Correspondence

To The Editor of The Bible Treasury
SIR,—You “appeal” to me whether my course, in using quotations from Mr. Darby in a letter to the Christian World, has been consistent with “uprightness.” I presume that in making this “appeal” to me directly, you are willing to print an answer, and that answer is as follows. In noticing my letter to the Christian World you have omitted to quote the very words which decisively prove the absence of any intention on my part to misrepresent Mr. Darby. I have no desire to retort the charge of dishonesty on you in this suppression. Probably your friends would as little believe it respecting you as mine will believe it respecting me. It suffices me to say that in the warmth of zeal against a doctrine which you think “frightful in its consequences,” you have allowed yourself to commit an injustice unworthy of your well-earned character as a honest scholar and a sincere servant of Christ.
The words to which I refer are these, and they immediately followed the quotations from Mr. Darby. “Now these statements of Mr. Darby, though strangely contradicted by others, contain the essence of the doctrine of life in Christ only, whether he intended it or not.” The words in italics supply a full and direct reply to your allegations. I was well aware that Mr. Darby's declaration, that “the doctrine of the immortality of the soul has no source in the gospel,” had been often cited by others, and to his great discontent, because unaccompanied by any reference to the notorious fact that he holds and has always held that doctrine, and professes it explicitly even in the very same page which contains the quoted sentence. I was therefore resolved that at least this complaint should not be made against me, and therefore added the words which intimate that Mr. Darby's “statements” so quoted were strangely contradicted by other statements, obviously intending the very sentences which follow, and which you cite as evidence of my dishonesty. The word “strangely” was introduced for the very purpose of showing that the seeming “contradiction” supplied by the passages not quoted by me was very remarkable, he holding firmly the truth of the doctrine of the soul's immortality, yet affirming that it had “no source in the gospel.” Moreover, the “contradiction” was admitted to be so striking as to leave it open to question whether Mr. Darby could have really “intended” his words to be taken in the absolute sense which they seem to suggest.
But this is not all. You wholly misrepresent the object of my quotations from Mr. Darby. That object, most evidently, was not to show that he did not hold the doctrine of the soul's immortality, but to show that he did not hold it on the ground of scripture authority; in his own words, that it “has no source in the gospel,” an expression than which none can be stronger. I was not called on then, with this object alone in view, to enlarge upon the fact that Mr. Darby held the doctrine for reasons extracted from his own head. My point was in his confession that it was “not in the gospel,” and my practical inference was that tenderness should be shown to those who thence conclude that it is not a doctrine with divine authority.
The object of the citation of the note on Matt. 25:46 was, in the same way, not to show that Mr. Darby ever agreed with me on the general doctrine (a folly and a misrepresentation of which I feel wholly incapable); but to show that the word “eternal,” as occurring in the phrase, “everlasting punishment,” was even in that crucial passage explained. by Mr. Darby to “mean only” final, a criticism sometimes made by persons who agree with me, but severely denounced whenever it is offered to your religious associates.
To conclude, Mr. Darby himself has felt that his language was remarkably liable to be quoted against him, for he, as you tell us, has now altered the clause chiefly in question to this—that “the idea of the immortality of the soul is recognized in Luke 12:5; 24:38.” You call this a “modification” of the former expression (“has no source in the gospel”). I call it an express retractation; and gentlemen who have placed themselves under the necessity of so materially altering their words should be somewhat slower in charging respectable opponents with direct “dishonesty” in quoting them. For Mr. Darby, notwithstanding many differences of judgment, I cannot but feel on several accounts a true admiration; and the last thing which I should wish to do would be to misrepresent him, or to act as if truth could be advanced by dishonor.
I am, sir, Yours faithfully, EDWARD WHITE.
[The simplest course in answer to any question of fair dealing toward Mr. W. is to insert his letter. He and our readers will judge for themselves. Otherwise a mere abstract would have been given of his reply, as before of the complaints made against his use of “Hopes of the Church.”
Let him be assured that there was not the slightest wish to suppress a word which might plead in his favor or in explanation; and that the motive for not citing more from his letter was simply to avoid further discussion, though even as it stands the substance of what he thinks of importance has been already given and answered, though not inserted as a quotation. I trust that it will be satisfactory to Mr. W. and to those who complained to know that, though quite mistaken in his notion of Mr. D.'s meaning, he has in my opinion shown himself guiltless on the question of fair dealing or the want of it. I will now try to convince him of the misapprehension which lay at the bottom of his wrong use of Mr. D.'s words and of the insinuation of a shift or change in the thoughts of the latter. If Mr. V.'s point and object are thus mistaken, his inferences must of course fall to the ground.
