhim;andwithhisstripeswearehealed."Itwastheideaunderlying all Old Testament animal sacrifice for sin. But it did notoccupytheplaceinthesinner'spardonwhichtheSavior'saccomplishedworknowdoes, in the thoughtof theNewTestament (112)believer.AstheOldTestament believer omitted secondary causes in accounting forany phenomenon, and attributed it to the great First cause, so in thematter of his pardon, he went directly to the great Promiser, Jehovahhimself. The Old Testament taught most emphatically the fact, thatJehovahwished topardonandsave the sinner,but it taught the sinnerlessclearlythemeansbywhichthiscouldorwouldbeeffected.Fromthepromise in Gen. 3:15, and throughout, it taught, that in some waysalvationwouldbeeffectedbyaDelivererbornof thehumanrace;andwho yet, as we have seen, was regarded from the beginning, andhenceforthwithincreasingdefiniteness,asmorethanmerelyhuman.

ButthisDeliverer,althoughthusanessentialfactorinman'sdeliverance

fromsin,andalthoughhisactualadventwaslookedforwardtowithgreatexpectancy,wasnotwhatwemaycall theobjectof their faith.TheOldTestamentbelieverplacedhisfaithinthemercyofJehovah,andleftittohimastohowhismercywouldmakeuseofMessiahtoeffecthispardonandsalvation.ThisisonlyastepremovedhoweverfromthepositionoftheNewTestamentbeliever,whenheplaceshisfaithinChrist,and(113)leavesitwithhimtomakehisintercessioneffectual.When the Messiah actually came, and performed his atoning work, itmade the acceptance of him, or faith in him, occupy a consciouslydecisiveplaceintheplanofsalvation.Theearlydisciplesandtheapostlesfelt theabruptnessof thechange.Thatwhich intheOldTestamenthadbeenthelargelyunknowngroundofthesinner'spardon,nowbecametheobjectofhisconsciousfaith.IntheOldTestamentthesinnerwasdrawnandsaved,withoutthemoralorpersonal influenceofthecharacterandworkoftheMessiah,inthesenseinwhichtheseareemphasizedto-day.Neverthelesshedidoccupyarealplaceintheplanofsalvationthen.Hispromisedwork,althoughyetindefinitelycomprehendedbymen,wasthegrounduponwhichJehovahpardonedandrestoredthesinner.Hewas,tothebelieverhimselfanobjectofconstantexpectancy,whichkeptalivehishopeandpledgedthecertaintyofhisfinaldeliverancefromsin.

Butmore than this. He was the reality (dimly apprehended bymany),reflected in their sacrificial offerings for sin. But it is doubtful if (114)even theirmost definite knowledge of himmade him to any of them aconscious object of saving faith, but rather made his identificationcompletewhenhecameanddweltamongmen.

Chapter5:JEHOVAH,THEGODOFREDEMPTION

(115) THE view which the Old Testament believer had of his ownsalvation is inseparably connected with his conception of "Jehovah."MisconceptionofJehovah,astheNewTestamentreader'sconceptionofChrist, determined more than anything else, except his own sin, the

questionofhis salvation.Whathis conceptionof Jehovahwas, is tobelearnedfromhishabitualusageofthatname.Theetymologyofanameisonething,butitspracticalmeaningmaybequiteanother.Itistheusageofanamewhichreflectsitspracticalmeaning.Itisnottobewonderedat,thatthebelieverofold,astheChristianoftoday,hadseveralnameswithwhich to denote the all-comprehensiveDeity, different designations, tobeusedaccording to theparticularcharacteristicorworkofGodwhichwasintendedtobeemphasized.

These several names of God in the Old Testament are not adequatelydistinguished, in our (116) Authorized English version, nor even in theordinaryRevisedVersion.

One of these names of God, and the one which we first meet with is"Elohim,"generallyrenderedinourEnglishversionssimply,"God,"butwhich we may refer to in the following pages more definitely as,"Elohim." A cursory examination of the passages in which this nameoccurs reveals, in general, its meaning, its usage: "Elohim created theheavens and the earth." Gen. 1:1. It was the Spirit of "Elohim" who"moved[brooded]uponthefaceofthewaters."Gen.1:2.Itwas"Elohim"whosaid,"Lettherebelight."Gen.1:3.Andsoitwas"Elohim"who,asitisrecordedthroughoutthefirstchapterofGenesis,performedtheseveraldaysworkofCreation."Elohim"completedintheseventhday"hisworkwhichhehadmade."Gen.2:2.So,asweshallhavereasonalsotonoticelater,whereverGodespeciallyappearsasCreatororRuler,thisnameis,in a consistent, but not narrowly pedantic, manner used, in the OldTestament.

Butitisnottheusageofthename"Elohim"withwhichweareatpresentsodirectlyconcerned.ItiswithanothernameofGodwith(117)whichwealso frequently meet in the Old Testament, the English equivalent ofwhich is "Jehovah." The much debated question as to what was theoriginal pronunciation of this name, is a matter of very minorimportance.ItsEnglishequivalent,bywhichweshallrefertoit,is,inanycase, the well-established, splendidly resonant word, "Jehovah." Manymodern scholars have sought to gain currency for some other Englishtransliterative, of more heathen-like sound, lacking the graciousassociationswithwhichanevangelicalfaith,forcenturies,hasgradually

beenclothingthisname,"Jehovah."Itwouldaccordtoo,withtheeffortmadebymanyunbelievingscholars,tomakeJehovahstandinthesamenarrow national relation to Israel which the various heathen deitiesoccupied toward their several nations. It would please any who wouldexcludetheJehovahoftheOldTestamentfromhisuniverseasawhole,andmake himmerely a national deity. But to attempt now to displacethiswordofblessedassociation,bysomeevenmoreexacttransliterative,would be to lose infinitely more than we would gain. To replace it bysome one of the proposed substitutes, even though more literal, as"Yahweh,"or"Yahveh,"(118)or"Yahwah,"wouldbetoinauguratenowatype of biblical English the consistent adoption of which throughoutwouldbecomeridiculous.Otherwordsequallyinexactastransliterativesarenotrejected.Anditmaybethattheoffenseofthisname"Jehovah"isnot its orthography, but its religion. However, it is neither thepronunciation nor the derivation of the word which is of chiefimportance:itisitsusage,itsmeaning.

The first instance of the use of the name "Jehovah," is in the secondchapterofGenesis.Aftertheworkofcreation,assuchwasnarrated,therewas anaccount givenof the covenant relations intowhichGodenteredwith man. In narrating this covenant, however, there is referenceincidentally to the work of creation, which work of creation had beenalready specifically stated. Creation was the fundamental ground ofproprietyuponwhichGodactedinplacingmanundertheobligationsofacovenant. In thisportionof the record therefore,where the covenant isthechieffeature,andcreationismentionedonlyincidentally,whereGodis the God of the covenant rather than the God of creation, the name"Jehovah" is used. Gen. 2:4. (119) Here, however, this new name"Jehovah"isnotthrustrecklesslyintothesacrednarrative,attheriskofprobablysuggestingtotheuninitiatedthatthereweretwoGods,theone"Elohim,"andtheother"Jehovah."Therewasofcoursenoconfusionintheminds of thosewho first used thesenames.But theOldTestamentwaswrittentobeusedforthereligiousinstructionofallmankind.Itwaswritten in such a way as not unnecessarily to perplex those who havebeenrearedinotherandpolytheisticreligions.Afterthename"Elohim"had been used to denoteGod in his creativework inGen. I:2; 2:3, wefind,inthesucceedingportionwhichrecordshisenteringintocovenant

relationswithman,thename"Jehovah"isused,butthename"Elohim"isusedinconjunctionwithit.Thatis,Godiscalled,inthisportionofthenarrative,"JehovahElohim,"makingitevidentthathewhoisspokenofas"Jehovah"isthesameBeingwhowasbeforecalled"Elohim."

It is under this name "Jehovah" (with "Elohim" annexed) that God isrepresentedasenteringintocovenantrelationswithman,referencebeingmadeincidentallytohishavingperformed(120)theworkofcreation,nothowevertogiveasecondaccountofcreation,assomehavethoughtlesslysupposed, but as his ground of prerogative in placing man under thiscovenant,andthebearingwhichcreationwouldhaveuponit,"InthedaythatJehovahElohimmadetheearthandtheheavens."Gen.2:4.Thisisnot,letitbenoted,aspecificaccountofcreation.IntheHebrewitisnoteven the word "create," but the more general word meaning "make,""appoint,"etc."AndJehovahElohimformed[thewordisyatsarformed,not,baracreated]manof thedustof theground,andbreathed intohisnostrils the breath of life." Gen. 2:7. It was "Jehovah Elohim" whoplantedagardenformanintheregionwhichwasthen(andaccordingtothecuneiformremainslateralso)knownasEden,(Assyrianedenu),Gen.2:8,andpreparedtheenvironment for thecovenantofobedience."AndJehovahElohim caused to spring forth from the ground every tree . . .and the tree of life in the midst of the garden, and the tree of theknowledge of good and evil." Gen. 2:9. "And Jehovah Elohim took theman,andputhimintotheGardenofEden."Gen.2:15."JehovahElohimcommanded the man, (121) saying, Of every tree of the garden thoumayestfreelyeat,butofthetreeoftheknowledgeofgoodandevil,thoushaltnoteatof it."Gen.2:16,17.At first thought itmightseemstrangethat it was "Jehovah Elohim" rather than "Elohim," who in thesucceeding verses is said to have made the woman. But it must berememberedthatthisportionofchapter2isnotanaccountofcreation,per se, but only a reference to it, in giving an account of the covenantrelationsintowhichGodenteredwithman.Thewordbarawhichmeansto"create"strictly,tooriginateabsolutely,isnotusedinthisreferencetowoman."JehovahElohimtookoneofhis[theman's]ribs,andclosedupthe flesh instead thereof:and the rib,whichJehovahElohimhad takenfromtheman,made[banah'built']heawoman."Gen.2:21,22.

WhentheTempter,however, speaksofGod, theTempterwhodoesnotacknowledgeany covenantbetweenGodandman,hedoesnotuse thiscovenant name, "Jehovah." "And he [the Tempter] said to the woman,Yea[oralsothat]Elohimhathsaid,Yeshallnoteatfromeverytreeofthegarden."Gen.3:1.It isnodeparturefromthisusage,thatthewomaninreplying also (122) uses "Elohim" rather than "JehovahElohim." It notonlyavoidsunnecessarypedantryinthenarrativebutitfitlyindicatesherincipientunbeliefinthecovenantGod,Jehovah.

But continuing, itwas "JehovahElohim"whocame toour firstparentsafter their fall, in thecoolof theday.Gen.3:8.Andso, throughout thisportion of the recordwhich represents God in covenant or redemptivedealingswithman,heis"Jehovah,"with"Elohim"annexedaslongasitwasdeemednecessaryinordertoavoidpolytheisticmisunderstanding.

WhenwecometotheaccountofthesacrificialworshipofCainandAbel,in the fourth chapter of Genesis, in which events the redemptivecharacterofGod isstillprominent,hisname"Jehovah"continuestobeused,buttheadded"Elohim"isomitted.Theuseofthedoublenamehasbeen sufficiently prolonged in the narrative to teach the fundamentalidentityof"Elohim"and"Jehovah,"andhere,moreover, it is lessGod'scomplexworkofcreationandredemption;itconcernsmoreespeciallyhisworkofredemption,"AndCainbroughtfromthefruitof thegroundanofferingtoJehovah. . .andJehovahhadrespect[literally(123) looked]unto Abel and unto his offering." Gen. 4:3,4. It was "Jehovah" whoreasonedwithCainregardinghissinfulspirit.Itwas"Jehovah"towhomevenCainmightcomewithhisloadofsin."AndCainsaiduntoJehovah,Myiniquityistoogreattobeforgiven."Gen.4:13.Andsoon,throughoutthisnarrativeitwasas"Jehovah"thatGoddealtwithmanregardingsinandsalvation.

Ontheotherhand,whentherecordcomestospeakofthegovernmentalwork of God, where the generations of mankind are his subjects, hisname"Elohim"isused."Thisisthebookofthegenerationsofmanintheday that Elohim createdman in his likeness, in the likeness of Elohimcreated he him." Gen. 5:1. In the reference toNoahwalkingwithGod,Gen.5:22,24,thename"Elohim"isusedwhereatfirstwemightexpectthe name "Jehovah," but in the Hebrew there is a further distinction

whichcouldbeexpressedonlybyaspecialuseoftheterm"Elohim."FortheHebrewreads,"AndNoahwalkedwiththeElohim."Unbelievers,too,calledtheirgods"Elohim;"theyallhadtheirelohim.InthetimeofNoahthe world had become very wicked. But they believed in the existence(124) of a God, and they served gods, "elohim," some of them gods oftheirowndevisings;butNoahwasexceptional,inthatheworshipedtheGod,thetrueGod,theElohim."AndNoahwalkedwiththeElohim,"i.e.,withthetrueGod.Whentherewasnoroomformisunderstandingastowhether the true God, or some false deity, was intended, or when nocontrast was implied, then "Elohim" alone, without the article, wassufficient,asisthecaseinourownusageinChristianlands:weregularlyomit the"the."Butwhentherewasanydangerofconfusion,orwhenacontrastwasintendedbetweenthetrueGodandheathengods,thearticlewas commonly used with Elohim, e.g., when it was a question as towhether Baal or Jehovahwas to be recognized, and the test onMountCarmel decided the case, the people exclaimed, "Jehovah, he is theElohim!Jehovah,heistheElohim!"i.e.,thetrueGod.

Or to take an earlier instance, the incident between Abraham andAbimelech.AlthoughAbimelech, likeall thepeoplesof theearthasyet,hadaknowledgeofGodonlyalittlelessaccuratethanhadAbraham,yettherewasadifference,Abraham'sGodwasadifferentGodin(125)manyrespects from the other peoples gods and this difference is indicatedwhen we read, "So Abraham prayed unto the Elohim [the true God]."Gen.20:17.Eachofthesurroundingpeopleshadtheirgod,moreorlesscorrectly conceived. None of them had lost absolutely all of the truthoriginally given to their firstparents.TheAssyrianshad their "Ilu," theArabs their "Allah," the Aramaeans their "Eloah," all singulars,correspondingwiththeHebrewword"Elohim."Buttheideawhichthesewords represented had become so far false, that to distinguish theOldTestamentviewofGodfromthese,itwassometimesnecessarytospeakof him as "the" God, "the" Elohim.Hence it should be noted that thisdistinctiveuseofElohim,intheincidentconcerningNoah,wasthereforealmost equivalent to "Jehovah" (for the true God was the God ofredemption),butfromadifferentstandpoint.

