Why Did Christ Die?

The Cross

Christ's Physical Death

Why Did Christ Die?

Two Enmities

Summary

Answers To Correspondents

WHY DID CHRIST DIE?

In the second chapter of Philippians there is set forth that awful descent of Christ “into the lower parts of the earth” preparatory to his ascension “far above all heavens that he might fill all things.” He who “was in the form of God, made himself of no reputation,—[notice the descent, step by step] and took upon him the form of a servant,—and was made in the likeness of men,—and being found in fashion as a man he humbled himself,—and became obedient unto death,—even the death of the cross;” Behold, how low he stooped! Why was it?

This is a great question; to learn why God does a thing is to learn God's thoughts; this great humiliation of Christ was God's work. “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself." What was the special purpose of this part of the plan,—the death of Christ? We should first determine what the death of Ch was. It has already been shown in this paper that Christ's incarnation was his real death; that when he entered into this fallen state he entered into a condition of death, and was in that condition all the time he tabernacled in the flesh, i.e. from his birth to his resurrection. When I speak then of the “death of Christ” I do not mean his physical death on the cross but his real death while he was in this fallen state; and right at this junction I may as well notice two points that may perhaps perplex the reader, first, what is the significance of

THE CROSS

of Christ? I understand that the cross is the symbol of God's way of life, i.e. through death. The cross is made very prominent in the New Testament, both by Christ and the apostles. See for example, Matt. 10:3 8; 16:24; Mark 10:21; Lu. 14:27; also 1 Cor.1:17, 18; Gal. 6:12; Phil. 3:18; Col. 1:20; and many other passages. Now if the reader will look these passages over he will see that the cross is a symbol of something; in these scriptures, and others of the same import the word cross does not refer to the literal piece of wood upon which Christ suffered physical death; that is the letter; but this word has a spiritual meaning like most other Bible words and phrases, and no one who has any spiritual discernment at all can fail of seeing this, viz., that the term cross is used as a symbol of something else, though they might not be able to determine what that something was. I think that Christians use this word in an erroneous, unscriptural sense; they speak of the many crosses that they have to bear. The Bible never speaks of but one cross. Christ and the apostles never speak of crosses but of “the cross,” the one thing, whatever it may be. Now it is a great mystery of the Bible that God's way to life is through death. “That which thou sowest is not quickened (made alive) except it die.” This is a great truth in nature; it is equally true with God's ways in grace; (compare John 17:23-25). I have referred to this great truth and have explained it to some extent in previous issues of the paper and will refer the reader to those articals in order that he may understand the present point; see 1—6—124, and 1—8—186; also see the article on “Christian Baptism” in the preceding number, page 235. This is God's way of life;—through trial, suffering, corruption and death; and the symbol of this way is the Cross. To “bear the cross” is to follow Christ's footsteps in this way of life through death—”knowing the fellowship of his sufferings” and being “made comfortable unto his death,” “that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body.” Our various trials, afflictions, persecutions, etcs., are not so many crosses that we must bear, but all parts of one cross; that is to say, all these are part and parcel of the one only way to life, through self-crucifixion and death, to the same life that Jesus won in this same way. Surely it ought to enable us to endure our trials and afflictions with patience and composure, and even with joy, when we know that thereby we are bearing Christ's cross after him in just as real a sense as did Simon the Cyrenean, bear the literal timber upon which the Savior was crucified; if we are “partakers of his sufferings,” we shall also be partakers of the glory that shall be revealed.” We saw in the last paper that baptism was also a symbol of this experience; but baptism covers more than the death, it is a symbol of death, buriel and resurrection, while the cross is the striking and suggestive symbol of the death to which all must become conformed, if they would ever know the power of Christ's

resurrection life; it is a death that involves agony, intense and lingering pain, shame and reproach; all this characterizes literal crucifixion; it is also characteristic of that mystic crucifixion (Gal. 5:24) that every Christian is called upon to endure if he follows Jesus, and which is the price of and the only way to, that life which is “LIFE INDEED.” (1 Tim. 6:19, N. V.) I cannot further dwell upon this point now although much more might be said, for it is one of “the deep things of God,” but it was needful that I should refer to it in order that we might understand what was meant by the expression “the death of the cross;” this does not refer to literal crucifixion on a wooden cross as the letter indicates, but to the mystic death referred to above, and which is God’s way to life; the foregoing considerations with the scriptures referred to clearly indicate this; see especially Gal. 6:12-17; surely Paul is not referring to literal crucifixion in this passage. See also Heb. 12:2; Jesus “endured the cross;” does not this declaration have a deeper significance than simply a reference to the time when Jesus bore the Roman cross of wood upon which he was crucified? (John 19:17). If the reader would still further see this life through death set forth let him examine the following passages; 1 Cor. 4:6-16; 15:29-34; 2 Cor. 4:6-12; 6:1-10. Look these passages out, also the articals in preceding issues of the paper that I have referred to, and I think the reader will readily understand the symbolical import of “the death of the cross.”

The other point I wish to speak of before proceeding with the main subject is the real significance of

CHRIST'S PHYSICAL DEATH

Jesus did die physically on a literal wooden cross; and we have said this was not the real death of Christ; nor was the instrument of his death the real cross. What was the significance then of this physical death, and this literal cross? I have already noticed the symbolical character of the literal cross; let us see if we can determine the significance of his physical death.