Mr. W. considers that there is a strange contradiction between the two statements, “that the idea of the immortality of the soul has no source in the gospel,” and “that we do not doubt the immortality of the soul.” If Mr. D. had denied the soul's immortality to be a truth of the scriptures, there would be just ground for the charge of so strangely contradicting himself. But it is not so. I have no doubt that its frequent citation is due to the fact that most people, like Mr. W., unconsciously confound “the gospel” with the word of God, and think Mr. D did not hold the soul's immortality on the ground of scripture authority because he denied it to have its source in the gospel. It is well known that the primary basis of that truth is not the gospel but Gen. 2:7, where Adam is said to become a living soul (not, as other animals did, without but) by the inbreathing of Jehovah Elohim. Not a natural fact like this, however important in itself, but resurrection is a truth of the gospel. Hence this was no question among orthodox Jews, who held, save the materialist Sadducees, the immortality of the soul. But the resurrection of the body, exemplified in Christ risen from the dead, is the fundamental truth of the gospel, which got completely displaced by the Platonizing of the early Fathers. This is the true meaning and intent of Mr. D.'s words, which Mr. W. entirely mistook, as is plain from his present letter. For he supposes even now Mr. D., by denying “the gospel” to be the source of the doctrine of the soul's immortality, to mean that it had no source in scripture and that he himself held it for reasons extracted from his own head. The fact is that Mr. D.'s language was precise, Mr. W.'s construction is loose and erroneous. To prove a doctrine by reason is the last thought that would occur to Mr. D. He will now understand also that there is no change whatever in the author's thoughts, but only a modification of phrase in order to hinder the misunderstanding of others. There is not nor ever was the least ground for the charge of contradiction. The truth is that Mr. W. gravely misinterpreted the main sentence quoted, though I give him credit for believing that he meant no wrong to Mr. D. The “express retractation,” as Mr. W. calls it, falls with the rest. Lastly, I can assure Mr. W. that Mr. D. by the expression “final” did not mean to impair the force of “eternal” in Matt. 25, whatever may be the idea of others who employ that term for a different purpose.—En. B. T.]
Correspondence
To an Inquiring Hindu.
My Dear Sir,
I too have to apologize for leaving your letter, though of the greatest interest to me, so long unanswered. Suffice it to say, that I had much to wind up before quitting home, and that much fresh occupation has hindered since I came to this busy city. You are right in not allowing your mind to get dragged into discussions, and I trust that I shall in no way tempt you to a path so unpromising, especially in the things of God.
But you speak of the doctrine of the Trinity early in your letter. Now that entirely depends on the revelation of God, and indeed almost entirely on the Christian revelation or Greek scriptures; for though the Hebrew scriptures fall in with it when revealed, they can of themselves be scarcely said to reveal it. So, too, the points of salvation and faith turn on the same larger and prior question of their divine revelation, as distinct from the external testimony of creation or the internal testimony of the human conscience.
But, surely, my dear sir, if you have seriously read the books commonly called the Old and New Testament, you can hardly have failed to see their essential difference, not in measure only but in kind, from the sacred books of India, China, Arabia, and any other people or age. They differ quite as much from the Talmud of the Jews and from the commentaries of the early Christian writers, which bear the unmistakable signs of being merely human and consequently fallible and in fact erroneous.
The Old and New Testaments, besides their superior moral character, differ in two respects. They have an historical substratum, peculiar each to each, supported if their testimony be true by miraculous vouchers; and they are prophetic. Now none but God could clothe man with miraculous power for some worthy moral end, and this too where the ways of the men so invested preclude suspicion of trickery and collusion. Still less if possible could any but God give distinct prophecies of the most unlikely events hundreds of years before the fact. These qualities are found only in the Bible, the wonder of which is increased by the circumstance that its writers extend over a space of about 1600 years from Moses till the Apostle John.
These things are only explicable by the truth of the claim of scripture to be God's word. If the Bible then be His word, faith comes by bearing that word. Reasoning is good in its own sphere and for its own proper ends; but faith is subjection to and reception of God's word because it is His. If God has made such a revelation, it binds the conscience of all who hear it. But in such a world as this one need not wonder that men disbelieve it. For on the face of it men generally are far from God and opposed to His will. That God should leave man, so, dark and wretched as he is, without a revelation, would be strange indeed: not so, spite of such a revelation, that many should reject it, and many should be unfaithful to it. Least of all is this a difficulty to one who believes the Bible; for the Old Testament predicted the sin and unbelief of the Jews, as the New Testament predicts the sin and unbelief of the Christian professing body. As the revelation comes from God to man and acts as a moral test, so does Christ. If I love what is good and holy and true, I shall love the Bible, and the Lord Jesus; if I like my own will and way, and the world, I shall despise both the Bible and the Lord Jesus Christ. If I begin to learn my unfitness for God's presence, I shall begin to abhor myself and to look to God, who will surely lead me on to welcome the good news of redemption through Jesus Christ.
