In considering the question whether the Bible is sufficient for the
guidance of men to salvation, it becomes a matter of great importance
to ascertain whether the language employed by the sacred writers is
sufficiently clear to be understood, in all main points at least. If
the Spirit of God, in directing the composition of the books of the
Bible, intended to make these books a code of divine laws whereby
further revelation should be rendered superfluous, we may reasonably
expect to find in the Bible clear language conveying the ideas in a
manner to be easily understood by the earnest reader. We may expect to
find no ambiguity, no indistinctness.
Human laws are written with the greatest possible care. Lawmakers aim
at clearness, seeing that this is indispensable when laws are made for
the guidance of the citizen. Yet with all possible care in framing
laws, it has been found that no law ever was framed, however carefully
worded, that could not be construed in more than one way. Hence the
necessity of a supreme court to which all cases can be appealed, the
meaning of any disputed paragraph of the lay authoritatively given. No
human law would ever be a complete guidance for the citizens without
such a supreme court.
{384} Now, the question is simply this: Is the Bible clear enough so
that it undoubtedly can be understood in only one way? If it be, then
there may not be any need for the "supreme court" of divine revelation
to appeal to in order to ascertain its meaning, since this is in no
instance doubtful. But if the Bible is not clear enough; if it is so
worded that, in many instances, the same passage may be understood in
more than one way, then further revelation is necessary in order to
settle these points. If every passage of the Bible does not convey only
one meaning and this unmistakably; if many passages can be, and have
been, construed in various ways, and if divine revelation be abolished
then we are exactly in this position: We have a code of laws and a
collection of doctrines; but for the right understanding of those
laws and doctrines we are entirely at the mercy of the sagacity or
the stupidity of the (theological) lawyers with whom we happen to be
connected. There is, then, no appeal, no authority, no certainty.
Let us honestly consider some of the facts in the case, without
shrinking from the inevitable conclusion.
First, we are met by the sad fact that mankind has not yet been able to
decide exactly how many and which of the ancient books really belong
to the Bible. The Protestant churches now accept sixty-five books in
all, viz., thirty-eight in the Old Testament and twenty-seven in the
New. But Luther was not quite certain about the canonicity of all of
the twenty-seven books of the New Testament. The Revelation of John
was always suspicious to him, because he did not understand it, and
the Epistle of James, he thought, was more fit to be burned than to be
read. As to the books of the Old Testament, a much later and better
informed critic, Michaelis, has proposed to exclude the two books of
Chronicles from the canon, while others have had their grave doubts
concerning the Song of Songs. But the Catholic church, so far from
being disposed to diminish the number of books, has added all those
which by Protestants have been called apocryphal. The whole apocryphal
collection was by the Council of Trent, 1545, declared to be holy
Scripture, and the council did so with some antiquity in support of
the decision, too. For the book of Baruch is quoted as canonical by
Origen, Athanasius, Cyril, and Ephihanius. Tobith, Judith, Wisdom of
Solomon, Ecclesiasticus and the Maccabees are quoted as canonical
by the great Augustine. Whether, then, the Bible should consist of
seventy-nine books (including the fourteen apocrypha) or of sixty-five,
or only sixty-one, excluding the two Chronicles {385} and James and the
Revelation, is yet a question awaiting its final decision. And it would
seem but reasonable not to abolish the immediate revelations from God
until this problem has been satisfactorily solved.
Secondly, accepting any of the above mentioned books as canonical,
a great difficulty presents itself in determining the precise text.
What the first authors wrote is in some cases impossible to determine.
Let it be remembered that our present Bibles, with their divisions of
charters and verses, are by no means exactly such as the first authors
left them. Much is the work of uninspired men. The original manuscripts
were copied in numerous editions, and it was always possible in copying
to drop a letter, to misspell a word, to leave out a word, etc.
Translations and paraphrases have been made. These were not always
correct in every particular. In the case of the Old Testament the
original authors did not write the vowels, but only the consonants. It
was the work of later men to insert all the vowels, but whether these
later men in all instances, or even in most, inserted the right vowels
is another open question. At all events, if it were possible to prove
that all the consonants of the Old Testament are identical with those
written by the original authors, and therefore inspired, yet all the
vowels, which are added many years afterwards by uninspired men, cannot
be proved to be of divine origin or such as God originally intended
them to be.