In Heb. 13:10-13 we have clearly set forth the significance of Christ's physical death, viz., it was the fulfilment of the type of the disposal of the carcass of the sin offering see Ex. 29:14; Lev. 4:11, 12; 16:27; etc. There can be no doubt about this, for the apostle makes the application himself; we should not feel warranted in applying the type thus, but since the apostle so applies it we accept it unhesitatingly as conclusive. All the law is typical, every jot and tittle of it; and it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for any part of it to fail of fulfilment. The physical death of Christ “without the gate” was the fulfilment of that part of the law that required that the body of the sin offering, after its life had been laid down, should be burned “without the camp;” so Jesus laid down his life and entered into death—this fallen state— and became the sin offering—was “made sin for us”—and “bore our sins” for three and thirty years, when he suffered physical death upon the cross “without the gate,” thus fulfilling the last sad and humiliating feature of “the law of the sin offering,” which required that the dead carcass should be burned “without the camp.” This is a positive scriptural explanation of the significance of Christ's physical death, and plainly shows us its place in the great antitypical atonement. He who is looking to the physical death of Christ on the literal cross as the means whereby he is reconciled to God (Rom. 5:10), is committing the same mistake as would the Israelite who should look to the burning of the dead and rejected carcass of the sacrifice “without the camp” as the atonement work, losing sight, and making no account of the real sacrifice and the real atonement.

The particular manner of Christ's physical death, viz., by crucifixion, is significant in that it sets forth, as we have noticed above, the suffering, shame and reproach that invariably befalls those who “know the fellowship of Christ's sufferings,” and are “made conformable unto his death,”—his real death. The literal cross, as we have already seen, is a symbol of God's way of life,—through weakness to strength (2 Cor. 12:10), through trial to the crown (Jas. 1:12), through suffering to perfection (1 Pet. 5:10), through death to life. Christ refers to this significance of the cross when he says, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me;” and the apostle adds, “This he said, signifying what death he should die.” There is no real connection between the drawing of all men to Christ and his literal crucifixion; in other words the particular form of his physical death is not the cause of the drawing of all men unto him, as would seem to be indicated by the letter of these words, there is a spirit here that we must discern in order to understand the true meaning. What is the cause of all men being drawn to Christ? The death of Christ, I answer; his real death, i.e. his incarnation. That the world is reconciled to God by the death of Christ is a positive scriptural statement. See 2 Cor. V. 19 with Rom. 5:10. “We are reconciled to God by the death of his Son,” is the same as saying that we are drawn to God (or to Jesus, which is the same thing) by the cross of his Son; and this latter is exactly the way the apostle does express this same truth in Eph. 2:16; “That he might reconcile both [Jew and Gentile, i.e. the whole world] unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby.” Thus we understand the significance of “the cross of Christ,” in which alone the disciple of Jesus is to glory; and thus also we come to the first answer to the question which forms the subject of this article, viz.

WHY DID CHRIST DIE?

To reconcile the world unto God, is the answer we have now arrived at; we must study this answer a little further.

First we should notice that in this purpose of the death of Christ, the. Bible speaks of things that are not as though they were (Rom. 5:17; 1-1-17). “When we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son.” The apostle speaks as though it were a thing already done, although such is not the actual fact. The world reconciled to God is not as yet a realized experience, though we may speak of it as done because it is certain that all will be reconciled ultimately; (see Col. 1:19, 20) this is God's purpose, and, as we have before noticed (1-2-40) what God purposes to do is as good as done, and may be so spoken of. That this is the correct view of the passage is indicated by the wording of the passage itself “When we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the full of his Son;” not as a universally realized experience, but the full provision for our reconciliation was made and the work is reckoned done on the ground of God's finished work; each individual of the race is not yet reconciled to God; but each one may be, so far as God's part of the work is concerned and each one will be just as fast, and just in proportion as he becomes acquainted with God. This view is still further confirmed by 2 Cor. 5:19, 20,. "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself;” that work of God was accomplished, finished; and yet the apostle continues, "Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us, we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God;" although the world is already reconciled to God so far as God's work is concerned, yet individually the mass of mankind is still unreconciled, and must become so by personally receiving the testimony of this great work of reconciliation in God's “due time" (1Tim. 2:6). We should also bear in mind in considering this answer, the real death of Christ. “Reconciled to God by the death of his Son." If we think merely of Christ's physical death on the Roman cross we shall fail to see the full significance of this declaration. We were not reconciled to God by Christ's physical death. Any one who maintained such a view would have to hold also that the atonement (or reconciliation) under the law was made by burning the dead carcass of the sin offering “without the camp;” we have seen that this was really the significance of the physical death of Christ, and it certainly is not the ground of our reconciliation to God. Let it be noticed also in this connection that this is really another proof of that view of the real death of Christ that has been advanced in this paper. “We are reconciled to God by the death of his Son.” Are we reconciled to God by Christ's physical death? No, surely not. Then the death of Christ, i.e. the real, atoning death, was not his death on the literal cross, but the death he entered into when he “was made flesh,” as we have explained.