ComingtoGen.,ch.6,whereGodisconcernedchieflyinthesalvationof

man,he iscalledbyhisname"Jehovah,""AndJehovahsaid,Myspiritshallnotalwaysstrivewith[orin]man[kind]intheir[orhis]wanderingheisflesh."Gen.6:3."AndJehovahsawthatthewickedness(126)ofmanwasgreatintheearth...butNoahfoundgraceintheeyesofJehovah."Gen.6:5,8.ButwhenthenarrativeturnstodealwithfactsandeventsinwhichGodperformsespeciallysomeotherworkratherthanredemption,or in which he is referred to indifferently, the name "Jehovah" is notgenerally used. In speaking of the corruption of the world before theDeluge,e.g.,inwhichthegovernmentalworkofGodisemphasized,itisparentheticallysaidthat,"NoahwalkedwiththeElohim."Gen.6:9.Inthemidst of much service of false gods, Noah served the true God. "AndElohimsawandbeholdit[theearth]wascorrupt."Gen.6:12.Andsoon,whereGodisRulerorJudge,heiscalled"Elohim."Butuponreachingthepoint where he speaksmercy and salvation to Noah, he is "Jehovah,"-"AndJehovahsaiduntoNoah,comethouandallthyhouseintotheark."Gen. 7:1. Though when reference is made to the command as bearingupon the lower animals only, he is named not "Jehovah," (the loweranimalshadno"Jehovah")but"Elohim."Gen.7:9.Soalso,whenGodisspoken of as exercising his sovereign power over nature in causing the(127)delugetosubside,andasRulerrestoringcitizenshipupontheearth,heiscalled"Elohim."Ontheotherhand,whenNoahbuildsanaltarforworshipweread,"AndNoahbuiltanaltartoJehovah."Gen.8:20."AndJehovahsmelledasweetsavorandJehovahsaidtohisheart,"etc.Gen.8:21.

Thus it was as "Jehovah" that God dealt in covenant or redemptiverelations,whileinhisprovidentialdealingsheiscalled"Elohim."Itwillbeobserved,however,thatthereisnomechanical,stereotypedadherenceto this usage of these several names of God, at the expense of strongnatural expression. And furthermore, as time advanced there was lessneedgenerally forthisdiscrimination,andtherewas,perhaps, lesscareexercised in its observance, just as in theusage of similar synonyms inourowndaytheirdistinctiveusagetendstodisappear.Neverthelessthegeneralusageandthepracticalmeaningofthisname"Jehovah,"withinreasonablelimits,cannotbemistaken.

It would be impracticable to trace this usage in detail throughout the

entireOldTestament,especiallyasthedistinctiveusageitselfbecamelessessentialastimeadvanced.Aglanceat(128)somefurtherpassages,hereandthere,mayhoweverbeofinterest.

Itwas"Jehovah"whocalledAbraham,andrenewedtohim, innationalform,thecovenantpromises,"AndJehovahsaidtoAbram,Gettheeoutof thycountry . . .and intheeshallallnationsof theearthbeblessed."Gen.12:1-3.ThatthiscovenantwaswithAbrahamandhisdescendantsasanation,didnotatall implythat ithadceasedtobeacovenantfortheindividual. And individuals, even in that nation, if they ignored God'spromisesoffavor,failedtoreceivehisblessing. To urge upon a collective church or nation some highresponsibility as to their own life or to the service of others, does notnullifytheirindividualdutiesofpietyandusefulness.Itratherintensifiesthem.TheOldTestamentreligionwasindividual,butitwasnotanarrowindividualism, escaping all common obligations. And by making thecovenantpromisesalsoanationalissue,itgainednotonlyinenthusiasmand effectiveness within itself, but also in power to defend the truthagainst surrounding idolatries.Heretofore the promise of a deliverancefromsinhadalmost failed (129)ofadherents,andevenwith theaddedenthusiasmofnationalism it barelymaintained itself.Nevertheless, theindividual and spiritual character of the promise was primary andfundamental.

Although itwasclearlyenough taught,aswehaveseenby the first twochapters of Genesis, that Jehovah the God of salvation was the sameBeingasElohimtheGodofCreation,theAlmightyOne,yettherewasadangerthatthebelievingdescendantsofAbraham,orotherbelievers,incherishing this name, Jehovah, as their covenant God, mightunconsciouslycometolimithisswaytonationalproportions,justasthesurroundingpeoplesconceivedoftheirgodstherewasadanger.TheOldTestamentdidnotteachsuchlimitationofJehovah'ssway,butmenhaveever beenprone to pervert the teaching of Scripture in somedirection.HenceatdifferenttimesitwasnecessaryfortheOldTestamenttoraiseitsvoiceagainstthiserror.WhenGodwouldrenewhiscovenantthroughMosesheexplicitlyguardedagainstthismisconception.HetaughtMosesandthepeoplethen,thatalthoughhewastheircovenantGod,yethewas

the Self-Existing, Eternal Being. When (130) Moses asked God whatanswerhewouldgive,whenthepeoplewouldaskhimwhohadsenthim,theanswerwas:"IamwhoIam.Thusshalt thousay to thechildrenofIsrael,Iamhathsentme."Ex.3:14.Inthishemeanttosay,thatJehovahwastheSelf-ExistentGod.TheHebrewfor"Jehovah"andtheHebrewfor"Iam"arethesameword,thesameroot.ItissignificantperhapsthatthenameJehovahcorresponds,notwiththepastorpreteriteofthisverb,"tobe," "to exist," but it correspondswith the imperfect,which inHebrewcorrespondsnearlywithourpresentandfuture.SothatJehovahwasnotaGodwhohadbeenmerely,andmightfailtheminthefuture,buthewasthethenpresentandever-continuingGod:the"IAm"andthe"IshallBe"ifwewouldgivethisphraseitscompleteEnglishequivalent.Hecouldbedefinedintermsofnothingexcepthimself."IamwhoIam."

Thispassagedoesnot of course teach, as somehavehastily concluded,thatthisincidentwastheoriginoftheuseofthename"Jehovah;"itwasawarninglestthechildrenofIsrael,withtheirspecialnationalblessings,mightnarrowandpervertitsmeaning.Theyweretoremember(131)that"Jehovah" was no mere national deity, but the Ever-Existing, Self-Existing God. It was not a new name. It had been cherished of old,probably from earliest times. In this same connection it is said, inspeakingofthetimesofAbraham,almostas if inrebuketoMoses,thatheshouldhaveknownthismuchaboutGod,"IappeareduntoAbraham,unto Isaac, and unto Jacob as God Almighty [El Shaddai], and [betterbut]bymynameJehovahwasInotknowntothem?"Ex.6:3.Thatis,ifthese ancestors of Moses had known God as "Jehovah" and as "ElShaddai" as the Self and Ever-Existing One, and as the Almighty God,whyneedMosesaskforanyfurtherwarrant!

Nevertheless,instilllatertimes,aftertheredemptivecharacterandworkofJehovahhadbeenforcenturiescherishedinthefaithofGod'schosenpeople,theywererepeatedlyindangerofmisconceivingtheextentofhisdominionandofbecomingself-importantandself-righteousthemselves.Theybegantothinkofthemselvesassecure,becausetheywereIsraelites,and began to look upon Jehovah as obligated and limited to them, ascaring for and saving them only. This was not the teaching of the OldTestament,but(132)theirperversionofit.TheclearteachingoftheOld

Testament,thatresponsibilitywasindividual,didnotsavethemfromthedelusionofseekingsafetyinthemultitude.Itdoesnotpreservefromthesamemistakemen who possess the larger New Testament teaching oftoday. It did not preserve the scribes and Pharisees of our Lord's dayfromtakingshelterinthesamedelusion.Butneitherdidit justifythemeven in the kindly omniscience of the Saviour: nor did it justify thesepeopleof old, in theirnarrowconceptionof Jehovah. Itdoesnotmeanthatthey,anymorethanthePhariseesofourLord'sday,werecorrectlyinterpretingtheteachingoftheOldTestament.Theprophetsfrequentlyreminded their hearers, that he upon whom they looked with pride astheir Jehovah, as their God of salvation, was also Elohim, the God ofcreation, the God of all the earth and of allmen. As in Gen., Ch. 2, itrequiredtobemadeclearthat"Jehovah"wasthesameGodas"Elohim"of Gen., Ch. I, so in later times, when the children of Israel pridedthemselves in being the chosen people of Jehovah, they required to beremindedthathewasalsoElohim."IsraelshallbesavedinJehovahwithaneverlastingsalvation. . . ,(133)Elohimhimselfthatformedtheearthandmadeit....IamJehovahandthereisnoneelse."Isa.45:17,18.

ItisinthiswaythatIsaiah,withallhisevangelicalism,rebukestheprideof self-righteous Israel by frequently speaking to them of God by thename,not"Jehovah,"but"Elohim"their"Elohim"andthe"Elohim"of all the earth. The same is true in the prophecy of Jeremiah, in theusage of these names of God, and for a similar reason. But it is notstrange that, a little later, when captivity had wrought repentance, theequally evangelical prophet Ezekiel in addressing his fellow-Israelites,freelyspokeofGodastheir"Jehovah,"theircovenantGod.Hecoulddosowithoutflattery.HehadnotthereasonwhichIsaiahhadtochidethemforbreakingthatcovenant,ortorebukethemfortheirself-righteousness,ortoremindthemthatGodwasalsotheGodwhocaredfortheheathennations,theElohimofalltheearth.Thus,"AndtheyshallknowthatIamJehovah,"occursinEzekielmorethanfiftytimes.

It is clearly evident that whenever the Old Testament emphasizes thecovenantredemptiveworkofGod,heisregularlyandconsistently(134)called " Jehovah," except where some other equivalent is used as, e.g.,when the qualifying phrase "of salvation" or "of my salvation" is used

with"Elohim"the"Godofmysalvation."InthePsalms,andespeciallyinthosepsalmswhicharedecidedlydevotional,as,e.g.,manyofthoseinBook I, God is generally addressed as "Jehovah." "Jehovah is myShepherd, I shall not want." But if an unbeliever, however, is signallyrepresentedasspeakingofGod,heuses"Elohim"ratherthan"Jehovah.""The fool hath said in his heart, There is no Elohim." Ps. 14:1. On theother hand the believer says, "O Jehovah, who shall sojourn in thytabernacle,"etc.Ps.15:1.

Psalm 19 is a striking example of the distinctive usage of these Divinenames.Intheformerhalfofthepsalm(i-6),inwhichnatureismadetomanifest the power and rulership of God, an abbreviated form of thenameElohim isused, viz., "El." "Theheavensdeclared thegloryofEl,"etc.Ps.19:1.Butinthesecondhalfofthepsalm(7-15),throughoutwhichthe"writtenword"ismadetotellofhishigherworkofredemption,itisthename"Jehovah"whichisused."ThelawofJehovahisperfect,(135)convertingthesoul;thetestimonyofJehovahissure[orfaithful]makingwisethesimple:thestatutesofJehovahareright,rejoicingtheheart;thecommandment of Jehovah is pure, enlightening the eyes," etc. Ps.19:7,8ff.Andsoelsewhere, "IwillblessJehovahatall times."Ps.34:1,etc.,etc.ThoughwhereboththeredemptiveandthegovernmentalsideofGod's work are referred to there is no studied effort at mechanicalexactness.

It is not necessary to follow in detail this usage further. Sufficient hasbeensaidtoshowina largewaythat thenameJehovahwasusedfromvery early times, and with reasonable discrimination, when God wasreferredtoasthecovenantGodtheGodofredemption,asdistinguishedfromhisotherrelationships.Butinthisareasonablecarewasexercisedto obviate the danger of teaching polytheism. It was made clear that"Jehovah" was identical in being with "Elohim," etc. The double name"JehovahElohim,"whichwefoundusedintheearlypartofGenesis,forthisreasonisusedalso in laterportions,whensimilarreasonsrequiredthesameprecautions;e.g.,itisusedinthebookofJonah.TheNineviteshad their generic word (136) for God, " Ilu," corresponding with thesingularofElohim.Theyhadhad theoriginal revelation regardingGodand salvation which had been given to Adam and Abel, but they had

disregardedit.EvenSchultzadmitsthat"inthetimeofMosaism...evenamong the heathen there was everywhere a perfectly unhesitatingconvictionastotheexistenceoftheDeity.AllthereligiouserrorsofthetimewereduetoaconfoundingofthisDeitywiththeworldofsense,"etc.And now Jonah comes to preach to the Ninevites, to preach to themsalvation by Jehovah, the God of salvation. He was the One SupremeBeing whom, through their error and their idols, they partially knew.Jonah was not to multiply gods by teaching them of another God"Jehovah." And the writer of this book, true to the circumstances, as,indeedalloftheOldTestamentwriterswere,moretruethanthosewhowould criticize or correct them, records it thus, "Jehovah Elohimpreparedagourd."Jonah4:6.HewhomJonahhadsooftenspokenofas"Jehovah" was also Elohim. So the distinctive use of the article withElohim,whichwe have already noticed, is found (137) elsewherewhennecessarythroughouttheOldTestament,wheneverthetrueGodwastobedefinitelydistinguishedfromothergods.Thisaccountsforitsfrequentusage intheBooksofSamuel,whentherewasmuchcontactwithotherpeoples who acknowledged other gods, or where there might beconfusion, "SoDavidwentandbroughtup thearkof theGod [the trueGod]fromthehouseofObed-edom,"etc.AlthoughitwasinthehouseofaGittiteofaforeignname,yetitwasnotarelicofidolatry,butthearkofthe true God. So, also, frequently in the book of Ecclesiastes, as thepreacher addressed an audience largely composed of representatives offoreign or surrounding peoples, each having their "Eloah" or "Ilu" or"Allah," each having a godmore or less correctly conceived of, "TherecameofallpeopletohearthewisdomofSolomon,fromallkingsoftheearth[notnecessarilyinpersonbutbyrepresentatives]whichhadheardofhiswisdom."1Kings4:34.