Either Jesus was a divine person or He was the worst of deceivers. This last you do not think: how then can you fairly escape from owning the glory of His person? Seven hundred and fifty years before His birth, Isaiah (7.) declared to king Ahaz that the virgin should conceive and bear a son to be called Immanuel, GOD WITH US, further calling Him the mighty God (9.), the Father of eternity (or the age to come), &c. In due time the Virgin Mary does bear such a son, even Jesus, who raises the dead, rises Himself from the dead, and goes up to heaven in the face of His disciples.
Again, even the greatest difficulties which unbelief finds are all necessarily elements of the history and of the doctrine. Thus, if Jesus had not been a man, man had derived no such benefit as the gospel proclaims. If He had not been God, the benefit could only have been human, earthly, and temporal. To give such a boon as Christianity offers, He must be both God and man in the same person. Again, if He had not died as man, there could have been no Christian redemption by blood. If He who died had not been divine, the value of blood-shedding had been only that of a creature and limited. To be infinite, not in person only, but in His sacrifice for us, He must be, as scripture declares He was, both God and man.
Take a proof of this from the Hebrew scriptures: It was written by Zechariah 500 years before the crucifixion. “They shall look upon me whom they have pierced.” This is still as a whole to be fulfilled for the Jews as a nation. It has only been verified by individuals as yet. The prophet speaks of a future time of trouble, when the Gentiles will gather round Jerusalem and God will appear on their behalf when at the last extremity and they will then recognize in their deliverer God the One whom they pierced. The “I” of the passage (Zech. 12:10) is certainly God, Jehovah of Israel; yet He must have taken a body and come in humiliation, if He had been once “pierced” by them. In whom can all this meet but in Jesus of Nazareth the Lord God of Israel?
The very notion of Christianity is above human thought till God revealed it. Others have conceived God's appearing in human form to steal, to kill, to indulge lust or other evil. Such were the ideas of Greeks and Romans. Scripture alone reveals God assuming human nature without sin to be a sacrifice for sinners, to make them saints, to glorify Himself in and by them. With this too the Trinity harmonizes perfectly; for, instead of its being mere ideas or, various functions and displays, the Father in His love gives the Son, who in equal love comes to die, in order righteously to put away sin and to rise in witness of the victory for the believer, and the Holy Spirit deigns to work in the conscience and heart of him who believes, both to convince him of his need and then to fill him with divine streams of enjoyment and power to magnify Him who died and rose for him.
You will see from what is already said that I in no wise despise the value of reason. Thus it is irrational and immoral to suppose that a Being good and holy, omniscient and omnipotent, made this world and man as they are now. But reason, unaided, cannot account for it. Revelation declares that God made all good, but suspended its continuance on the obedience of its head—that the head failed, and that the race and the world fell thereby. My reason bows to this as the only true and righteous and sufficient explanation.
But how can I rise out of this state of ruin? My reason fails to find a remedy. Divine revelation shows me God undertaking, God giving, God fulfilling the mighty task; and this in the nature which failed, yet to the glory of Himself. This my soul accepts as the only solution of all my difficulties. It is worthy of God to save the lost, but it is only worthy of Him to save holily and righteously at all cost to Himself, at infinite cost, yet to save freely, of grace and therefore by faith of His testimony that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. In every other scheme love is lost, or righteousness is compromised, or guilty man is flattered. The cross of Christ alone satisfies and harmonizes all truth, meeting every want of man and every attribute of God.
Before the scriptures were written at all, as in the days of Moses, and before they were finished, as in the days of Jesus and the apostles, miracles were vouchsafed by God to arrest attention to the divine power put forth in a less or a greater degree, as seemed fit to Him.
But when all was written, miracles were not continued, for then the truth revealed was complete, and the testimony such as only inattention or self-will can dispute, the fulfillment of prophecy being the most powerful continuous testimony after miracles were no longer wrought.