Now with this correct idea of death I think each one will see at once how the death of Christ reconciles us to God. The whole purpose and work of Christ's incarnation (1-3-50) is included in the death of Christ. In this work as our Forerunner, Christ certainly laid the groundwork of the sinner s reconciliation to God; thereby man is reconciled, i.e., “changed from enmity to friendship” (1-10-217) in his relationship to God. There are

TWO ENMITIES

spoken of in the New Testament which Christ removes; the Law (Eph. 2:15), and the Carnal Mind (Rom. 8:7). That the law is an enmity between man and God, a stumbling block in the way of man's salvation, bringing death and not life, and that Christ delivers us from this hopeless condition, under the guilt (Rom. 3:19) and penalty (death) of the law—”having slain the enmity” (Eph. 2:16) “blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross” (Col. 2:14), i.e. permanently fixing it by his death (cross) in a place where it can no longer harm the sinner,— because by his death he opens up the way of faith which is above and beyond the reach of law,—that all this is true, I say, is plainly scriptural, as is fully explained in 1-8-179. That the carnal mind is an enmity, no one can deny, and that Christ removes it, is also a positive scriptural position, since He, by partaking of our fallen nature (“made sin for us”), has opened up the way whereby we may become partakers of his “divine nature;” thus we become possessed of the “mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:16; Phil. 2:5) and are “no longer in the flesh but in the spirit, if so be the spirit of Christ dwell in us (Rom. viii. 9). Thus the death of Christ reconciles us to God by the removal of the two enmities.

But furthermore, Christ's death reconciles us to God by revealing Him to us,—by making God known to us. Mankind is now unreconciled to God because they do not know him. “God is not in all their thoughts” (Psa. 10:4). The great mass of the world are in the condition that Paul describes when he says, “Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God by the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their hearts" (Eph. 4:8). This is the present condition of the race—dark, ignorant, blind. Now when this darkness is dissipated, when this ignorance is enlightened, when “the eyes of the blind are opened," so that the world becomes acquainted with God, then forthwith they will become reconciled to him, they will begin to love him (see 1-6-131). “Acquaint now thyself with God and be at peace (Job 22:21); when we become acquainted with God we have peace—peace with God,” reconciliation. Now Jesus Christ is the one perfect revelation and image of God. In his incarnation he comes to man as “Emmanuel, God with us” (Matt. 1:23); through him, God was manifest in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16), and thus Christ reveals God to us; knowing the Son we know the Father also (John 8:19 and 1-5-100), and thus are we reconciled to God, i.e. changed from enemies to friends (1-10-217, and compare John 15:15.) This view is confirmed by 1 John 3:16 and 4:. 7-11; through the sacrifice and death of Christ, God's love is “manifest,” and we are enabled thereby to “perceive” it and so we come to “love him, because he first loved us” (1 John 4:19), and thus are reconciled to him.

The passage under consideration (Rom. 5:10) declares that we are reconciled by his death and saved by his life. We have seen how we are reconciled by his death, I will add a word as to how we are saved by his life. Salvation is the completion or outcome of the work of reconciliation; we are not yet saved, only by faith (Eph.2: 8) and hope (Rom. 8:24), nor shall we be until "delivered from the bondage of corruption.” Now then when we are thus saved we shall in the full and perfect sense partake of the "divine nature” or life—we shall be one with the Father and the Son even as they are one (1-5-99); then in the full sense (not by faith but in fact) we shall “eat the flesh and drink the blood” (i.e. partake of the nature and receive the life) of the Son of man (John 6:53).

Now we live by faith (Gal 2:20) as we are saved by faith; then we shall live in fact and be saved in reality, for salvation is life, the “new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17, N.V.) in its ultimate completion, and we know that we are “made alive in Christ” (1 Cor. 15:22). Thus are we “saved by his life.” For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. We will proceed now to notice other Scripture that speaks of the purpose of the death of Christ.

There are several passages that confirm the view already presented of the reason for the death of Christ. Christ himself gives a reason for his death when he says, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone; but if it die it bringeth forth much fruit (Job 12:24); then a little further on he says, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth (i.e. from this earthly, fallen condition) will draw all men unto me;” and the evangelist adds, “This he said signifying what death he should die.” I have already noticed in this article the spiritual import of this latter verse, and the whole is simply a declaration of the same truth in another form, as that set forth in 2 Cor. 5:19 and Rom. 5:10, viz., that the death of Christ (his incarnation) is the ground of the reconciliation of the world (“much fruit,” “all men”) unto God. Jesus is the “first born among many brethren” Rom. 8:29). This same reason for the death of Christ is also especially set forth in Heb. 2:9-15. Jesus Christ “tasted death for every man” in order to “bring many sons unto glory.” “Forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil, and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” Here again is the idea of Christ dying to destroy the enmity, the devil and his works (1 John 3:8) and to deliver man from bondage to fear; for when we come to know God we are reconciled to him, as we have seen, and we begin to love him, and fear is cast out (1 John 4:18).

We will look at one more passage, in Rom. 14:9. We have here a specific, direct answer to the question, why did Christ die? “To this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and living.” Christ is the Lord, head or chief of the race (compare the use of the word “Lord” in Matt. 22: 43-45). He is head over all things (Eph. 1:22); “He is the beginning, the first born from the dead that in all things he might have the preeminence” (Col. 1:18); he is “the beginning of the creation of God” (Rev. 3:14), i.e. the finished creation, the “new creation.” Now in order thus to be Lord, first or chief of the dead, as well as the living, it was necessary of course that he should become one of the dead i.e. he must become one of the dead, fallen race—he must die. We have seen how Christ entered into this fallen condition (l-3-50 &c.) and how while he was in this condition he was chief or head of all mankind; he was the first to pass through the entire process of God's way to life through death (1-2-33), hence he is “Lord of the dead." We know also that he was the first to enter into life, the life of the “perfect man;" he was the “first born from the dead,” “the first fruit,” “the first that should arise from the dead,” and thus he became “Lord of the living,” the “Beginning” of a regenerated race, so that now he can say (Rev. 1:18, New Version), “I am the first and the last and THE LIVING ONE; and I became [margin] dead, and behold I am alive unto the ages of the ages [margin], and I have the keys of death and of Hades.” Thus Christ died that he might become Lord, Firstfruit and Beginning of both the dead and the living, and “if the first fruit be holy, the lump is also holy; if the root be holy so are the branches.