In addressing such an audience, an audience so varied and undefinedtheologically, Solomon (or some person else if the non-Solomonicauthorshipofthebookcanbereasonablyshown)(138)couldnotspeakofGodtothemas"Jehovah,"exactly,withoutconsiderableexplanation,norcouldhecallhimsimply"Elohim,"undefined;fortheyhadtheirelohim,too.Buthe could specify that theGodofwhomhe spoke,was the trueGod, "the" God, " I know that, whatsoever the Elohim [the true God]doeth, it shallbe forever,"Eccl.3:14,andso, frequently, in thisbookof

Ecclesiastes. On the other hand, at the dedication of the temple,supplicatingGod in the presence of the faithful, he says, "Jehovah ourElohim be with us," 1 Kings 8:57; though here he guards against anynarrownationalinterpretationofGod'scharacterordominion,"Thatallthe people of the earthmay know that Jehovah is the Elohim, there isnoneelse."1Kings8:60.

Thus "Jehovah" was the name which to the Old Testament believerexpressedtheideaofGodasOnewhowaswillingandabletosave.Howhe was able, was not yet fully revealed. The Atonement by which sincould,inrighteousness,beforgiven,wasnoteveninthelaterpartoftheOld Testament sufficiently revealed to make that atonement the chiefgroundofhope.ButJehovahhadmadeacovenantof(139)redemption.He was the God of salvation, the God who saved. When the heathenspoke of Israel's God he generally called him Elohim, as the youngEgyptiansaidtoDavid,"SwearuntomebyElohim."1Sam.30:15.Orifhedidrefertohimas"Jehovah," itwasasanationaldeity likehisowngod.Butthereisnoexcuseformoderncriticsdoingthesame.Repeatedlythe Old Testament corrects that tendency. In accordance with the OldTestamentconceptionof"Jehovah"as theGodofredemption, itwas toJehovahthatsacrificeswereoffered,withtheexceptionofafewinstancesin which it was to the almost equivalent, "the" Elohim the true God.Whentherighteousportionofthehumanracefirstrealizedtheneedofadistinctive term, to represent them as a church as distinct from theunbelievingworld, they called themselveswith thisname, "And toSethwas born a son, and he called his name Enosh; then it was begun [ortherewasabeginning]tocallwiththenameJehovah."Gen.4:26.

AstheservantsofChristarecalledChristians,orcalledwiththenameofChrist, somen then,whoservedJehovah,asSethdid,werecalledwithJehovah'sname.Thatwastheirdesignation(140)indistinctionfromtheunbelievingworld, as it is believed thedescendantsofCain, in general,were.

Hence,tosumuptheideawhich"Jehovah"expressedinOldTestamentsalvation: He was God, not so much as Creator and Preserver, but asSaviour.AftertheFallhehadmadeapromise,acovenant,withmanforhissalvationfromsin.HehadmadeapromiseofaDeliverer,whoshould

in some sense be human, who would overcome the Tempter. Thispromise,renewedandunfolded,becamemoreandmoretheexpectationof thebeliever,and in timebegantosuggest thegroundandmethodofsalvation.Butinthemeantime,thebelieverplacedhisconfidencedirectlyinJehovah,"theytrustedinhim."Faithbridgedthemysterieswhichlaybetweenasinfulsoulanditsspotlesscleansing.ThequestionastohowarighteousGodcouldforgivesin,howGodcouldbejustandyetjustifytheungodly,didnotmuchtroubletheOldTestamentbeliever.

Jehovah represented to his mind a God who was merciful enough toreceivethesinner,andwhohadpromisedtoprovideaconquerorforthepowerofevil.Theuncommendablecharacteristics(141)whichProfessorDuff" says the Yahwist writers attributed to their god are without anywarrantwhateverintheOldTestamentrecord.ToJehovahheprayed;inhim he trusted; to him he felt allegiance; his life purpose and idealbecame changed; he served Jehovah; he became a different man; sinceasedtoruleinhim;Jehovah'swillbecamehislaw,hewassavedfromsin.Of the spiritual agencies atwork inhis soul, heknew little.ButheknewthathislifewasinunisonwithJehovah,hisdelightwasinthelawof Jehovah and inhis lawhemeditatedday andnight. "Jehovah ismylightandmysalvation;whomshallIfear?"Ps.27:1."Whenmyfatherandmymotherforsakeme,thenJehovahwilltakemeup."Ps.27:10."BlessedisthemanuntowhomJehovahimputethnot iniquity."Ps.32:2.Tothebelieverofold,Jehovahembodied,thoughundefinedly,mostofwhatwenow,more analytically, discern to be accomplished by the TriuneGod.ThatinsalvationwhichwedistributetoFather,Son,andHolySpirit,theOldTestamentbelievercenteredinJehovah,andthestepsintheprocesswhich we are anxious perhaps too anxious to understand, (142) hissimplefaithintrustedtoJehovah.TheplacewhichChristoccupiesintheconsciousfaithoftheNewTestamentbelieveratleastto-day,was,sofarasitwasparalleledatall,occupiedbyJehovah.

But the special work of divine mediation and atonement were littlerecognizedbyman in theOldTestamentplan; thoughupon theDivinesidetoJehovahhimselfitmusthavebeenasessentialthenasnow.

Man's faith laid hold upon "Jehovah, Jehovah, merciful and gracious,longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keepingmercy for

thousands,forgivinginiquityandtransgressionandsin,butwhowillbynomeanscleartheguilty."Ex.34:6,7.

Chapter6:GRACEANDFAITHINOLDTESTAMENTSALVATION

(143)FROMthebeginningofhumanhistory,somemenoutofthemassofmankindweresaved;andwehavetheNewTestamentasauthorityforit thatat least someOldTestamentworthiesarenownumberedamongtheredeemed.ButhowdidthatOldTestamentsalvationbecomerealizedby them?To thinkof those saintsofold is toask,Was that salvationaworkofGod's freegrace?Anddid it come toman through faith?For iftherewasanotherwayofappropriatingthissalvationthen,maynotthemoralistclaimitstill?

At the outset, two facts present themselves. First, that in the OldTestament, and especially in the earlierportionsof it, relatively little issaidregardingthetermsorconditionsuponwhichmenmightbesaved;and secondly, in the Old Testament religion, a prominent place seems(144) to be given to goodworks. Believersmademention of their owngoodworksinamanneruncommonintheNewTestament.Isthereanyexplanationofthesefacts?

Inregardtotheformer,itmustberememberedthatanexplicit,detailedknowledge of the terms of salvation was not then, and is not now,absolutely necessary to the individual's salvation. There is in religionalways an element that "doth not appear." A religion which embracesonceandforevertheheightanddepthofallspiritualthingsmaynottarrylongat intermediatepoints todebateover termswithGod. Indue timethesewereunfolded.ButmanyofthemostChristlikedisciplesofto-dayhavenevermadeanexhaustiveanalysisoftheconditionsofsalvation.Astohowmuchknowledgeisnecessarytosalvation,inthecaseoftheadult,abletoappreciatethenatureofsinontheotherhand,fewwouldventuretofixalimit.Moreover,therewasperhapsareasonwhysuchfeaturesoftheplanofredemptionwerenotatfirstgivenwithmoreexplicitness.Asyet the fundamental ground upon which sin could be forgiven, the

Atonement for sin, had been only dimly revealed. There could be lesssaid, as yet, therefore about (145) the terms. There is a uniqueconsistencyintheunfoldingofthatwondrousplanofredemption.Anditwasonlyas the revelationprogressed,as thecharacterandworkof thepromised Messiah became more fully unfolded, that the details of theterms likewise were given. From the beginning, sufficient was givenconcerningthetermstoenablementoavailthemselvesofthissalvation.

As to the apparent emphasis which is placed upon works, in the OldTestament religion, there is one consideration which must not beoverlooked.Ifneitherthejustifyinggroundofpardon,northeconditionsof salvation, could at first be stated in detail, what was there todifferentiate the saved man from the unsaved? It was necessary, ofcourse, that salvation should appeal to men as a need; this their ownsinfulness and its effects taught them. But this salvation must alsoevidenceitselfasareality,assomethingwhichdistinguisheditspossessorfromothermen.HereperhapsistheexplanationoftheprominentplacegiventogoodworksintheOldTestament.Otherfeaturesoftheplanofsalvation could not, as yet, be unfolded in their dimensions; but still,salvation as a present (146) actuality was not to be for that reasonminimized. It was necessary that an emphatic difference should beevident,between"himthatservethGodandhimthatservethhimnot."And the way was always open for the expressing of this difference byresults, by the testimony of works in the lives of the godly (though ofcourse, like everythinggood, itwas capableof abuse in thedirectionofself-righteousness).For this reasonanapparentprominence is given togoodworks, a prominence, however,which did not place them over inantithesis to grace, as a careful study of the Old Testament, in itsreferencestothesalvationofindividuals,willabundantlytestify.Whenitis said in the New Testament, moreover, that "the law was given byMoses,butgraceand truth camebyJesusChrist," it isnot intended tostate antithetical, but complementary, truths. Moses and the OldTestament,writersingeneralbroughtthelaw,thetorah,theinstruction,theinstructionregardingagracioussalvation;buttheycouldnotbestowit, they were not the givers of it. It was Jesus Christ who brought thegrace,notonlynow,buteveninMosestime.Itwasthroughhispromised,but as yet vaguely revealed, work, that salvation (147) would be free.

ChristbroughtthatofwhichMoseshadtaught.Theirworksi.e.,ofChristandMoseswerecomplementary,notantithetical.

But let us examine theOld Testament teaching and see towhat extentthissalvationwastheresultofGod'sfreegrace.

Thattherewassuchathingasforgivenessforsin,andyetthatthesinofallmen indiscriminatelywasnot forgiven, is clearly the teachingof theOldTestament.ItistaughtinthedifferenceofresponsewhichGodmadeto Cain and to Abel. Though it could not of course be inferred thatforgiveness,inthiscaseandalways,carriedwithitsalvation.Itcouldnot,without other reasons, be inferred that the man whose confession asexpressedinwordorinsacrificewasacceptedbyGod,wassaved,thathewastherebygivenapermanentlydifferentstandingbeforeGod,wastherecipientofanenduringchangeofnature.Intothisweshallinquireinalaterchapter.Inthemeantimeitmaybenoted,however,thatintheOldTestamenttheprayerofthepenitentforforgiveness,whetherexpressedinwordorinsacrificialact,seldomstopsshortofalongingforaworkofinward(148)renewalandpermanentdeliverancefromsin.But inthosepetitions,whetherforimmediateforgivenessorenduringsalvation,thereisoftenvoicedthistruth,thatitwillbeofthegraceofGod,thatitisnotarewardofmeritbutagiftofgrace."Havemercyuponme,OJehovah;OJehovah,healme."Ps.6:2."Havemercyuponme,OGod,...washme,...cleansemefrommysin."Ps.51:1,2.Itwasclearlytaughtthatsalvationasapractical victoryover sin,wasbeyondman'spower toattain, "It isnotinmanthatwalkethtodirecthissteps."Jer.10:23.AccordingtotheOldTestament,manwasunabletomakecompleteamendsforsinortolivewithoutit."Enternotintojudgmentwiththyservant:forinthysightshallnomanlivingbejustified."Ps.143:2."Ifthou,Lord,shouldestmarkiniquities,whoshallstand?"Ps.130:3.

But,ifsalvationwasnotaccomplishedbyhumanmeritoreffort,bywhatagencywasiteffected?Ataveryearlyperiodweread,"AndJehovahsawthewickednessofmanthat itwasgreat in theearth,andJehovahsaid,MySpiritshallnotalwaysstrivewith[orbehumbledin]man."Gen.6:5,3. This passage does not (149) verbally say that Jehovah's Spirit wasworking with men for the purpose of their salvation; but what lesserpurposecouldhehavehad inview? It is theirwickednessor sinfulness

whichisspeciallyatpoint.ForwhatdidJehovah'sSpiritworkwiththem,exceptthattheymightbesavedfromthissinfulness?

Thereareotherpassages,however,whichleavenoroomfordoubtastothisgraciousagencyofGod'sSpirit intheOldTestament,"ThySpirit isgood; leadme in the land of uprightness.Quickenme,OLord, for thyname'ssake."Ps.143:10,11.InEzekiel36:27,weread,"AndIwillputmySpiritwithinyou,andcauseyoutowalkinmystatutes,andyeshallkeepmy judgments, and do them." Without differentiating the Spirit ofJehovah from Jehovah himself as a Person, the Old Testament clearlyteachesthatthusaspiritual,inwardchangewaswroughtbytheSpiritofJehovah. In some passages the Spirit of Jehovah is represented not somuchintheactofrenewingtheheart,as inactuatinganddirectingthelife which has been renewed. Thus according to Zech. 4:6, Jehovah'sSpiritwastobethelight-givingpoweramongorthroughbelievers,"Notbymight,nor(150)bypower,butbymySpirit,saithJehovahofhosts."Eveninearlytimesthisappearstohavebeencurrentlybelieved,forevenPharaoh seemed to know these fundamentals of religion. Speaking ofJoseph he said, "Canwe find such an one as this, aman inwhom theSpiritofGodis?"thoughhere,asanunbeliever,hespokeofGodbythenameElohim.ButherecognizedtheactuatingpowerofGod'sSpiritasawell-under stood truth. The conversion of Saul is interesting in thisconnection. In a later chapterwewill consider the permanency of thatchangewhichwaswroughtinhim.Butforthepresent,noticetheDivineagencybywhichitwaseffected,accordingtotheannouncementmadetoSaulbySamuel,"TheSpiritofJehovahwillcomeupontheeandthou...shaltbeturnedintoanotherman."1Sam.10:6.

ThusnotonlydidtheOldTestamentclearlyteachthatmanwasunabletolivewithoutsinortocleansehisownheart,oncesinful,butontheotherhand, it clearly teaches that the Spirit of Jehovah was in some way atworkchangingtheheartsofmen,insomewayworkingforthesalvationofmenfromsin.