Accepting then these revelations as proved truly divine, I hear Jesus saying (John 8), “Before Abraham was, I am.” Did He speak the truth? If not, the morality of the gospel in its Chief is detestable, not divine. Lofty precepts condemn, if there be not holy practice. If Jesus was holy and true, He was God, according to the import of His own words. None but a divine person could say, “Before Abraham was, I am,” πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι, ἐγώ εἰμι.. If you know Greek tolerably, you will see, when it is pointed out, the amazing force of this statement. In speaking of Abraham, a mere creature, the Lord uses the verb γίνομαι, which means to become, or come into being. In speaking of Himself, He employs the substantive verb, which alone is proper to express, where required, absolute uncaused being. He does not merely say, “Before Abraham was, I was,” no matter how high you carry the point and term of His existence, even if it were the first of created beings, as the Arians say. If so, Jesus would have said, ἐγενόμην. But no! He, the lowliest of men, could not deny His deity. He is God, the “I am,” and so He declared Himself, which provoked the unbelieving Jews to take up stones. But the time suffer was not yet come; and so He passed through and went on His way. Again in John 10 Jesus declares that He has ἐξουσίαν, right and title as well as power, to lay down His life as well as to take it again: who could have such authority but a divine person?
This then was no mere Athanasian dogma. It is the distinct teaching of John 1, Phil. 2, Heb. 1, and very many other passages in the apostolic writings. It is the keystone of Christianity. Without it not only its salvation is a myth but its morality is a cheat. For all is built on the capital truth that God in divine love humbled Himself to become man and die for sinners, that He might save and bless the believer to the uttermost not by Christ only but with Him.
But be assured, my dear sir, as great as is the free and boundless blessing of the gospel, so equally is the sin and danger of neglecting it—mark, not of opposing only but of neglecting it. For, if it be true that God really gave His Son thus to live and die, the guilt of neglecting so great salvation, once it is brought before us, is proportionate to the dignity of His person and the efficacy of the work wrought at a cost so incalculable. May the gracious God and Father of the Lord Jesus bless you, giving you to read honestly the scriptures with prayer for divine light and guidance!
Believe me ever faithfully yours, W. K.
Correspondence
Dear Brother in Christ,
A few remarks with illustrations from scripture of the use of דֵּפִכ may set the question (page 336) in a clear light.
The primary meaning of בָפַּר is to cover. Hence when used in Piel which gives intensity to the idea, it will mean to cover effectually, so to forgive, pardon, make atonement.
The verb is used without or with prepositions; without where the thing to be covered is the prominent thought, e.g., sin (Dan. 9:24; Psa. 65:3 (4); 78:38), the land (Deut. 32:43), the altar (Ezek. 43:20); but with prepositions where the place in which atonement was to be made, the manner of it, the officiator, or the guilty persons, are in view.
We meet with the verb followed by ְּב in Lev. 6:30 (23); 16:17, which tell of the place in Lev. 7:7;
1 Sam. 3:14 Sam. 21:3; Num. 5:8; which speak of the means. Where the person by whom it is made is prominent, we find it in connection with רַעְּב to tell us on whose behalf he is acting, e. g., Lev. 9:7; 16:6, 11, 17, 24; Ex. 32:30; Ezek. 14:17, and 2 Chron. 30:18, where Hezekiah looks to the Lord to effect it.
Where things inanimate, involved in man's guilt but guiltless themselves, are spoken of, the verb can be followed by אֶת (Lev. 16:20, 33; Ezek. 43:26; 14:20); and where persons are before the writer's mind, guiltless themselves of the actual transgression, we meet with the preposition ל, e.g., Deut. 21:8; Isa. 22:14; Ezek. 16:63, for the consequence of the sin was not to extend to them.
But when the guilt itself is the prominent thought, we have עַל used, pointing out on whom, or on what, the sin rested which needed covering, whether (1) the individual, (2) the place of standing, (3) the victim to which the sin was transferred; e.g., (1) Lev. 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 12:7; 14:18 - 20; 19:22; Num. 15:25, 28, &c.; (2) Ex. 30:10; Lev. 16:16; (3) Lev. 16:10; the passage to which your correspondent refers. Keeping the primary thought of the verb in view, we can understand its use in the different places referred to, and the force of Heb. 10:4 and Rom. 3:25, is felt. The sins of God's people in old days were covered by the blood (and so God passed over them), though not really put away, till the blood of the Lord Jesus had been shed, which alone could avail for this. In Lev. 16:10 the thought seems to be that the sins of the people, transferred to the scapegoat were covered on it; that is, the goat bore them away from the people, never to be seen again as against them; but yet, as on the goat, they were not looked at in God's sight as put away.
At times we meet with the fuller form of expression (a) כִפֵּר עַל מִין, and (b) כִפֵּר עַל ב; (a) Lev. 5:6; 14:19; 15:30; 16:16, 34; (b) Lev. 5:16; Num. 5:8, the former marking from what, and the latter by what the sin was covered; but always, where the guilt is viewed as resting, we meet with עַל of the person or thing on whom it rests. See Lev. 16:33 where we have תא דֵּפִכ of the sanctuary and vessels, and כפר עַל of the people.
C. E. S.
Where the numeration of verses in Hebrew differs from the Authorized Version, the former is put in brackets.