There are other scriptures bearing upon the question, but I have noticed, I think, the most important. There is a reason for the death of Christ given in Heb. 9:15, viz, that he dies in order to ratify the new covenant, etc.; this amounts to the same thing as the answers we have already considered, only the conclusion is arrived at through the types and shadows of the Old Testament; we cannot now follow out this line of thought; the subject of the Covenants is very interesting; and will be considered at length in an article in some future issue. We will simply add now a brief

SUMMARY

of what we have learned in the present article and then notice a single concluding thought.

If I err not, we have learned the true significance of the Cross of Christ and of his Physical Death. We have seen that his real atoning death was his incarnation, so that the question, Why did Christ Die? really amounts to, Why “The Word was made flesh?" The scriptural answers to this question we have found to be, 1st: To Reconcile the World unto God; and this includes, 2d: The removal of the Two Enmities, “the Law of Commandments” and the Carnal Mind; 3d: Making known God to man, through Jesus Christ, "the express image of the invisible God.” 4th: The bringing forth of the“Much fruit,” the “Many Brethren,” the “Many Sons,” the “Whole Creation.” 5th: The destruction of the works of the devil. 6th: The Deliverance of “the Children” from the bondage of fear. 7th: To become Lord of both the dead and the living. 8th: To Ratify the New Covenant.

Now a single thought in closing;—in all these answers to the question, Why did Christ die? there is not a particle of substitution not the least hint at a so-called “Vicarious” atonement. I know of course how some try to make out substitution from some of these texts we have examined. But this is done either by ignorance or thoughtlessness or prejudice; no deliberate impartial examiner of these scriptures can find any substitution in them at all; and yet men insist on this God-dishonoring dogma as though it was one of the main pillars of the eternal throne. Perhaps some will think of the passages, “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree,” and He “suffered for sins the just for the unjust,” etc.; these passages seem to some to teach substitution, but this is only because they have been accustomed to so regard them; for instance, here is a paragraph from the writings of one who believes in substitution.

“Christ was our substitute in death; he died the just FOR the unjust. He tasted death FOR every man. This dying for the guilty was substitution.”

In this paragraph the brother emphasizes the for as though of itself it taught substitution. But does it? Is it not possible for one person to do something for another except as the others substitute? 0 how blind and careless these self-constituted leaders are! The physician prescribes a remedy for his patient, but not instead of him. Christ “died for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3.), but not instead of them. He died “the just for the unjust,” but it does not necessarily follow from this statement, as many think, that he died instead of the unjust. “He bore our sins,” but in what capacity? as an associate, or as a substitute? so far as the simple statement is concerned it might be either, but from other scripture, as we have seen, we know that Christ was not our substitute, but our companion and Elder Brother, the Sharer of our woes (1-9-199). I say we know this from scripture, we also know it from fact. Let the reader carefully consider this question—In what death was Christ our substitute? We have seen that there are several kinds of death, physical death, spiritual death (1-3-54) and the second death; now a substitute is one ‘who does something for another which the other does not do; for example, in the time of war if a man was drafted he sometimes hired some other man to go to war in his stead and this man was called a substitute; the substitute went to war while the drafted man did not go. Now then, if Christ died as our Substitute he must have died some death that we do not die. What death was it? Man is already dead spiritually (1-9-201). he must die physically, and of course Christ did not die the second death. Even if there were “a death that never dies,” as the churches say, Christ died no such death as our substitute or otherwise. In what death then was Christ our substitute? “He tasted death for every man,” but it could not have been as a substitute for every man, for the simple reason that man must himself die; we can very readily see how Christ died for man as his associate, “made in all points like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest,” we can readily see how he was the first to pass through the whole process of God's way of life through death, as our Forerunner, and the Captain of our salvation in order to deliver man, not from a death to which they were exposed, but out of a death in which they were already involved.

But it would be impossible to explain, either on a scriptural basis or on the ground of fact and reason, how Christ died as man's substitute; and especially those who believe that the atoning death of Christ was his physical death on the literal cross would find it exceedingly difficult to prove that that death was substitutional, for surely man himself must die physically.” “Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return,” is a penalty that every man must himself bear, with the exception that Paul refers to in 1 Cor. 15:51. The idea then of the substitutional or vicarious character of the atonement is simply and purely a human “tradition,” “making the Word of God of none effect.” (Mark 7:13).