The freeness of that savingwork of his Spirit (151) is implied inmanypetitionsaswellasinman'sowninability,"Havemercyuponme,OGod,accordingtothylovingkindness."Ps.51:1."Heleadethmeinthepathsofrighteousness for his name's sake."Ps. 23:3. As if the freeness or

graciousnessofhisforgivenesswereunquestionable,weread,"HathGodforgotten to be gracious?" Ps. 77:9. The salvation, both physical andspiritual,grantedtoNoah,wasconferreduponhimnotuponthegroundof his merit, though of course he was morally better than hiscontemporaries;itisexpresslydeclaredthatitwasuponanotherground,"NoahfoundgraceintheeyesofJehovah."Gen.6:8.Inthiswayweread,"Noahwasajust[orjustified]man,"notasinlessman.Hisintemperanceon a later occasion would disprove that. He was saved by "grace." Butnotwithstandingallthis,thoughtheOldTestamentdidclearlyteachthatthe Spirit of Jehovah was efficiently active in the salvation of everybeliever, yet there can be little doubt but that many believers had noformulated conception of that fact. Their lives hadbeen freed from thedominionofsin,theyfoundpeaceintheirreligion,buttheyhadnoverywell-defined idea (152) of how their salvation had been wrought. Thesameistrueofmultitudesofbelieverstoday.

Butifsalvationwasbygrace,howwidelygraciouswasit?Towhomwasitfree?Was itnotopentoCainaswellas toAbel?Otherwise,whywas itmadeknown toCain, orwhywashe taught theprocess of approach toJehovah for forgiveness? And in like manner was it not open to thedescendantsofCainastothedescendantsofSeth?ItwascertainlyopentothecontemporariesofNoah,asitwastoNoahhimself:otherwisehispreachingtothemwasacruelmockery.WasitnotfreeforthecitizensofUr,asforAbraham?ThepeopleofUrandofallBabyloniahadthesamebodyoftruthregardingGod,essentially,asAbrahamhad.Theyneglecteditanddisobeyedit,asmendowiththelargervolumeofrevealedtruthintheir homes today. The callwhichAbrahamobeyedwas essentially thecall which they disobeyed. There were doubtless many believers inBabylonia,manyunrecordedMelchizedeks, but their influencewas lostand disappeared as they remained amid the increasing sinfulness anderrorandidolatryoftheland.Abrahamtookwhatwasbestinthebeliefofhispeople;(153)Jehovahseparatedhimfromthebaserinfluences;theknowledgeandfaithwhichhehadpossessedwerefostered.Thoughoftenvery imperfect he and his descendants preserved their ancestral truth,andJehovahstillfurtherincreasedit.HowwidelyfreewasthisgracioussalvationoftheOldTestament!"HaveIanypleasureinthedeathofthewicked? saith the Lord Jehovah; and not rather that he should return

fromhisway,andlive?"Ezek.18:23."Ho,everyonethatthirsteth,comeyetothewaters...withoutmoneyandwithoutprice."Isa.55:1.

In the light of all this, the favorswhichwere shown to thosewhoweresaved, shown to them either individually or collectively, cannot beinterpretedasdisfavorstowardthosewhowerenotsaved.

Andthisraisesthequestion,Whatthenmadethisdifference?Ifsalvationwasgraciousandfree,whereinlaythedifference?

This brings us to the human side. For man was not a disinterestedparticipant in his own salvation. Some were more consciously andactively interested than others. But noman wemay believe was savedcontrarytohisowndesire.LetusdiscoverwhattheOldTestament(154)teachesastoman'sacceptanceorreceptionofthisgracioussalvation.

Therecanbenodoubtthatthefirststageinhisexperiencewasasenseofhisownsinfulness.Thisfeaturewaspresentintheearliestexperiencesofsalvation.WhenAbelbroughthissacrificetoJehovahwecannotimputetohisactmeremeaninglessformality.Inofferingalifeinsteadofhisownlifehemeantsomething,hemeanttoconfesshissin,thathehadsinnedtotheextentofforfeitinghisownlife.ThewholeMosaicritual,whichtoagreat extent was but a crystallization of the religious ideas that hadprevailedamongthegodlyineverybranchofthehumanfamilyfromthebeginning, rested upon the presupposition that the offerer drew nearimpressed with his sinfulness. Anything which showed the absence ofsuch sense of sin was most severely condemned, "Bring no more vainoblations."Isa.1:13.Notonlydidhebringasacrificeforhissin,butthefact that in later times he himselfwas debarred from entering into theHoly Place, reminded him of his persistent sinfulness. The elaboratecleansings of thepriesthood emphasized the fact that sinwas the greatbarrierbetweenGodandman.

(155)Fromtheearliest timesandthroughout theentireOldTestament,confessionofsinwasrequired.

Inhiswonderfuldedicationprayer,Solomonvoiced,nodoubt, thebestreligiousthoughtofhistimewhenhepleadedforhispeople,"Iftheysin

against thee (for there is noman that sinneth not), and thou be angrywith them . . . yet if theybethink themselves . . . and repentandmakesupplicationuntotheesaying,wehavesinned,andhavedoneperversely,we have committed wickedness, and so return unto thee with all theirheart and with all their soul . . . then hear thou their prayer . . . andforgive." 1 Kings 8:46-50. It may be said that these prayers would beoffered, not for initial salvation, but rather for the forgiveness of sinscommittedbyrighteousmen.Thiswoulddoubtlessbetrueofmuchoftheconfession recorded in theOldTestament, as itwouldbe true ofmuchconfession today: e.g., "I said, I will confess my transgressions untoJehovah; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin." Ps. 32:5.Nevertheless, if there was any sin which required and receivedconfession,thesinwhichprecededconversionwouldnotbeomitted.

(156)TheOldTestamentworldhaslesslightthanweuponthequestionoftheTrinityandmanyothertruths,buttheyunderstoodtothefullthattheyweresinners,thattheirsinneededtobeconfessedandforgiven,andthat they required tobe saved from it. Inwordor in sacrificial act, theneedofconfessionofsiniswrittenallovertheOldTestamentrecord;notonlytheopenandgrosslyoffensiveovertactsofwrongdoing,butsecretandeveninadvertentsin."Whocanunderstandhiserrors?Cleansethoume from secret faults." Ps. 19:12. Sacrifices even were offered for sinscommitted in ignorance, "And if the whole congregation of Israel sinthroughignorance,andthethingbehidfromtheeyesoftheassembly...when the sin,which they have sinned against it [the commandment ofGod],isknown,thenthecongregationshallofferayoungbullockforthesin."Lev.4:13,14.TheOldTestamenttaughtthattherewasnotonlylossandharmattachedtosin,butguilt,andithadadefiniteword,"asham,"toexpressthisidea.

TheconfessionwhichwasrequiredintheOldTestament,likeconfessiontoday, was to include penitence, and, so far as reasonable, reform and(157)restitution,"Ifheturnfromhissin,anddothatwhichislawfulandright; if the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed,walk in the statutesof life,without committing iniquity;he shall surelylive."Ezek.33:14,15.Whiletherewerespecifiedrulesbywhichthesinnerwas to express his confession of his sin, and his desire for forgiveness,

beforethepriest,ruleswiseandhelpful,ruleswhichnopersonwhoknewthem could afford to disregardduring the time that theywereDivinelyauthorized, and during which time they wrought so favorably for theinstructionof thosewhoobserved them,yet theywereneverabsolutelyessential to acceptable confession. In the days preceding their formaldeliverancethroughMoses,aswellasintheextra-Israelitishworldafterthe time ofMoses,many found forgivenesswithout such priesthood orprescribedexpressionofrepentanceandconfession.

But whether through priest, or directly to Jehovah, repentance andconfessionwereeverthevoiceofapproachtoGod.Itmaybesaidthatinsome petitions of the Old Testament it was escape from physical evil,rather than from sin, which was sought, and that the end desired was(158) earthly good rather than spiritual blessing. Itmustbe added thatthese mingle still in the prayer of the believer. Yet the Old Testamentbeliever clearly discerned and often definitely expressed his desire forsomething better than earthly good, "Thy lovingkindness is better thanlife."Ps.63:3.

So also itmust be noticed that sometimes it was national sin thatwasconfessed, and national deliverance and forgiveness that was sought,ratherthanpersonalorindividual.Neverthelessitwouldbefarfromtheteaching of the Old Testament to say that the confession or salvationtaught thereinwas eitherprimarilyormainlynational.The churchhadbeen in existence, andmultitudes had been saved from sin, during theperiod of two thousand years preceding the call of Abraham or thefounding of the Israelitish nation. Men like Abel and Noah were notrequiredtowaitforanationalcovenant.ThecovenantasrenewedbyGodto Abraham did not alter the way of salvation. It rather unified andquickenedthehumanagenciesbywhichtheknowledgeofthatsalvationwas published, and through which confession and repentance wereeffected.

(159)Butinsalvation,thereisnotonlythenegativesidetheforgivenessandremovalofsininanswertoconfessionandrepentancebutthereisapositive side, there is the coming into possession of something in theplace of sin and sinfulness. Whether salvation to the Old Testamentbeliever gave the same stability, the same peace and the same future

hope, we shall have reason to inquire later. But there was in OldTestamentsalvation,asintheNew,apositiveblessing,asalvationfromsin.Howdidmanpossesshimselfofit?Inadditiontohissenseofsinandhis confession thereof, how did he appropriate thisGod-given gracioussalvation?

ThisissetforthintheOldTestamentnotsomuchbyaspecificwordasby the general attitude which is there characteristic of the righteous.Instead of the New Testament direction, " Believe on the Lord JesusChrist,andthoushaltbesaved,"theOldTestamentratherdescribestheattitudeofthosewhoaresaved.Thisattitudeisexpressedbyavarietyofterms, eachofwhichhas, as its central, vital idea, trust, confidence (orfaith), " But the salvation of the righteous is of [or from] Jehovah . . .Jehovahwill help them . . . and save (160) them,because they trust inhim." Ps. 37:39,40. The Hebrew word "hhasah," here rendered trust,means to "flee to," to "take refuge," to " trust," and is used in manysimilarpassages,"Howexcellentisthylovingkindness,OGod!thereforethechildrenofmenput their trustunder theshadowof thywings."Ps.36:7."Blessedarealltheythatputtheirtrustinhim."Ps.2:12."Preserveme,OGod:forintheedoIputmytrust."Ps.16:1."OtasteandseethatJehovahisgood:blessed is themanthat trusteth inhim."Ps.34:8."Bemerciful unto me, O God, . . . for my soul trusteth in thee." Ps. 57:1."Jehovah is good, a strong hold in the day of trouble; and he knoweththemthattrustinhim."Nah.1:7.

A stillmore commonHebrewword to express this idea is "batahh," to"leanon" to "confide" to "sethopeor confidence in," to "trust." "Ihavetrustedinthymercy;myheartshallrejoiceinthysalvation."Ps.13:5."OJehovah of hosts, blessed is the man that trusteth in thee." Ps. 84:12."Blessed is theman that trusteth in Jehovah, andwhosehope Jehovahis." Jer. 17:7. "Because theybelievednot inGod, and trustednot inhissalvation."Ps.78:22.

(161) The synonym translated "believed," in this verse, is the Hebrewword"aman"to"support,"orintransitivelyto"befirm,"orintheHiphil(or causative) form, to "trust," to "confide in, "to" believe." This is theword which is used when we read, "And he [Abraham] believed inJehovah,andheaccountedittohimforrighteousness."Gen.15:6.Itisa

noun formed from this same rootwhich is translated "faith" in theOldTestament."Thejustshalllivebyhisfaith."Hab.2:4.Itwasfaithwhich,according to this passage, characterized the "just" or "justified"man; itwas faithwhichwasdistinctiveofhis experience in contrastwithothermen,withungodlymen,as,e.g.,in2Kings17:13,14:"Turnyefromyourevilways,andkeepmycommandmentsandmystatutes,accordingtoallthelawwhichIcommandedyourfathers,andwhichIsenttoyoubymyservants the prophets. Notwithstanding they would not hear, buthardenedtheirnecks,liketotheneckoftheirfathers,thatdidnotbelievein Jehovah their God." That which turned the tide in the fate of theNineviteswas"thepeople [ormen]ofNinevehbelieved inGod."Jonah3:5.

(162) Without citing other instances it must be evident that OldTestamentsalvation,thoughgraciousandfree,yetrequiredtrustorfaithon the part of the recipient. This attitude of trust or confidence inJehovah characterized and distinguished theman who is spoken of as"just," i.e. t "justified" or "righteous," the savedman. There is perhapsthisdifferencebetweentheOldandNewTestamentsuponthispointthattheNewTestamentrepresentssavingfaithasanappropriatingact,whiletheOldTestamentrepresentsthecorrespondingtrustorbeliefratherasanattitude,anattitudetowardJehovah.Forthisreasonit isscarcelyaswell-defined as New Testament "faith," and is expressed in the OldTestamentbyagreatervarietyofterms.

Inall thiswearenotoverlookingthefact thattheOldTestamenttermsusedtodenotetrustorfaithinJehovah,havelikewiseofttimesasecularapplication, just as we still sometimes speak of having "faith" incommercialor scientificventures.Thereligioususagedoesnotprohibitthe secular usage; neither does the secular usage exclude the religioususageof theseterms.Wehavebeencareful tocitepassageswhereinsinandsalvationwereatissue.

(163)Itwasa"trust"or"faith"inJehovahasopposedtoself-confidence,"Trust in [or on] Jehovahwith all thine heart; and leannot unto thineownunderstanding."Prov.3:5. Itwasa faith inJehovahasopposed toconfidence in this world. "They that trust in their wealth, and boastthemselves in the multitude of their riches; none of them can by any

meansredeemhisbrother,norgivetoGodaransomforhim."Ps.49:6,7.Nevertheless, faith in Jehovah would ofttimes be followed by earthlyblessing."WaitonJehovah,andkeephisway,andheshallexalttheetoinherit the land."Ps.37:34.So theNewTestament injunction, "SeekyefirstthekingdomofGod,andhisrighteousness;andallthesethingsshallbeaddeduntoyou."Matt.6:33.ButintheOldTestamentasintheNew,let it be noted, the order is the same: faith or trust in Jehovah, i.e.,spiritual faith, was of first importance. Those who find in the OldTestamentpromisesasystemofworldlybribes,havelackedthespiritualeye todiscern it's essentialmeaning.Theyhavebrought to the studyoftheOld Testament a low conceptionwhich theOld Testament believerwouldhaveutterlyrepudiated.