A few instances may be quoted to illustrate the nature of such easily
recognized changes as the sacred text has suffered. In Jonah 1, 9, the
prophet says: "I am a Hebrew," where the original reading probably was
(as the Septuagint has it): "I am a servant of Jehovah." The difference
is between _Ivri_, Hebrew, and _Ivdi_, the servant of Jehovah. In I
Peter ii, 3, it will always be dubious whether the correct reading is:
"If ye have tasted that the Lord is _gracious_," or "that the Lord is
_Christ_." The fact is that both these words were sometimes written
with the letters _Chs_, standing for both _Christos_ and _Chrestos_,
gracious. In Genesis i, 8, the words: "God saw that it was good" is
wanting at the end of the second day's creation, but it is found
in verse 10, in the middle of the third day's work, indicating a
transposition. Sometimes verses have been added by later copyists. Such
variations amount to many thousands in all, leaving the present text
very far from satisfactory in its details.
Theologians, in admitting this, as they are compelled to do by
the facts, generally smooth the disagreeable impression over with
the assurance that none of all these variations in {386} the text
affect the meaning in the least degree. "The most inaccurate
text ever written," they say, "leaves the truths of Scripture
substantially unchanged." But this is evidently said more for the
sake of the effect than for the sake of truth. For the theologians
themselves--particularly the Protestants--_always_ insist on the very
letter of the text. The little words "this is" were sufficient in
the quibble between Luther and Calvin to cut the Protestantic party
in two halves, each wishing to roast the other in hell. Yes, the
theologians build doctrines not only on words but on _forms_ of words,
discriminating between the meaning of the same words when used in
this form or the other. In a text where words are so important, it is
ridiculous to say that many thousand variations are of no importance.
And besides, since we know there are many thousand variations, how do
we know that there are not many thousand more which have not yet been
detected?
This question must be solved before we are prepared to admit that the
Bible is a sufficient guide, and has done away with the necessity of
further revelation.
But we will pass by the difficulties thus far pointed out. We will
suppose that we have settled beyond doubt the number of books to be
accepted as canonical. We will suppose that the original text has
been preserved, and that the translations thereof in our vernacular
tongues are correct. All this we suppose, for the sake of the argument,
and yet we will find the greatest difficulty still exists--that of
understanding the sacred volume correctly. Indeed, this difficulty is
so great that probably not one single man now living can understand it
all, and those that understand part of it right do so by the aid of the
Spirit of God.
Some of the difficulties in understanding even the translations of the
Bible may now be pointed out.
It is admitted that the words used in the Scriptures are sometimes to
be used in a figurative sense and sometimes in a literal sense. What
words are, in each case, to be understood strictly literally and what
figuratively must be left to the judgment of the reader. And from this
fact numerous errors have arisen.
People have sometimes allegorized where no allegory was intended, as
Origen in reading that Abraham in his old age married Keturah. Now,
he says, the word Keturah means "sweet odor;" and "sweet odor" refers
to the fragrance of righteousness: Hence he concludes that Abraham
in his old age became very pious or righteous, and that this fact is
meant when Moses states that the patriarch married Keturah. {387}
Equally absurd is the following _a la_ Swedenborg: "Adam represents
the intellect and Eve the feeling. That Adam and Eve begat sons and
daughters means, therefore, that the union between intellect and
feeling is what produces knowledge in man." These instances are
extremely absurd and the errors of this kind of interpretation are
easily perceived. But sometimes the errors are not so palpable,
although equally absurd. As for instance, when it is contended that
the "kingdom" of Christ means a religion and not a real kingdom, or
that "the first resurrection" means a revival of the principles for
which the martyrs were killed. In such cases the errors are great, and
hundreds of Bible readers commit just such errors, in many instances
without even knowing it.
Then, sometimes words that are really used figuratively are understood
literally. You will see pictures, occasionally, where Lazarus is
enjoying his heavenly bliss by sitting in the lap ("the bosom")
of Father Abraham, the artist having misunderstood the figurative
expression used by our Lord.
This kind of error is more easily committed in reading the prophetical
portions of the Bible. The prophets borrow words denoting natural
objects in order to represent what is spiritual and abstract. Their
books are hieroglyphical, although they do not draw their hieroglyphic
pictures, as did the Egyptian priests, but describe them in words.
Hence the great difficulty in interpreting prophecy. It is not less
difficult than to interpret many ancient Egyptian records. The
prophets, for instance, talk of a "horn" and mean a "crown" or a
"kingdom." "Beast" is a usurping tyrannical power. "Key" stands for
lawful authority. "Virgins" are faithful worshippers, not defiled by
idolatry.
Generally it must be borne in mind that every word should be understood
as it was commonly understood at the time the Bible was written. Much
minute inquiry, in fact more than most people are prepared to give, is
needed in order to avoid errors arising from a violation of this rule.