As this subject is very important, I will add another illustration of the shallow, careless way in which men reason in order to prop up this falsehood of substitution In order to defend this doctrine from the charge of injustice—the injustice of the innocent suffering, instead of the guilty—it is alleged that this is no more unjust than the vicarious suffering that is allowed in the world all the time; “Do not the innocent suffer for the guilty here in this life,” it is asked, “Is there not vicarious suffering all around us, the mother suffers for the child, the child suffers for the parent, the wife suffers for the husband, the community suffers for the criminal, etc. Surely if God permits this continual vicarious suffering in the world, should we find fault, and brand it as unjust, because Christ suffers vicariously?” Now is it not a marvel that intelligent, thoughtful men, ministers, editors of religious periodicals, evangelists, etc.,—that such men as these should reason in this way and not perceive its utter fallacy? It is true that there is a great deal of suffering in this world on the part of the innocent for the guilty, this of course is a certain and a sad fact; but is this suffering vicarious? This last words means “to do or suffer in the place of another.” Do the innocent suffer in the place of the guilty in this world? i.e. instead of the guilty, so that the guilty escape the punishment that the innocent suffer in their stead? Will the drunken husband have less punishment because his wife has suffered a part of his punishment in his place? This would be the case if the wife suffered for him vicariously, i.e. as his substitute; but of course no one has any such idea. The fact is there is no vicarious suffering in the world, not a particle; the innocent suffer for the guilty, i.e. on their account, but they do not suffer in their place, or instead of them. No one suffers a single pang that another ought to suffer in that other one's stead; and no one will escape a single pang because someone else has suffered it in his place. “Every man shall bear his own burden,” (Gal. 6:5); “Every man shall receive according to his deeds,” (Rom. 2:6); “Every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward,” (Heb. 2:2).

Thus on every hand, however we may look at it from the standpoint of reason, fact or Scripture, it is seen that the doctrine of substitution is false; let it go with that other lie of endless torments, seeing that it is equally dishonoring to God. We can readily find from Scripture the real reasons for the death of Christ, reasons that commend themselves to an enlightened judgment and that magnify the wisdom and love of God. And now I will add another scriptural answer to the question, why did Christ die? which has just occurred to me since I sent the first part of this article to my printer; “Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him [in bringing many sons unto glory] endured the cross [death], despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God,” (Heb. 12:2). Let the reader ponder this reason for himself, comparing it with Heb. 11:24-27, also with 1-10-222.

In the next paper we will consider the Atonement as set forth in the Law.

BIBLE CORRECTIONS NO. 2.

Some passages of Scripture are habitually misquoted. For instance, Hab. 2:2, last clause, is almost always quoted, “he that runs may read;” and the application is that God's way of life is so plain and easy that a very slight attention, a passing glance, is sufficient to make it known to us. Now the passage is misquoted and utterly misapplied; it reads, “The Lord answered and said, write the vision and make it plain on tables, that he may run that readeth it;” not, he that runs may read, but he that reads may run. It is not easy to find and to walk in God's way of life now; “Strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” But if God has opened our eyes to see the way—if he has made the “vision” plain to us in any part or degree, so that we can “read” it, the knowledge thus obtained does cause us to “run with patience the race set before us” that we may obtain “the prize of the high. calling of God in Christ Jesus.” The “vision” referred to here is in connection with the coming of the Lord as is clearly manifest by comparing Hab. 2:14 with Heb. 10:35-38.

To strengthen the false application of the preceding text, Isa. 35:8, is sometimes quoted, where we read that God's way of life is “an highway” so plain that “the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein.” In this application a very important principle of Bible interpretation is violated; Paul expresses it when he says to Timothy, “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). This rule is of very great importance, though many entirely ignore it. Most Christians consider the Bible as all true now; they have no idea of different ages and dispensations each of which have their own special truths that will apply to no other period. All scripture is jumbled together, regardless of God's “times and seasons,” and thus much of the force, and the true sense of Scripture is lost, and ofttimes persons are led thereby into grave and serious error. Now take the passage under consideration (Isa. 35:8), where does it belong? to the present time? to some time in the past? or to the future? Read the context in connection with the preceding chapter, and every one will see (unless he has a very vivid and inventive imagination) that the language cannot apply to the present time or to any time in the past, and that it must apply to some future period; and the last verse clearly indicates that that future time is when Christ's kingdom is established on the earth. “Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened... then shall the lame man leap as an hart” (verses 5 & 6), and then an highway shall be there,” &c. In the same way Rev. 22:17 is often misquoted and misapplied, “Whosoever will let him come,” as though the passage applied to the present time and condition; now in the first place there is no such passage in the Bible; it reads “Whosoever will let him take the water of life freely;” in the second place the context plainly shows that the passage belongs in “the New heavens and earth” (compare 11:1, 6; 22:1), now “No man can come except the Father draw him” (John 6: 44).

That class of Christians who are specially interested in the subject of holiness are very apt to violate this rule in their Bible references; they are so eager to find scriptures to make out their favorite doctrine that they search the Bible through with great diligence and any passage that has in it the expression, holiness, sanctification, perfection, or any other kindred word, is seized upon as a proof text, without the slightest regard to any indication in the context as to the proper time, place and persons of its application; for instance Ezek. 36:25, etc. is often quoted in this way; “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you and ye shall be clean; from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you; a new heart also will I give you,” etc. This is a very favorite text of this class of Christians, and I have often heard it quoted to prove that the Christian should be clean, and holy, and perfect in this life. But it is grossly misapplied whenever it is thus quoted, and so plain is the true application from the context, that any one who misapplies it is thereby shown to be totally unable to “rightly divide the Word of truth.” The place where, the time when and the persons to whom this passage applies is clearly stated in the chapter. When God's Israel are brought again to their own land, then [and there] will he sprinkle clean water upon them,” etc., it is handling the word of God deceitfully” (though it may be unintentional) to thus wrench a passage out of its plain connection and to apply it anywhere, to any time, and to any person or persons according to the necessities of our creed or theory. Rather let us “Study to show ourselves approved unto God [whether we are approved of men or not], workmen that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of truth.”