(164)ThisOldTestament"trust"or"faith,"moreover,wasnot inplaceof,orinanyantithesisto,goodworks:itwastheaccompanimentofgoodworks. "Trust in Jehovah, and do good." Ps. 37:3. The prayer of thefaithfulwas thatJehovahwouldhelphim todowhatwasgood. "Teachme todo thywill."Ps. 143:10.Aprofessionof trust inJehovahwithoutthe accompanying grace of good works was specially rebuked. To theSodom-like sinners of Israel, Jehovah declared,"When ye make manyprayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood [or rather bloodydeeds, as the plural in Hebrew which is here used, regularly means].Washyou,makeyouclean;putawaytheevilofyourdoingsfrombeforemineeyes;ceasetodoevil."Isa.1:15,16.Noristhismerelyalateteachingof the Old Testament. The rebuke to Cain implied the same need ofconsistent life, if profession or worship should be acceptable. And thePsalmistinscribesovertheportalofthechurchforever,"OJehovah,whoshall abide in thy tabernacle?Who shall dwell in thyholyhill?He thatwalkethuprightly,andworkethrighteousness,andspeakeththetruthinhisheart."Ps.15:1,2.

(165) When we remember that many of the passages here cited wererecorded,notasnewtruthrequiringexplanationordefense,butastruthalready generally acknowledged, though never entirely realized inpractice,asindeedistrueofourownacceptedtruthto-day,wegainsomeideaofwhatarealitysalvationwastomenofold.Theydidnotknow,norperhapseven inquire into,all thedetailsof itsaccomplishment.Butsin

was real, awful in its cruelty and depravity. Jehovah was merciful.Forgiveness was free, and they trusted in him and were "not put toshame."Itisnotalwayseasyto-daytodividebetweenthesavedandtheunsaved;theirviewsofGodmaybemuchalikeandtheirattitudetowardhischurchandtowardtheworldmaybemuchalike;andyetsalvationisareality,andsoitwasinOldTestamenttimes.

OnGod'spartitwasgraciouslyfree.ThoughChristhadnotyetsufferedfor the sinner, nor had his future life and death been revealed withsufficientdefinitenesstomakethatatonementtothesinnerthegroundofhis forgiveness, yet the Old Testament no less assured him thatforgivenessandcleansing,inotherwordssalvation,wasfree.Itwas,forthebelieverof(166)old,foldedup,hidden,butsure,insuchphrasesaswe frequently meet in the Psalms: " According to thy lovingkindness.""Forthyname'ssake,"etc."Leadmeinthytruth,andteachme:forthouarttheGodofmysalvation;ontheedoIwaitalltheday.Remember,OJehovah,thytendermerciesandthylovingkindnesses."Ps.25:5,6."Hearme,OJehovah;forthylovingkindnessisgood:turnuntomeaccordingtothemultitudeofthytendermercies."Yet itwas a lovingkindness, or tendermercy,which discerned betweenobedience and disobedience, between belief or trust and unbelief. "Lethim thatgloriethglory in this, thatheunderstandethandknowethme,that I am Jehovah that exerciseth lovingkindness, judgment, andrighteousness,intheearth."Jer.9:24.

Onman's part this salvation implied not only a sense of his sinfulnessandapenitentconfessionofit,butahabitualattitudeoftrustinJehovah;a life in which this trust in Jehovah was characteristic, a trust whichwroughtobedience.Astothenatureofthatchangedorsavedlife, inallitsbearings,weareabouttoinquire.

Chapter7:THEOLDTESTAMENTCONCEPTIONOFTHESAVEDLIFE

(167) THERE are but two classes of people in the world, saved andunsaved.Many synonymsareused todenote eachof these twoclasses:

butwhateverthetermsused,theideaisthesame.Thereisadivisionofall mankind into these two classes. We cannot tell who is included,ofttimes, in theoneclassor in theother.TheNewTestamentwarnsusagainstnarrowlyjudgingofourfellow-men,teachingusthattherewillbesurprisesuponbothsidesontheDayofJudgment.

ButwhileScripturedoesnotencourageonemantoerecthisjudgmentasacriterionofhisfellow-man'ssalvation,yetitdoesfurnishuswithguidesfor ourselves and with truths which we may use as tests of character,whichenableusinapracticalandgeneralwaytodiscernthesavedlife.Ina largeway, "by their fruitsyeshallknowthem";althoughmanywhomwe would not have expected, "shall come from the (168) east and thewest,andshallsitdowninthekingdom."

Withthis limitationuponourknowledgetodetermine ineverycasethespiritualstatusofourfellow-man,letusinquirewhattheOldTestamenttaughtregardingthesavedlife,thesavedman.

For theOld Testament recognized such a division, twowell-recognizedclasseswhich it repeatedlyplaced incontrast,onewith theother.As intheNewTestament, so here,many terms are used to denote these twoclasses, but the line of division is essentially the same. The one class,thosewhoaresaved,aredescribedundersuchtermsasthe"righteous.""For thee [Noah] have I seen righteous before me in this generation."Gen.7:1."Wiltthoudestroytherighteouswiththewicked?"Gen.18:23ff."Evilpursuethsinners:buttotherighteousgoodshallberepaid."Prov.13:21. "Theungodly shallnot stand in the judgment,nor sinners in thecongregation of the righteous." Ps. 1:5 etc; etc- Or again they aredescribed as those "that fear the Lord [or Jehovah]." "But he honoreththemthatfearJehovah."Ps.15:4."YethatfearJehovah,praisehim."Ps.22:23. (169)"Thentheythat fearedJehovahspakeoftenonetoanother:andJehovahhearkened, andheard it, andabookof remembrancewaswrittenbeforehimforthemthatfearedJehovah,andthatthoughtuponhis name." Mal. 3:16, etc. So also many other terms such as "perfectman," "just," "upright," etc. " Noah was a just man and perfect in hisgenerations,andNoahwalkedwithGod."Gen.6:9."Andthatman[Job]was perfect and upright, and one that fearedGod, and eschewed evil."Job. 1:1. "Keepback thy servantalso frompresumptuous sins; let them

not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall beinnocentfromthegreattransgression."Ps.19:13.

Itwillbenoticedthatthesetermsarefrequentlyplacedincontrastwithothers,whichdenotethesinfulorunsavedman.Inthefaceofhundredsofsuchpassages,itrequiresnoargumenttoshowthattheOldTestamentrecognizedtwoclassesamongmen,theunsavedandthesaved:notthatthis distinction could always be made by men; but there was such adivision.

As to what was the Old Testament conception of unsaved man, itsconceptionofsinandthesinner,wehavealreadyseen.Letusnow(170)considerwhatisitsconceptionoftheotherclassofwhomwemayspeakuniformlyas the "savedman,"andofhisnatureas the "saved life."Wenaturallyask,Didthissalvationmeanmorethanpardonorforgiveness?Diditincludealsoaninwardchangeofcharacter?WasthereanythinginOldTestamentsalvationcorrespondingtoregenerationandconversioninthe New Testament conception of these terms? That this salvationimpliedtheforgivenessofsinswillnotbequestionedbyany.Itwasthevery languageof thesavedsoul,"Whoforgivethall thine iniquities,"Ps.103: 3; and the believer found comfort in the teaching, "Blessed is hewhose transgression is forgiven,whose sin is covered." Ps. 32:1.Undervarious forms of expression it is clearly taught that the sins of the"righteous"orthoseofwhomwemayspeakasthesaved,wereforgivenor"blotted out." But was there an inward change, corresponding toregenerationandconversion?Iftherewassuchinmanybelieversofold,we would not expect to find the change itself universal as a consciousexperienceamongthesaved.Asaconsciousexperienceitisnotuniversalamongbelieversnow.Salvationiswiderthanconversion.

(171)Manyaresavedwhohavenotbeenconverted.Theirlifeoffaithandlove began so early that there could be no conscious turning, noconversion. It is the looseness of early home training which makesconversion so common: it should be almost an unknown experience inbelieving households. It would be a great mistake to suppose that theNewTestamentteachesthatconversionmustbetheuniversalexperienceofbelievers.HowmanyatruechildofGodhasbeenpainfullyperplexedbythiserroneousassumptionofsomeearnestbutmistakenrevivalist!

Even in regard to the resultof thesavingchange,or to thechangeasaresult, we will not expect every Old Testament believer to make anemphatic declaration that he possessed absolute assurance that hewassaved. The wondrous work of grace has never been amenable to thestereotypedformsandrulesofmen.Inthisconnectionanincidentoccursto me. Some few years ago on spending a week with a ministerialkinsmanacallwasmadeuponanagedparishionerthenuponasickbed.Afterleavingthehousemyfriendrelatedtomeanincidentinthelifeofthis man, whom he considered a devout (172) believer. On beingconfronted once at the church door by a somewhat popular revivalist,with the question, "Are you saved,my friend?"His honest heatherlandreplywas:"Indeedthatisnosoeasyaquestiontoanswer.DavidissaidtohavebeenamanafterGod'sownheart,andyetifhehadlivedinourdayhewouldhavebeenhanged!"Letusbewareofthemistakeofmakingthe redemptive experience of one man the necessary mould for everyotherman.

Allowingthenforthefactthattheremighthavebeenmanysavedmenofold,whohadno conscious experience that an inward change of naturehadtakenplace,wassuchachangeafrequentorusualexperienceinOldTestament salvation? When there was a possibility of it, when menbecametheservantsofJehovah,not,asSamuel, intheir infancy,but inlaterlifeafterwanderinginsin,didtheycommonlyexperiencemorethanforgiveness?Did they experience a change of nature?Orwhether theirexperienceofitwereveryvividornot,didtheOldTestamentteachthattheybelievedthatsuchchangehadtakenplace,orwasinvolvedintheirsalvation? Let it speak for itself. Forgiveness alone was not sufficient,"Blessed (173) is the man whose transgression is forgiven . . . and inwhosespiritthereisnoguile."Ps.32:1,2.Havemercyuponme,OGod...washme...cleansemefrommysin."Ps.51:1,2.Forgivenesswasnotanisolated act, but a link in the great chain of salvation. Although therenewing"wasnotstatedinexactlytheNewTestamentform,"Yemustbeborn again," yet it was so nearly identical that any "master in Israel"mightwellbeexpectedtoknowit.AnewheartalsowillIgiveyou,andanewspiritwillIputwithinyou;andIwilltakeawaythestonyheart,"etc.Ezek.36:26.So thePsalmistrealizedhowradicalwas theworkneeded,

requiring the creative originative power of God. "Create inme a cleanheart,andrenewarightspiritwithinme."Ps.51:10.

Even when this work of change is described under some other figureinstead of renewal, as, for example, that of "washing," it is little lessthorough. "Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity." Ps. 51:2. TheHebrew word here used to denote "washing" is not the word which isordinarilyusedtodenotewashingasofthehandsorofthebody;itistheword "kabhas " whichmeans to "trample," as filthy clothes (174) weretrampledinatroughinwashing,implyingherethepenitent'sknowledgeandappreciationoftheseverityoftheworkwhichhadtobeperformedinhisheart.So"healmysoul;forIhavesinnedagainstthee."Ps.41:4.

ThechangewhichwaseffectedinthelifeofSaulisdescribedwithmoreofdetailthananycasepriortohistime.Forthisreasonit is interestingandinstructive.ItwasinpursuanceofanannouncementmadetoSaulbySamuel, "The Spirit of Jehovah will come upon thee, and thou shaltprophesy with them, and thou shalt be changed into another man." 1Sam.10:6.Sotooinverse9,"Godgavehimanotherheart."TheHebrewword here rendered "change" or "turned" into anotherman is the verb"hhaphak"elsewheretranslated"overthrow"or"overturn,"remindingusof theNewTestament convert, e.g., "Overthrew the cities inwhich Lotdwelt."Gen.19:29."Overturneththemountainsbytheroots."Job28:9."Yetfortydays,andNinevehshallbeoverthrown."Jonah3:4.ItistobenotedthatthisworkoftheSpirit,inSaul'scase,accomplishedmorethanmerelytoturnhimintoanotherman,itenabledhimtoprophesy.ButthefactthattheSpiritperformedthis(175)additionalworkdoesnotnegativehis performance of theprimarywork of renewal, just as in the bookofJoel the Spirit was promised (and the New Testament, through Peter,confirms it,Acts2:16) ingreatmeasure, including, it is true, thegiftofprophecy,butnot excluding, first, thequickeningof theheart to anewlife."IwillpouroutmySpirituponallflesh."Joel2:28.

So the Old Testament abundantly teaches that there was an inwardchangewroughtbyGod in thebeliever, somewhatcorresponding to theNewTestament"newbirth,"andNicodemusshouldhaveknownit.Itwashis fault that he did not. This change likewise had another and morehuman side corresponding more nearly to conversion. "Take with you

words, and return unto Jehovah: say unto him, Take away all iniquity,andreceiveusgraciously."Hos.14:2."ReturnuntoJehovahthyGod;forthouhastfallenbythineiniquity."Hos.14:I."Butifyeturnuntome,andkeepmycommandments."Neh. 1:9. "They [theprophets] said,Turnyeagainnoweveryonefromhisevilway."Jer.25:5."Letthewickedforsakehisway,andtheunrighteousmanhisthoughts:andlethimreturn(176)untoJehovah,andhewillhavemercyuponhim;andtoourGod,forhewillabundantlypardon."Isa.55:7,etc.Norcanitbesaidthatthiswasamerely outward ritual turning to the national worship; it is too deeplyspiritual and inward for that, while mere outward turning is severelyrebuked. "Rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn untoJehovahyourGod."Joel2:13. "Trustyenot in lyingwords, saying,Thetemple of Jehovah, the temple of Jehovah, the temple of Jehovah, arethese."Jer.7:4.ButthoughtheprophetappealedtothesinnertoturntoJehovah,yeteveninthis,God'shelpwasrecognized,"Turnthoume,andI shall be turned; for thouart JehovahmyGod.Surely after that Iwasturned,Irepented."Jer.31:18,19.