As a further illustration of this principle we will examine 1 Cor. 15:24-26. Most Christians reading this passage would think that “the end” referred to, is to be synchronous with the “coming" of Christ; Jesus comes, and the end of all things earth immediately follows, is the way this passage is commonly understood; and in accordance with this interpretation the passage is used to prove that there is no redemption, or mercy, or work of grace, or millenial reign after Christ comes; but his coming is simply to end all temporal things and to introduce an unchangeable eternity. But here again the Word is not rightly divided. “Then cometh the end;” when? What is the time referred to by the adverb “then”? The correlative of then is when, and the apostle goes right on to tell “when” the end comes; not at the coming of Christ, but “when he shall have put down all rule and all authority;” transpose the clauses, and read verses 25 and 26 parenthetically and the sense is plainly apparent; “Christ the first fruit afterward they that are Christ's at his coming; and when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God even the Father, when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power (for he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet, the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death), then cometh the end;” that is to say, the end cometh—the end of the great redemptive work—when, or after, Christ has reigned and “subdued all things unto himself” (Phil. 3:21), and death, the last enemy, is destroyed. The word rightly divided is harmonious throughout, but if this principle is disregarded, confusion and error must ensue.

Now we will notice another scripture that is very frequently misquoted. Hos. 4:9 is usually quoted, “like priest, like people," when the reading is just the other way about “like people, like priest;” and we have a similar statement in Isa. 24:2, “as with the people so with the priest.” Those who misquote it as above, do so to prove that the people will be like their priests, their religious teachers; this may be true but this is not the point that the prophet is aiming at, but rather the reverse of this, viz, that the priests, the religious teachers will be like the people, “like people, like priest," and this is a truth that is confirmed by other scriptures both in the Old and New Testament, and is plainly apparent in the days in which we live; see Isa. 30:8-11; 2 Tim. 4:2-4. In this respect as in commercial affairs, “supply and demand are equal.” The people demand “smart” preachers who will “speak unto them smooth things,” and here you have them in great abundance in the nominal Christian ministry of to-day to supply this demand; if only a rich “hire” (Mic. 3:11) and a good “pasture” (Jer. 23:1) be provided, the “clergy” will accommodate themselves in the unimportant matter of morals and religion to the fancy of the people. Truly, “like people, like priest.

ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS.

A sister asks, “What do you think about Satan? I have long disbelieved in his personality, but I judge you deem him a fallen spirit; please explain.”

I think the Bible clearly teaches that Satan is a personality; and I have no difficulty in accepting this view, seeing, as I believe I do, the true purpose of evil. Satan is one of God's servants to do his will like the unfallen angels, as I have shown in 1-8-169. If I accepted the orthodox view—if for instance I believed as the brother does whom I answered in the preceding paper (page 224, &c.) , then I should endeavor by all means, if possible, to destroy the personality of the devil; for if he is a person, according to that view, he would be a powerful rival of Jehovah, and in some respects equal and even superior to Him; but with the true idea of God's plan, the purpose of evil etc., I can accept the personality of the devil as readily as the personality of God or the angels. By the way, I have never seen an argument against the personality of Satan, that would not, if logically carried out, destroy the personality of God, of angels, and of all spirit existences. If the word devil is simply a modification of the word evil, and only an imaginary personality, then is not the word God a modification of the word good, representing no personal existence whatever? If some one will send me an argument that Satan is not a person, that does not destroy also the personality of other spirit beings I shall be glad to consider it.

In this connection I will notice another criticism from a brother in reference to the pre-existence of Christ; in opposition to that truth, and in criticism of 1-3-49, he makes this remark, “The Preexistence of Christ! something pre-existed, but not a personality.” The. brother must have read my article very carelessly if he thinks that I hold that Christ had an impersonal pre-existence; to my mind such an idea is the same as saying that he had no pre-existence at all. I believe the Bible most positively teaches that Christ had a personal pre-existence; but it tells us very little about that pre-existent state, hence we must leave the details of that condition among “the secret things that belong unto the Lord our God” (Deut. 29: 29).

A brother takes exceptions to the statement made in the paper that all scripture has a spiritual meaning; he says,—”I utterly deny that all scripture has a hidden meaning;” and then he goes on to say that the Old Testament prophecies have a hidden meaning, but the gospels are a revelation of that hidden meaning and should be taken in their most obvious sense; “this is a general rule,” he says; and he continues, “we have no right to suppose another hidden meaning in the prophetic writings beneath the meaning brought out by the preaching and writings of the apostles.”

I have already referred to this brother's objection and partially answered it in 1-9-211, q.v. I refer to it again, in order to bring out one or two other points in connection with it. This principle of the spiritual import of Scripture is by far the most important of all the rules of Bible interpretation; and as the elucidation of this principle is the specific object of the paper, I shall take occasion to introduce the subject very frequently.

To the last statement quoted above I would fully agree; when the New Testament explains Old Testament scripture it is final; and yet the explanation cannot be understood without spiritual discernment. It is not true, however, as this brother declares in substance, that though the Old Testament has a hidden meaning the New Testament has not, but must be taken in its most obvious and surface sense as “a general rule.” In regard to Christ's teachings he himself expressly tells us, “It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.” And we know that he spoke in parables and figures in order that the majority of the people might not understand the deepest truths, “the mysteries of the kingdom.” In the apostles' writings we find the same principle plainly apparent and expressly declared, as in the case of the Lord Jesus. Read 1 Cor. 2. In this chapter the apostle declares that his teaching and preaching had a spiritual or “hidden” meaning. He says, "We speak wisdom among them that are perfect, yet not the wisdom of this world; but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom.” He goes on to tell us that the “things which God hath prepared for them that love him” are revealed to us “by the spirit,” which searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God; which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the holy spirit teacheth, interpreting spiritual things to spiritual men [N. V., margin]; but the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual, discerneth (understands) all things [compare 1 John 2:20, 27], but he himself is discerned (understood) of no man; for who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.” If this passage does not teach that there is a spirit to the apostle's words, as there was to Christ's, that there is a “hidden” meaning, the—"the wisdom of God in a mystery”—in his writings, then I know not how that idea could be expressed in human language. Why is it that the apostle's words, spoken according to “the wisdom which the holy spirit teacheth,” could not be understood by the “natural man”? (1-1-4) the apostle himself answers the question; “Because they are spiritually discerned.” There is a “hidden wisdom” to these words that only the “spiritually minded” can comprehend. Furthermore, Peter, referring to Paul's writings on the subject of Christ's second coming, says, “Even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him [the hidden wisdom] hath written unto you; as also in his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” If we look over Paul's writings and notice what he has given us on the subjects to which Peter refers we shall not find anything very “hard to be understood” if we take only the letter; any one could understand the words and the literal sense without any trouble at all. But there is a “mystery” to Paul's writings, a “hidden wisdom,” and it is this that the “unlearned” cannot comprehend the “unlearned” are those “that have need of milk and not of strong meat, being unskilful in the world's righteousness, for they are babes” (Heb. 5:11-14). “Whom shall the Lord teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk and drawn from the breasts.” (Isa. 28:9; read the whole chapter). Milk is good for babes, “But strong meat [the Spirit of the Word] belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Now a word further as to what is meant by the spirit of the word. The spirit of the word is the intended meaning in contradistinction the apparent meaning or meanings. We use the same expression in regard to a law; we speak of the letter of the law and the spirit of it, and sometimes it is said that a certain person has broken letter of the law but not the spirit, or vice versa. Now I will give an illustration; I remember reading once that many years ago a collossal statue or column was to be erected; it had been wrought out of solid stone, at immense expense and prodigious labor, and now it was finished and was to be erected upon its pedestal; it was a great undertaking; extraordinary preparations were made for its successful accomplishment; a lofty and ponderous derrick was set up with blocks and falls and every precaution taken to insure success; the architect was very anxious about the result, as his reputation was at stake, and as a final precaution a law was made that no one of the vast multitude who had assembled to witness the operation should utter a single word or sound on pain of a very severe penalty. All things were ready at last and the important work began in the midst of the almost breathless silence of the assembled throng; everything proceeded well and the enormous mass rose steadily inch by inch until it was nearly erect, when, to the dismay of workmen and spectators, the hoisting blocks came together and the statue could not be raised another inch. The rope used was new, and not enough allowance had been made for its stretching, and there the enormous mass hung in momentary danger of falling, as it seemed. What was to be done? a murmur of horror arose from the multitude which was sternly suppressed by the officers in charge; the architect was almost in despair, while the workmen looked on in blank dismay, when suddenly a voice rang out on the startled multitude, “Water!” a sailor in the audience had been an intensely interested spectator up to the time of the unexpected interruption; he it was who made the cry; the hint was at once taken; water was brought and thrown upon the ropes and their shrinkage under this treatment was sufficient to bring the statue to an erect position; and now what was to be done to the sailor who had uttered the one word that had probably averted a terrible disaster, but in so doing had broken the law and was liable to the severe penalty? The authorities decided that although the man had broken the letter of the law yet he had not transgressed its spirit, i.e. its real intention; the law had been made in order to facilitate the accomplishment of the important work, and to guard against any possible distraction, delay or confusion that might be occasioned by outcries from the spectators; this real intention and purpose of the law the sailor had advanced more than any other person, hence, although he had broken the law in its letter he had contributed more to the carrying out of its spirit than all the rest; the penalty, therefore, was remitted, and instead thereof the man was magnificently rewarded. In this historical incident we have an illustration of the letter and the spirit as applied to human laws and regulations; the letter is the outward form, the spirit is the in-ward substance, the real purpose and intention expressed under that form; the form is of minor importance, and may be changed or modified to any extent, provided the real purpose is carried out. One more illustration in order to make this point very plain to everyone. A general was sent off with a division of an army to occupy a certain position; in his route was a river, over which was a bridge, and his written instructions were that he should cross this bridge; but when they arrived at the river the engineers pronounced the bridge unsafe for the passage of the army with their heavy wagon train of ponderous artillery; not far from the bridge, however, a place was discovered where the river was readily fordable, and where the surroundings were such as to make it perfectly feasible to take the whole army across; the general accordingly took the responsibility of disobeying the letter of his instructions, took his army across the ford and proceeded on his way. Afterward he was called to account for this infraction of discipline, but was entirely exonerated on the ground that he had perfectly obeyed the spirit of the command of his superior; the real intention of the order was to get the army across the river; this intention the general in command carried out perfectly and wisely though he transgressed the letter of the command.