From these, and many other passages which might be cited, the OldTestament evidently taught that an inward change or renewal of heartwasa common,butnotnecessarilyuniversally conscious, experienceofthe believer. When the sinner, deeply conscious of great sinfulness,prayed formercy he assumed that a change of heartwas necessary; orwhen theprophetarraigned thedebauchedand idolatrous, (177)he tooneverquestionedbutthatthetransitiontotheserviceofJehovahwassogreatthatitcouldnotbeeffectedwithoutaconsciouschangeoflifeandheart. Just as to the iniquitous Greek and Roman world and to thehypocritical Pharisee, therewas noway to holiness except by an entirerenewalofnaturesoradicalandstartlingthatsuchmencouldnotbutbeconsciousofthechange.WiththeHebrewchildlikeSamuel,aswiththechildofaChristianhomewhoneverknewthetimewhenhedidnotlovethe Lord, there could be no such consciousness of change. At certainperiodsofIsrael'siniquityorincertainaudiences,itwasdemanded,justasitisrequiredintheslumsandfromthegodless,butnotfromthe"childofGodfromhisyouth,"today.

The questionswill arise,What effect did this change immediately have

upon the sinfulness ofman?Towhat extentdid it ever, in thepresent,renderhimsinless?Heisspokenofas"righteous,"or"just,"or"perfect."AndthisraisesthequestionastothemeaninginOldTestamentusageofthese words. The Hebrew word tsadik, "righteous" or "just," does notmeansinless.Asappliedtoman, itdoesnot(178)primarilyrefertohisinward holiness or sanctification (though it regularly implies thebeginningofsuch),butrather"settingright"or"accountingjust."Whenitissaidthat"Noahwasajustman"(RevisedVersion,righteousman),themeaningisnotthathehadbecomesinless,hisintemperanceaftertheDeluge would forbid that interpretation, but it doesmean that he wasuncondemned, thatas comparedwith the restof themenofhisdayhestood in a different relation to God. They were condemned, he wasaccountedjust;notthathewasactuallysinlessbutwasjustified,andthateven, as we read, was by "grace." "Noah found grace in the eyes ofJehovah."Gen. 6:8.Hencewhen it is said in theOldTestament that amanis"righteous"or"just,"thereisnoclaimmadethatheissinless,butratherthatGodhasoncertainconditionspardonedandjustifiedhim,asheispleasedtodowithfarfromsinlessmento-day.ThissameHebrewwordisfrequentlyusedwhereitcouldnothaveanyothermeaning,i.e.,whereitcouldnotmean"sinless.""Iwillnotjustifythewicked."Ex.23:7.Thesameistrueinpassageswherehumanofficialsacquitthoseontrialbeforethem;itcouldnotmeanimpartinginward(179)holiness."Whichjustifythewickedforreward."Isa.5:23.EveninsuchapassageasGen.18:23,"Wiltthoualsodestroytherighteouswiththewicked?"itcouldnotmean sinless; for the "righteous" whichwere here referred to includedLotandhisfamily,whowerebelievers,itistrue,astheChristianto-dayisajustifiedbeliever;butitneedsnoargumenttoshowthattherecorddidnotconsiderthemsinless.

ThesameistrueoftheotherwordsusedintheOldTestamenttodenotethe believer. Thewords tarn "perfect" and yashar "upright,"while theyimply aworkof grace in theheart, donot imply sinlessness. "And thatman [Job] was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, andeschewed evil." Job 1:1. But as we read of Job's petulance and almostblasphemy,aswe includehis failingsaswell ashis faith,weobtain thecorrect meaning of these words. By giving these words their correctmeaning, themeaningwhich their usage commands; by giving them, I

will not say a merely "forensic" sense (for that is a cold theologicallywhichmeanstoolittle),butbyallowingthemtoindicate,astheydo,thatanattitudeoftrustandlovetowardJehovahhadbeenbegunintheheart,andthat(180)Godhadgrantedforgivenessofsin,andhadgrantedanewstatus inhis favor, that agodly life, a lifeof trust existed there, thoughwithmanyimperfections,whenwegivethesewordsthistheirscripturalmeaning, it relieves from self-righteous boasting the Old Testamentbelieverwhoclaimedtheseattributes.Whenhe,orsomepersonelseforhim, claimed thathewas "righteous,"or "just," or "perfect,"hedidnotclaiminwardsinlessness,butheclaimed,whattheChristianwithdeepesthumilityto-daymayclaim,thathewasjustifiedandthat"bygrace."Thisdoes not mean, however, that all believers then or now are free fromboastfulness. It only means that these Old Testament terms do notexpressit.

Herewecannotbutwonder, towhatextent the thoughtfulbelieverwasunabletorestwiththis.Hewasjustified,andyethewasnotsinless.Itistrue he cast himself upon the mercy of Jehovah. But did this, for thethoughtful believer, solve it all, or give satisfaction? There is, here andthere,awordthatgivesusaglimpseofdeeper things. "Purgeawayoursins,forthyname'ssake."Ps.79:9.Thewordtranslated"purgeaway"iskapharwhichinthePiel(181)form(whichishereused)regularlymeansto "atone for," to "make atonement," to "expiate." "An offering untoJehovah, to make an atonement for your souls." Ex. 30:15, etc., etc.UnbelieverswouldliketoeliminatefromtheOldTestamentteachingtheideaofatonement,butwhateveritsexactshadeofmeaningitseemstobethere.

But a question more immediately connected with this renewal of thebeliever'snatureisitspermanency.Wasitabiding?Wasitanewtypeoflife which would be everlasting? The doctrine of the so-called"perseverance of the saints "has been drawn from New Testamentstatements.WhatistheOldTestamentteachingastothepermanenceofthis "clean heart," this "righteousness," this saved nature? The OldTestament in no placemakes a didactic statement upon this point.Wecandiscoverwhatitteachesonlyintherecordedsketchesofthelivesofbelievers,andintheirexpressionsoftheirpiousconvictions.Theformer,

in somecases,make itdifficult tobelieve that this renewednaturewasnecessarilyabiding.SaulandSolomonmightseemtobeexamplesofthis.Yetwemustalwayskeepinmindthevicissitudes(182)ofeventhesavedlife, and that grace is at work in very imperfect lives, and that incontrastingdifferentperiodsofsomeoftheseliveswemaybemakingourestimate upon too meager information. Our estimate may be at fault.Theremaybenogreatercontrastthanwewouldfindwithinthelimitsoftheundoubtedlyregeneratelivesofmento-day.

Besides,didnotthegraceofGodintheOldTestamentmakeprovisiontorescueandrestoresuchdefectsanddeclensionsandsinfulnessinthoseinwhom the work of salvation had been begun? "I will heal theirbacksliding, I will love them freely." Hos. 14:4. So far as recordedtestimony is concerned, some backsliders were not healed, but noteverything is recorded. For this reason we cannot draw definiteconclusionsfromthelivesofsuchmenasSaulandSolomon.

Astotheconvictionofthebelieverregardingthepermanenceofhisownsavednature,heofttimesseemedtobeindoubt.Buteverybelieverisinpractical doubt when he is trifling with sin. No matter what histheologicaltheoryasto"perseverance"maybe,hecannothaveapresentconsciousness of safety while he is doing (183) that which jeopardizessafety.HecannothavetheconvictionthatheisaservantofGodwhileheiswillfullyandactivelyservingSatan.HemaybesafeinGod'severlastingcare,buthecannothaveapeacefulconfidencethatheis,whilepartakingingreatsin.Itwouldnotbewellthathecould.

Sothe fearsof thebelieverexpressed intheOldTestamentmight teachonlythattherehadbeenconsciousnessofwanderingandwillfulsin,butnotnecessarilyanentirelossoftrustonthepartofmanoroffavoronthepartofGod. Itofttimesexpressesonlyawholesome fear,a senseofhisneedofDivineaid."OGod,whyhastthoucastusoffforever?Whydoththineangersmokeagainstthesheepofthypasture?"Ps.74:1."Inthee,OJehovah,doIputmytrust: letmeneverbeput toconfusion?"Ps.71:1.Muchmore frequent thanare theexpressionsofdoubtand fearare thebeliever's expressions of confidence. "Trulymy soulwaiteth uponGod:fromhimcomethmysalvation.Heonlyismyrockandmysalvation;heismydefense; I shallnotbegreatlymoved."Ps.62:1,2. "Ihave trusted

alsoinJehovah;Ishallnotslide."Ps.26:1."Surelygoodnessandmercy(184)shallfollowmeallthedaysofmylife."Ps.23:6.

Yet it must be remembered that these expressions of confidencerepresentthezenithofOldTestamentfaith.Many,perhapsthemajority,fell far below this. There is no place for narrow dogmatism upon thissubject.Butthereligiousexperienceofthebelieverofoldseemstohavebeen perhaps more fitful than that of Christian times. Although thisrenewednaturewastheworkofGod'sSpirit,aswehaveseen,yettherewassomesense inwhich theSpiritwas thengiven"inmeasure."Therewas a sense in which our Lord's promise was an advance upon earlierpromises when he said, "I will pray the Father, and he shall give youanotherComforter,thathemayabidewithyouforever."

Did the Old Testament believer then possess assurance? Some at leastknewofacertaintythattheywere"justified,"or"righteous.""Judgeme,OJehovah, according tomy righteousness."Ps. 7:8. "Preservemysoul;forIamholy[orpious]."Ps.86:2.Buthehadlessknowledgeofitthatitwaspermanentlyassuredtohim,andlessknowledgeoftheblessednessofthefuturewhichitentailed.

(185) Itwas in this respect thathis saved life as an experiencedifferedmost from that of theNewTestament believer, although his trust (andassuranceinthecaseofmany,atleast)carriedhimtothecloseofthislifeand even to the border land of the next: "Though I walk through thevalleyoftheshadowofdeath,Iwill fearnoevil."Ps.23:4."Thepathofthe just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto theperfect day." Prov. 4:18. "And I will dwell in [or return into, as theHebrewhas it] thehouseofJehovahforeverandever."Ps.23:6.Yet itgavehimlittlelightuponthatfuture.Nordoweyetpossessverydefiniteknowledge. He considered forgiveness and salvation somethingsupremelytobedesired."BlessedisthemantowhomJehovahimputethnotiniquity,andinwhosespiritthereisnoguile."Ps.32:2.Butwhatthatblessedness involved was as yet little revealed. The outlook was lessbright andhopefulnot because the salvationwas less real, but becausetheknowledgeofitandofwhatitimpliedwaslesscomplete.Hehadnotyetcomewho"broughtimmortalitytolight."Itexistedforthebelieverofold,butintwilightknowledge.NothavingknownhimasaDivine-human

(186)Saviour,theirsalvationlackedmuchofthejoyfulexpectancyoftheNewTestamentbeliever'shope.Forthisreasonthebelieverofoldspokenot so much of going to meet his Saviour, but of going to meet hiskindredorofbeing "gathered tohis fathers." "I shall go tohim,butheshallnotreturntome."2Sam.12:23.

Withoutarisenandever-livingSaviourgonebefore,andwiththatfutureto them, as indeed largely to us, an unrevealed mystery, the outlookbeyonddeathwasnotinviting.Knowinglittleindetailofthefutureofthesoul,andknowingsomethingofthecorruptionofthebodyindeath,itisnottobewonderedatthattheirbeliefinaneternalblessednesswasoftencloudedby,andexpressedinthefigureof,thegrave.TheyhadnoexplicitrevelationofaSaviourwhohadtriumphedoverdeathandthegrave,andto whom they looked forward with joy to meet in glory. This was anecessarylimitationinthehopesofthosewhoweresavedinoldentimes,andan incentive to themtohasten thepreparation forhiscoming, "fortheywithoutusshouldnotbemadeperfect."

It has been much debated by some, whether the experience of OldTestament salvation (187) carried with it a belief and hope of a futureexistenceatall.MenhavesoughtforsomeunequivocalprooftextintheOldTestamentuponit.Itisoneofthosegreattruthswhichrequirednoprooftext.Onlytheabnormalman,thenornow,wouldneedaprooftextuponit,andtosuchamanaprooftextwouldbeofdoubtfulvalue.Itisthe fundamental axiom of the seriousness of life. If there were nohereafter,whowouldmake somuchof life?Themanwhoprofesses todisbelieveitallowshisactionseverydaytobeliehiswords.

TheOldTestament, inplacingsomuchemphasisupon thispresent lifehow it was lived in seeking to deepen its meaning, and purify itsactivities,andenlargeitspowers,taughtinthemostemphaticwaythatitwasnotalltoendinacipher,azero.Thatwouldbetoomuchtospenduponwhatattheconclusionwouldbenothing!

Thefuturebeyonddeathhadverylittleofbrightness,ithaslittleevenforbelieversto-dayasananticipation.Itwasseldommentionedexceptwithsadness. Nevertheless, the believer of old believed in, and the OldTestamenttaught,byimplicationormore,ablessedfuture,(188)veiled

as yet, but real, "When [Hebrewki]my father andmymother forsakeme, thenJehovahwill takemeup."Ps.27:10.Thewordheretranslated"will takemeup" is theHebrewverbasaph "togather," the samewordwhich is used when, in speaking to the pious Josiah, God said, "I willgathertheeuntothyfathers,andthoushaltbegatheredintothygraveinpeace."2Kings22:20.Although the future, for the righteousaswell asforthewicked,wasgenerallyspokenofwithasenseofgloom,becauseofthe as yet limited knowledge of that future and its blessedness for therighteous, yet occasionally the contrast was made. "From men of theworld,whichhave theirportion in this life, andwhosebelly thou fillestwith hid treasures: they are full of children, and leave the rest of theirsubstance to their babes. As for me, I will behold thy face inrighteousness: I shallbesatisfied,whenIawake,with thy likeness."Ps.17:14,15.

IfOldTestamentsalvationlackedverymuchinthefullnessofknowledge,and in the hopefulness of outlook regarding the future life of therighteous, it was partly compensated for in the clinging trust which itbegotandinthedaily(189)communionwhichitencouraged.TomanyaChristian,theblesseddoctrineoffinalvictoryhasnotresultedin,andhasnotencouragedclosenessof,fellowshipwithGod,now.Notwithstandingall our favorite Calvinistic arguments thereto (and they are good andscriptural), many have used their theoretical doctrine of ultimatesalvation toease theiranxiety in themidstofa listlessservice.TheOldTestamentbelieverclungtowhathehad,Jehovah.Isittobewonderedatthat he made much of his present privileges and blessings? "BlessJehovah,Omysoul:andallthatiswithinme,blesshisholyname.BlessJehovah,Omysoul,andforgetnotallhisbenefits:whoforgivethallthineiniquities,"etc.,etc.Ps.103:1ff.Isitanywonderthathelookedtohiminthedayofaffliction?"Jehovahheartheeinthedayoftrouble,"Ps.20:1;or that he so constantly turned to him as his avenger? "O JehovahmyGod,intheedoIputmytrust:savemefromallthemthatpersecuteme,and deliverme." Ps. 7:1. And so to the truly pious the worship of andcommunion with Jehovah was highest joy: -" How amiable are thytabernacles,OJehovahofhosts!Mysoullongeth,yea,even(190)faintethforthecourtsofJehovah:myheartandmyfleshcriethoutforthelivingGod."Ps.84:1,2."Foradayinthycourtsisbetterthanathousand.Ihad

rather be a doorkeeper [or be cut off] in thehouse ofmyGod, than todwell in tents of wickedness." Ps. 84:10. (The word translated"doorkeeper" is from a root which, not only in Hebrew but also inAramaicandArabic,hasthemeaningto"becutoff,"asoflife,orto"besnatchedaway," and this is the translationwhichbest accordswith thecontext, though all of the translators so far as I have noticed haveoverlookedit.)

TheyfoundcomfortinthefactthattheywereGod'sspecialpossession,"Andtheyshallbemine,saithJehovahofhosts,inthatdaywhenImakeupmy jewels [or peculiar treasure]; and I will spare them, as a fathersparethhisownsonthatservethhim."Mal.3:17.Whenbelievers,intheOldTestament,arecalled"sonsofGod,"itisbecauseofthisfeature,thattheyservehim,ratherthanuponthegroundgivenintheNewTestamentthat they have been born again. The Old Testament renewal, real andspirit-wrought as it was, was yet not generally conceived of as a newbirth.

(191) Jehovah was the God or Father of believers, and they were hischildren, not so much because of the change of heart, but especiallybecause of the moral relation which they occupied toward Jehovah,becausetheytrustedhimandservedhim.

ThesavedlifethenaccordingtoOldTestamentteachingwassometimes,though not always, one of conscious renewal. Where the antecedentsrequired it, there was an explicit confession of sin, inward repentance,andaconsciousturningtoalifeoftrustandserviceofGod.Notthatthebeliever thereuponsupposed thathe therebybecamesinless,but rather"just,"etc.,inthesenseofjustified,oraccepted.

As to the permanence of this new life, we have seen that both inexperience and in fact there is less evidence that it was permanent ineverybelieverthanaftertheascensionofourLordandthesendingoftheComforter to abide forever.Thehopeof the futurewhich this salvationbegot was less definite and less inviting, both because of the thick veilwhichhidit,andbecausethattheDivine-humanChrist,"theLamb,"wasnotyet "the light thereof."But in thepresent the salvationof the savedwas a blessed (192) and comforting reality which gave scope for and

encouraged an abounding trust in Jehovah, which left with Godmuchwhichhehadnot yet beenpleased to reveal: hewalkedwithGod.Godwasathis righthand thatheshouldnotbemoved,anddwelling in thesecretplaceoftheMostHighheabodeundertheshadowoftheAlmighty.Knowinglessthanwedo,notonlyof"secondarycauses,"butalsooftheground of atonement, he did not place anything between God andhimself.Godwasrealandnear.

Chapter8:OLDTESTAMENTSALVATIONINRELATIONTOTHEINDIVIDUALANDTO

THEWORLD

(193)THEfactremainsthatthissalvation,asitwassetforthintheOldTestament, affected the lives of only a very limited part of the humanfamily.Whether ornotmultitudeswere saved from sin andarenow inGod's favoring presence, through some other knowledge, or throughsimilar knowledge otherwise communicated, the fact remains that thissalvation, as speciallymade known in the Old Testament, came to theknowledge of, and affected the lives of, only a very small fraction ofmankind. Was this because it was not adapted to more than this onenation?Wasitanationaloranindividualsalvation?Forifitwasfortheindividual,thenitwasalsofortheworld.Thesinfulidentityoftheentirehuman racemakes it so. And a salvationwhich is not for thewhole ofmankind is not even for the individual. How then was its "extension"national,whileits"intension"wasindividualanduniversal?

(194)Itwillnotdotopassbythedifficultieshere,orciteonlythosetextswhichproveonephaseofthissalvation.ThereisamaterialandnationalphaseofsalvationfrequentlypromisedintheOldTestament,justasthegodliness of the New Testament is "profitable unto all things, havingpromise"notonlyofthelifewhichistocome,butof"thelifethatnowis." It may be the judgment of many that in the Old Testament theproportion of emphasis which is placed upon the present material ornationalsideofsalvation,isgreaterthanitisintheNewTestament.Butinanycaseitisthere,whetheritbesalvationfromthearmedenemy,orfrom trouble, or whatever form of present evil. "Thus Jehovah saved

Israel that day out of thehandof theEgyptians."Ex. 14: 30. "Savemefromallthemthatpersecuteme,anddeliverme."Ps.7:1."Hesavedthemfrom the hand of him that hated them, and redeemed them from thehandoftheenemy."Ps.106:10.VerymanyotherpassagesmaybecitedtoshowthattheOldTestamenttaughtthatJehovahsavedhispeopleeitherindividuallyorcollectivelyfrompresentills.ThiswasonlyanotherwayofsayingthatJehovahwasalsotheGodofprovidence.

(195) Here let it be noted, that even this material and often nationaldeliverance was not a thing by itself. It was linked to, and dependentupon, spiritual salvation. God did not promise to save Israel, or theindividualIsraelite,unconditionally.Theconditionuponwhichhewouldfight their battles for themwas that they would forsake their sins andobeyhimandservehim.Whentheydidnotacceptthesalvationfromsinwhichheofferedthem,hedidnotgivethemthelesserdeliverance,fromtheirenemies,butgave themup to thewillof theirenemies.Couldanyfact be more clearly taught in the Old Testament than this, that inwhateversensewetaketheword"save"itwas"hesavethsuchasbeofacontrite spirit"? Ps. 34:18. All his outward, material or nationaldeliverances, were only secondary and auxiliary to his higher andspiritualsalvation,and theOldTestamentwritersclearlydiscerned thisandtaught it. Ifmodernstudentsof theOldTestamentoverlookit, it istheir mistake. Frequently, of course, the wicked received temporaldeliverancealongwiththerighteousamongwhomtheydwelt.JustastheNewTestamentfigureputsit,thetaresareallowedtoremainforatimein the favored soil with the (196) wheat: so in the Old Testament thewicked were sometimes spared because of the "remnant" of righteousamong them. "Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very smallremnant, we should have been as Sodom." Isa. 1:9. But spiritual andindividualsalvationlayalwaysatthebaseofeventemporalandnationaldeliverance.

Moses repeatedlywarned the children of Israel that theirmaterial andtemporalwelfareasapeoplewoulddependupontheirspiritualrelationtoGod."Nowthereforehearken,OIsrael,untothestatutesanduntothejudgments,which I teachyou, todo them, that yemay live."Deut. 4:1."Only takeheed to thyself,andkeep thysouldiligently, lest thou forget

thethingswhichthineeyeshaveseen,andlesttheydepartfromthyheartall thedaysof thy life: but teach them to thy sons, and thy sons sons."Deut.4:9."Itshallcometopass,ifthoushalthearkendiligentlyuntothevoice of Jehovah thyGod, to observe and to do all his commandmentswhichIcommandthee thisday, thatJehovahthyGodshallset theeonhighaboveallnationsoftheearth:andalltheseblessingsshallcomeonthee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the (197) voice ofJehovahthyGod."Deut.28:1,2.SointhePsalms,"TrulyGodisgoodtoIsrael,eventosuchasareofacleanheart."Ps.73:1,etc.

Thustherewasmaterialandnationaldeliveranceonlyuponthegroundofspiritualsalvation.Thisspiritualsalvation,thissalvationfromsin,wasindividual. It was collective only as it was first individual, just as thechurch or the nation to-day is saved only in so far as the individualscomposing itaresaved.This factwasnotalwaysemphasizedintheOldTestament;itdidnotrequiretobe.Butlackofemphasisdoesnotprovenonexistence.Itwassogenerallyacknowledgedandsoself-evident,thatitwasonlywhen,indaysofformalityandirreligion,mensoughttotakerefuge under the cloak of nationalism or collectivism, that theindividualism of salvation was explicitly emphasized. It was in such aperiod that our Lord emphasized the personal, individual character ofsalvation, because many of the scribes and Pharisees thought to takeshelter in the collectivism of the church, or that they had Abraham astheir father.Hedidnot excuse them for their interpretationof theOldTestamentsalvation.Heratherrebukedthemforit.Hedidnotjustifyitasbeingthe(198)trueteachingoftheirScriptures.Herathercondemnedit.

ItwasinsimilarperiodsofreligiousformalityandhypocrisythatIsaiahandJeremiahandEzekielandothersofthesametimegaveconsiderableemphasistothissametruth.Notthatthiswasanewteachingproducedatthistimebythewreckageofnationalhopes,assomehavesupposed.ItiswrittendeeplyintheOldTestamentteachingofsalvationfromtheverybeginning.Buttheunshamedhypocrisyandformalityoftheperiodofthegreatprophetscalledforaspecialemphasisbeingplaceduponit.Yetthecollective responsibilities and privileges were not overlooked."Remember,OJacobandIsrael...Ihaveblottedout,asathickcloud,thy

transgressions, and, as a cloud, thy sins." Isa. 44:21, 22. "Iwill forgivetheiriniquity,andtheirsinwillIremembernomore."Jer.31:34."Iwillsave you from all your uncleannesses." Ezek. 36:29. Yet at such timesmen were specially reminded of their individual responsibility. "ThensaidI,Woeisme!forIamundone;becauseIamamanofuncleanlips,"etc.Isa.6:5."Inthosedaystheyshallnomoresay,Thefathershaveeatenasourgrape,(199)andthechildren'steetharesetonedge."Jer.31:29."Thesoulthatsinneth,itshalldie."Ezek.18:4.

Butitwouldbeamistaketosupposethatthisideaofindividualsalvationandresponsibilitywasaproductoftheperiodoftheseprophets,orthatitwascausedbythefailureofnationalhopes.OurLord'semphasisofthissame teaching did not make it a new idea, neither did the emphasisplaceduponitbythegreatprophets.Itisfoundelsewhere;itisintheOldTestament plan of salvation from the beginning, and is essential to it,though it ismarveloushowmany fairly evangelical scholarshave fallenintothehabitofrepeatingtheskeptic'smistakeinpreferencetowhattheScripturesays.EvenDr.Forrestdetracts fromhismanygood thingsbyrepeatingitasapartofhis"development"programme,towhichheissopartial.Buttheideaofaspiritual, individualsalvationistheundoubtedteaching of the Old Testament from the beginning. It was the type ofsalvationbywhich the individualAbelwas saved, and itwas especiallyspiritual. It was a remedy, not formere physical ills, but for the greatcatastrophe (200) of sinwhich had just overtakenman. The individualcharacterofsalvationcouldnothavebeenmoredecidedlyexpressedthanin this first family of the race. It was as an individual that Abel wasaccepted and forgiven and saved, and itwas as an individual thatCainwas rejected, and sin was the question at issue. It was this individual,spiritual typeofsalvationwhichwashandeddownby thepiousofeachgeneration.ItisvoicedinthePsalmist'sdevotion:"Whoshallabideinthytabernacle?Whoshalldwell in thyholyhill?Hethatwalkethuprightly,andworkethrighteousness,andspeakeththetruthinhisheart.Hethatbackbitethnotwithhistongue,nordoetheviltohisneighbor,nortakethupareproachagainsthisneighbor."Ps.15:1-3.

It was as an individual that Noah "walked with God." It was as anindividual that Abraham obeyed Jehovah, and even though his faith

broughtcollectiveblessingstohisdescendants,asthefaithandprayerofgodly parents bring similar blessings upon posterity to-day, yet thesewere lesser and incidental blessings; and those of his descendantswhorejected the offer of a spiritual salvation and refused to serve Jehovah,were soon deprived of even these reflected blessings (201) which hadcome to them throughAbraham.The salvation of each individual fromsinwaseverdeterminedbyhisownattitude towardJehovah.Fromthefirsthumanfamilyuntilthecloseofitsrecord,theOldTestamentclearlyteachesthatsalvationwasindividualandspiritual,andthatmaterialandnational salvation was quite secondary and was promised, notindependently, but as an accompaniment of that which was individualand spiritual, just as the New Testament teaches: "Seek ye first thekingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all other things shall beaddeduntoyou."

Why,then,didthissalvationreachsolimitedaportionofmankind?Diditnotengenderamissionaryorevangelisticspirit initsrecipients?Mendonotmakeamissionary crusade to thosewhoarepossessedofmuchthesamebeliefasthemselves.Thatwouldseempresumptuous.

That is what makes it difficult for the ordinary Christian of to-day tospeaktohismoralistneighborabouthissalvation.Abeliefthatsomeverywide spiritual difference exists, is essential to any considerablemissionaryeffortbyonepeopleforanother.Intheearlygenerationssinhadsoonbecomesogeneral that (except the (202)pious few,asNoah)wewouldnotexpecttofindanymissionaryzealoreffort.Asbetweenthedifferentpeoplesat this time thereseems tohavebeen littledifference;individuals were saved; and doubtless there were in those early daysmanyunnamedNoahswhopreachedrighteousnesstoalimitedcircle.

In the days of Abraham, too, the several peoples were very similar inreligious belief and in morals. Abraham and Abimelech and Pharaohdiffereduponsomepoints,buttherewasevidentlymuchincommonintheir religious ideas. But even Abraham did not launch a missionaryenterprise.Hedeemeditwisetofleefromtheevilsevenofhisownlandratherthantoattackthem.ThiswasGod'swayatthisperiodofreligiousweakness. And this is the principle which had to govern much of thepolicy of believers, until the church should become strong enough to

attackcollectiveevil,inforeignregions,toassumetheaggressive.