Here then we have letter and spirit illustrated. Now apply this to God's law, God's book of instructions, and we shall find that the letter and the spirit is the same in their nature and their relation as in human law. The letter is the outward form of the word, its dress, its surface meaning, its “most obvious sense, ; its apparent significance. The spirit is the substance, its real meaning, purpose and intention, and this of course is the most important; the letter is important because it is through the form that we arrive at the substance, but it is important on no other account; the letter is a means to an end; if we stop at the means and never arrive at the end, of course we fail to derive the benefit intended through the letter, and thus “that which is good, [if properly used] is made death unto us” because of our misuse; “the letter kills.”

Now if in reference to any portion of God's Word we can learn what God's intention was when he spake thus by the holy spirit, then we have the spirit of that word and may proceed to carry it out accordingly. There may be a half dozen or more possible ways of understanding a passage; each one may be able to harmonize it with their particular creed, no matter how contradictory the creeds may be, But the real lover of the truth will not seek to harmonize the passage with a creed, or to prop up thereby some preconceived notion, but his sole inquiry will be, “What is the mind of God in this passage?” If he can only learn that, he disregards all other possible explanations and acts entirely on the spirit of the word. If a monarch should make a law, and those whose duty it was to carry it out should find that the wording of the law was obscure or capable of several meanings, they would refer to the king in order that he might explain his real intention; and when that explanation was received the officers would proceed to carry it out without troubling themselves further about any other construction that might be put upon the verbal expression of the law; they know what the king's real intention was when he made the law; this is the real purpose or spirit of it, and no matter though the wording might be so ambiguous as to be capable of a dozen other meanings, they have nothing to do with anything but the spirit of the law. So with the word of God; the spirit of that word is the all important thing, that is to say, we need to learn God's thoughts, his mind, his intentions and purposes, “the end of the Lord” (Jas. 5:11)

Now another thought. The letter of the word sometimes expresses the spirit as near as it can be expressed in human language; and sometimes the spirit of the word is something altogether different from the letter. I have already referred to this point in 1-9-211, and I refer to it again now simply because I wish to call attention to an important difference between God's word and man's laws and regulations. Men usually try to make their laws plain and clear so that there may not be any possibility of a misunderstanding; they do not always succeed in this endeavor but this is what they strive for. On the other hand God's word is purposely obscure and ambiguous. The truth is given in parables and dark sayings hidden away under figures, allegories and types, in order that it may not be understood except by the chosen few to whom “it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom.” That this is so is the plain teaching of the word, as has been noticed again and again in this paper. That it should be so seems strange and unaccoutable to many Christians: but that is because they do not understand “God's plan of creation,” nor the purpose of probation. God's plan of creation is to bring mankind to his own image and likeness through various ages, “the times of restitution,” and in different “orders” (1 Cor. 15:23). By means of Christ and the saints, “the promised seed,” which is the first order or “first fruit,” other orders of the race will be saved in “the ages to come.” During this age this first order is being perfected; hence to them it is given to understand the mysteries; others do not have this light, not because God is unjust and impartial, but because, so to speak, their turn has not yet come. “God will have all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth;” “but every man in his own order;” others will have the light in due time. The purpose of probation is not to give man an opportunity to escape hell, as very many Christians seem to believe; but it is for training, discipline, education; hence things are so arranged that those who are undergoing their trial shall get this training and education. It is not so important in this time of probation that we should get a certain amount of truth, as it is that we should be trained, disciplined and developed in spiritual things, until we come in the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God to the perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ;” and one of the means that God uses for this training and development is the spiritual character of the word (see 1-9-214); the effort we must make in order to “find” the truth (Prov. 2:1-9) covered up and hid away as it is, and with all the adverse influences of error around us, is the one great means that God uses for our spiritual development.

I will illustrate. A farmer has one hundred and fifty sheep; neighbor Jones has fifty sheep; the farmer's little boy knows how many sheep his father has but he does not know how many Mr. Jones has, so he asks his father—”How many sheep has Mr. Jones?” The father replies, “If neighbor Jones had half as many more sheep as he has, he would then have half as many sheep as I have.” The boy is puzzled; he does not like the answer; he would rather his father would tell him in plain language; but the father says, “Figure it out, figure it out,” and leaves him. The boy does figure it out, after much thought and study, and, with the air of a conqueror shows the correct result to his father, who is proud of his boy and says, “Well done.” Now the benefit that boy has received from the studying out of the problem is far greater than any he could derive from simply knowing how many sheep neighbor Jones has. Had the father told the boy directly he would simply have had the information he asked for. But the father told him in such a way that in addition to that information the boy gets something that is far more valuable, viz., a certain amount of mental training and development. So in God's economy. The truth is hidden away, and the obstacles in the way of its possession are numerous and great, so that the spiritual training we obtain in overcoming these obstacles, and in searching for this hid treasure,” is very potent to advance us on in the divine way; and this spiritual training is after all the main purpose our probation, It is not the amount of truth we have that will save us, but it is “the love of the truth” (see 2 Thess. 2:10); and it is this love of the truth that will incite us to search for it, and in the search we receive that spiritual development that shall fit us for “an abundant entrance into the aeonial kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” Thus "all things are for your sakes” (2Cor. 4:15); the trials and afflictions, the reproaches and shame, the pain and the suffering, the obstacles and difficulties, the straitness of the gate, and the narrowness of the way—these are the very things that God uses to bring you at last to the condition of the Perfect Man. “All things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come,—all are yours; and ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.”