In those early days, no one people as a whole differedmuch from anyotherpeople,intheirknowledgeofGodandofthewayofsalvationfromsin.Allpeopleshadknowledgesufficient.InmanyrespectsthepeopleofAbraham's ancestry (203) had just about the same type of laws andmoralsasAbrahamsdescendants,lackingconsiderablespecialreligioustraining afterwards given and established. Why should it be thoughtstrangethatHammurabi'slawsandthoseofMoseswereverysimilar?Itwouldbeverystrangeiftheywerenot.Thebeliefsandmoralsofadjacentpeopleshadmuch in common, though somepeoples, as they separatedfromtheirfellow-peoples,werefastlosingthetruthfirstrevealedtotheircommon ancestors, Adam andAbel and Seth andNoah and others; ortheywerecovering itupwith idolatrous inventions.But ingeneral theywere very similar to one another. Here and there were believers likeAbraham and Melchizedek, not as lonely examples as have beensupposed,perhapsbutthemajorityofeverypeople inthatperiodwere,accordingtotheOldTestament,livinginsin.

EvenwhenbyspecialrevelationandseparationthebelievingdescendantsofAbrahambecameabetterorganizedbody,theyseemscarcelytohavebeenabletomaintaintheirownreligiousposition,muchlesstorisktheirownsoulsamidthealluringtemptationsofmoresinfulpeoples.

The children of Israel constantly required supernatural (204)encouragementandteachingthemselves,toadvancetheminholiness,orto prevent them from falling into the grosser beliefs and morals ofadjacentpeoples.Hencethequestionoftheirspreadingtheknowledgeofthissalvationwasforsometimedelayed.Afewindividualcasesonlyarerecorded. Elijah went to Zidon. Jonah, though unwillingly, went toNineveh.Many of the prophets had a word against, though apparentlynotdirectlyto,severalofthesurroundingpeoples,Damascus,orEdom,orMoab,orPhilistia.AndAmos,sternprophetthathewas,declaredthatGod'smercytowardtheseGentilepeopleshadbeenverygreat,thatitwasnot for even the full complementof offenses, the " three,"but for the "four,"thatGodwouldnotturnbackhisintendedpunishment.But before we question the vitality of this Old Testament salvation, orcensurethebelieverofoldfornothavingproclaimedittotheworld,we

must remember the lethargy of the Christian Church, with its morecomplete revelation, not only inmany periods onward from the fourthChristian century, but even during our own boasted Protestant regimefromLutheruntilCarey.TheChristian'sneglect to send theNew (205)Testament news of salvation far and near, does not prove the absoluteunrealityofhissalvation.TheOldTestamentbeliever,too,largelyfailedinthis,thoughhisneglectwasmoreexcusableinthedaysofthechurch'sweakness.Nevertheless,Malachidescribesadaypriortohistime,whenthechurchhadbeencharacterizedbyamoreevangelisticspirit,whenthepriesthoodhadbeenmorefaithfulinthedisseminationofsavingtruth:"The law of truth was in his [the priest's] mouth, and iniquity was notfound inhis lips:hewalkedwithme inpeaceandequity, anddid turnmany away from iniquity. For the priest's lips should keep knowledge,and they should seek the law at hismouth: for he is themessenger ofJehovahofhosts."Mal.2:6,7.

In the early generations,moreover, when the creed of redemptionwaslessformallyconceivedbymen,andwhen,insteadofanexplicitfaithinawell-definedpersonalandvicariousSaviour,salvationinvolved,rather,alargeandsufficientbutsomewhatundefinedtrustinJehovah,therewasnot a very exact conception of the several steps in that process ofsalvation; theologically speaking, therewas nowell-defined doctrine oftheordosalutis.Thelinebetweenthesaved(206)andtheunsaved,waslesssharplydrawn,i.e.bymen;thetestswerelessuponthelipsofmen;and less definiteness of responsibility was felt regarding the fellow-sinner.Nevertheless,itwouldbeamistaketosupposethatitwasentirelyabsent.Couldanyonehavepleadedmoreearnestlyorself-denyinglyforothers than didMoses? So likewise note the anxiety of the prophets ingeneral for their people, or of pious parents like Job for the spiritualwelfare of their families. Noah preached to his fellow-men not merelythat they might escape physical calamity, but he was a "preacher ofrighteousness." Ezekiel made his message as direct as the modernevangelist, and declares the obligation which rests upon believers ofbeingwatchfulforthespiritualwelfareoftheirfellow-men."Ifthoudostnotspeaktowarnthewickedfromhisway. .hisbloodwillIrequireatthinehand."Ezek.33:8.

OldTestamentsalvationwasarealityforwhichthebelievercouldthankGod,whohad "forgiven all his iniquities,"whohad " redeemedhis lifefromdestruction."But itdidnotarouseeverybeliever toa fullsenseofresponsibility; neither does the clearer and more (207) complete NewTestament teaching of to-day. But the failures and negligence of somebelieverswillneverprovethenon-existenceofateaching.

If thissalvationwasasalvationof the individual fromsin,and if itwasadaptedtoallmen,andyetifitfailedtoreachthemajority,whatshallbesaidofthosewhomitfailedtoreach,atleastinthisform,orthroughthismeans ? Did those multitudes perish spiritually because they did notpossesstheOldTestamentmessageofsalvation?

In answer to this, we cannot conclude that they did not possess theessentialsof it.Theymaywellhavehadascopiousa revelationasAbelpossessed. The revelation which Abel possessed was the commonheritageofallsucceedinggenerations,exceptassomesectionsoftheraceneglected and lost it to their descendants. The great majority of earlypeoples must have possessed a knowledge of God and of the way ofsalvation,similartothatwhichAbelpossessedandthroughwhichhewassaved. If theyperished itwasnot for lackofessential truth,but for thedisobedienceandperversitywhich,accordingtotherecordthat(208)wepossess,madethedifferencebetweenCainandAbel.

We can never determine by rule what would be the minimum ofknowledgenecessarytothesalvationofanyindividual,northatitwouldbeexactly thesame ineachcase.So,althoughwickednessdid increase,and in that early period did become almost universal, yet there weredoubtlessmany,verymany,unrecordedbelieverswholivedanddiedinasavingtrustinGod.

When the New Testament declares, "He that believeth and is baptizedshallbesaved;buthethatdisbelievethshallbecondemned,"Mark16:16,itmakes thisdeclarationas theonlyalternative to thosewhohear it inthisform.Buthewouldbeahastyinterpreterwhowouldconcludethatthis fixesexactlytheareaofsalvation,orwhowouldsaythatabsolutelynooneunderanycircumstances,withoutanexplicit faith inapersonalChrist, is saved to-day. TohaveChrist presented to us and thennot to

acceptandbelieveinhimwouldbetorejecthim.Thatisclear.Butthereareothercases,regardingwhichinformationwouldnotincreasethezealofthebeliever,norinduce(209)repentanceandfaithintheunbeliever,andregardingwhichGodhaskepthiscounsel.Falseviewsalonewillnotexclude from salvation, will not, within considerable range at least,obliterate faith. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or theprophets:Iamnotcometodestroy,buttofulfill...Whosoeverthereforeshallbreakoneoftheseleastcommandments,andshallteachmenso,heshallbecalledtheleastinthekingdomofheaven,"Matt.5:17,19,but"inthekingdom."Soinoldentimesthereweremany,doubtless,whotrustedinGodandweresaved,wholackedthecorrectnessofknowledgeofGodwhichtheOldTestamentcontained.Jehovah'smercy,which,inadvanceofadefinitelyunfoldedatonement,wasthesinner'shope,waswideanddeep.Andyetitwasnotindiscriminate.

Wewouldnotbeunderstoodassayingthat theOldTestamentrevealednothingconcerningatonement,oreventheatoningworkoftheMessiah.Whenittaughtthat"hewaswoundedforourtransgressions,andbruisedforouriniquities:thechastisementofourpeacewaslaiduponhim;andby his stripes we are healed," it made a statement which sane (210)exegesiscanneverattachtoanyoneexcepttoMessiahexcepttotheLordJesusChrist.

But this andotherMessianicpassages addedvery little to theobjectivecontentof the faithof theOldTestamentbeliever. Ithadbeenandwassufficientwithout these, for the object of his trustwas rather Jehovah.ButtheserevelationsregardingtheAtonementorotherworkofMessiahwereofuntoldvalue to theNewTestamentbeliever.Through them theearlydiscipleswere convinced thathewas indeed theChrist. They sawthatthesepredictionswerefulfilledinJesusofNazareth.

They were for the early disciples and for us, rather than for the OldTestament believer. They created some additional expectation andinquiryinhim,butalteredverylittlethecharacterorcontentofhisfaith.For to the last, the Old Testament believer put his trust in Jehovahmainly,andleftthedetailsofhissalvationwithhim.Hiswasanattitudeoftrust,ratherthanasharply-definedfaith.

Allthisshouldenableustointerpretcalmlyandcorrectlytheperiodsofspiritualdeclension in thehistoryof theOldTestamentChurch.That aspiritualsalvation, togetherwithadetailed(211)systemofworshipandsacrifice, shouldhave been in existence in the days ofMoses, andwithless complete ritual in earlier days, and then that in the periods of thejudgesandkingsthereshouldhavebeensuchapparentabsenceofthese,according to the biblical record, has been a stumbling-block to manyscholars. But such periods of declension have repeatedly occurredwhenever,whetheronaccountofadversepoliticalcrisesorothercauses,believershavegrowncarelessandhaveneglectedthemeansofgraceandthepracticalreligious lifewhichaccompanythissalvation.Itwill followto-day.Theseperiodsofspiritualdeclensiononlyexemplifythefactthathuman nature was the same then as it is now, and emphasize thenecessity, not only of a supernatural revelationon thepart ofGod, butalso of vigilant effort upon the part of believers, if true religion is toprevailupontheearth.Temporarydeclineofreligiondoesnotprovethatithasneverinthepastexisted.Thesearefactswhichwerecognize.ThefactthatDeismreignedforatimeinEnglandintheseventeenthcenturydoesnotprovethatevangelicalPuritanismhadnotbeencherishedtherethe preceding century. No one considers that the presence of (212)unbeliefinGermanyto-dayprovesthattheGermanyofLuther'sdaywasnot spiritually religious. Neither should any person think that becausecomparatively little of theMosaic worshipwas practiced in the stormydaysofthejudgesandkings,thereforeithadnotexistedintheprecedingperiod.

WiththeOldTestamentrecordsotransparentlyhonest,andthecausesofdeclension so clearly stated, it is almost inexcusable for any one tostumblehere,or to think thataperiodofapostasyproves that spiritualand orderlyworship hadnot previously existed. The declensionswhichmarkfromtimetotimethehistoryofthechildrenofIsraelareparalleledby evenmore serious declensions and apostasies among other peoples,someofwhomhavenotyetbeenreclaimed.Thosenationswhichweareaccustomed to call "heathen" peoples began with the same simple butsufficient knowledge of salvation as Abel possessed. But in theiremigrations,andwithoutplacesoffixedreligiousassociation,theydriftedinto ignorance and unbelief.When, later, they becamemore stative in

theirhabits,and feltmore theneedof some formofworshipandsomefixedbeliefas they (213) remainedamong their sorrowsorburied theirdeadintheirmidst,theybuiltupsystemsofreligionintowhichtheywoveverylittleoftheoriginaltruth.

It is anoteworthy fact that thegreat ethnic religionsgiveunmistakableevidenceofhavingsprung frommonotheisticantecedents.Brahmanismhad one all-pervading, all-controlling Spirit which they called "Bruhm"or"Brahma.""Brahmaisbeforeall.All thingsarcbyhimandall thingsareconsubstantialwithhim,"etc.AndwhenwesaythisofBrahmanismitincludes its offspring, Buddhism. Taouism of to-day again is an almostunrecognizabledescendantoftheloftyscriptural-likeconceptionsofthegreatLao-Tse.AndConfucianism,so faras it isa religionatall, lookedbackwardtoearliertimestoamonotheismfromwhichtheyhaddepartedandwhichtheyhadlost.Mohammedanismis,ofcourse,anopenexampleof a religion rising upon the remnants of an apostasy, of the truerevelationofGod.

These"heathen"systemsarebutextremeexamplesofIsrael'speriodsofdeclension. But (214) while the "heathen" peoples in most casesdegeneratedintobaseridolatryanderror,Israelwaspartiallyrestoredbythemessagesoftheprophetswhowerefromtimetotimesuper-naturallyraisedupamongthem.WhatSchultzcharacterizesas"tracesofSemiticheathenismintheOldTestament,"isareversionoftheprocess,duetoadoublemisunderstanding uponhis part, viz., his inability to appreciatethe spiritual character of the Old Testament religion itself, and hispartialityforalwaysmakingtheOldTestament,ratherthanheathenism,thedebtor.

ThesalvationpresentedintheOldTestamentwas,asthecircumstancesofitsfirstannouncementteach,forsinfortheindividual'ssinandforalltherace.But,likeNewTestamentsalvation,itwasneveracceptedbyallwhoneededit;norwasitequallyacceptedbyeachsuccessiveage;neitherdidthosewhoreceiveditsblessingseverproclaimit,inlifeorinword,astheyshouldhavedone.Butitwasasufficientsalvation,thewaybywhichmultitudes,nowrobedinwhite,(215)ascendedfromsintoglory.Letnomanmisrepresentit!Letnomandespiseit!

Andyet,itwasnotcomplete.Itwasnottobedestroyed,however,buttobecompleted.AndthisisthescripturalplaceofNewTestamentteachingin the plan of salvation. It is its greater light, its fuller revelation, itsbrightercrown.Itisonepagefarthertowardthatlargerknowledge,whenwe"shallknow,evenasweareknown."

MONERGISMBOOKS

TheOldTestamentDoctrineofSalvation,Copyright©2011

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American CopyrightConventions.Bypaymentoftherequiredfees,youhavebeengrantedthenon-exclusive,non-transferablerighttoaccessandreadthetextofthise-book on-screen. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted,downloaded,decompiled,reverseengineered,orstoredinorintroducedintoanyinformationstorageandretrievalsystem,inanyformorbyanymeans, whether electronic or mechanical, now known or hereinafterinvented,withouttheexpresswrittenpermissionofMonergismBooks.

ePub and .mobi Editions November 2011 Requests for informationshouldbeaddressedto:MonergismBooks,14875S.W.72ndAve,Tigard,OR97224