Sometimes a knowledge of Hebrew and Greek is absolutely necessary for
the right understanding of a passage. In I Kings ii, 8, 9, David is
made to say concerning Simei: "Hold him not guiltless, * * but his
hoary head bring down with blood to the grave." This is, of course,
a contradiction. And, besides, David had sworn not to kill Simei. It
seems therefore as if one of the last acts of David was to break his
oath and his royal word. But a knowledge of Hebrew idioms clears this
up; for the word "not" refers to both clauses: "Hold him not guiltless,
* * but bring not his {388} hoary head down with blood." That is the
meaning, and Solomon understood it so. "The end of the world" spoken
of in Matt. xxiv, 3 a Greek scholar will discover to be not the end
of the physical world (_telos tou kosmou_) but the termination of the
then existing economy; for the words are _synteleia tou aionos_. The
interpretation of the whole prophecy of our Lord hangs upon this one
word. Matthew (xii, 40) makes Christ say: "For as Jonah was three days
and three nights in the whale's belly," whereas the fact is, that
there is not, and probably never was, a whale in the Mediterranean.
The Hebrew has "a great fish" (Jonah i, 17) which the translator of the
Septuagint made into a whale, and the misleading quotation slipped into
the New Testament from the Septuagint.
Sometimes people put a mystical sense into the most plain expressions.
Christ says: "But one thing is needful" (Luke x, 42) and many an
edifying sermon has been preached upon this one "needful thing,"
and much curiosity has been needlessly excited to know what that
one needful thing is that in itself is necessary and sufficient to
salvation. People have been so eager to make a mystery that they have
forgotten the fact that Christ for the time does not refer to salvation
at all, but is speaking of a much more trivial subject, yet not less
interesting or noteworthy. Christ has called on His friends, Lazarus,
Martha and Maria. The two ladies are both anxious to entertain Him to
the best of their ability. But Martha seems to have had an idea that
lots of things were necessary in order to make a comfortable meal. In
order to be ready in a hurry Martha wanted her sister to help her, upon
which the Savior politely remarks that "only one thing is needful."
There was no cause for so much serving. He would not enter their house
as a stranger for whom they would have to prepare so many extra dishes.
He would come as their friend and be entertained as such. This would
give both sisters time to sit down and listen to His instructions,
which after all was the "good part" of the entertainment. Stripping
this narrative of the mysteries of theologians and letting common sense
be common sense, we have a beautiful incident at once pleasing and
instructive.
Sometimes the reader will be misled by the numbers of the Bible,
because he does not know how they originally were used. "Ten" sometimes
stands for "several." In Gen. xxxi, 7, Jacob says that Laban had
changed his wages "ten times," meaning of course "several times."
Perhaps the division of the Roman Empire into "ten" as predicted by
Daniel ought to be understood in the same way, since so far no one
has {389} been able exactly to tell in what "ten" (the word taken
literally) kingdoms that empire on its downfall was divided. If
understood to mean "several" kingdoms, there is no difficulty. "Forty,"
in the same way, often means "many." "Seven" and "seventy" denote a
large and complete number, although uncertain to the speaker.
Sometimes a knowledge of history is required for the right
understanding of passages. (Acts ix, 31): "The churches had rest
throughout all Judea and Galilee" has sometimes been understood to
have been the consequence of the conversion of Paul, whereas the real
cause of this temporary rest was that at this time Caligula attempted
to raise a statue of himself in the "Holy of holies" in the temple. The
consternation which this caused among the bloodthirsty Jews made them
for a time forget the Christian churches.
Nor less important is a knowledge of ancient chonology, geography,
of botany, of mineralogy, zoology, and archaeology in its various
branches. But we cannot here multiply instances.
To understand the Bible, even the plainist translation, all these
things are necessary as helps, and yet, without the Spirit of God to
lead into all truth, not all of these helps are sufficient; so numerous
and so vast are the difficulties to be encountered in ascertaining the
true meaning of the Bible.
Nor need we be surprised at this. The various books are written in
the remote antiquity. Language changes like all that is human. Words
do not remain stationary in their significations. Every word has its
own history, and antique literature always requires a knowledge of the
history of the words. The authors of the Bible write each from his own
standpoint. Some are lawyers, as Moses. Others are humble shepherds,
as Anos. Some are learned men, as Paul and Luke. Others are uneducated
fisherman, as Peter and John. Some are statesmen like Daniel. Others
follow more lowly occupations of life, as Jeremiah. Some write poetry,
others history, others letters and others visions. Some write in the
deserts of Arabia, some by the banks of the rivers in Babylon, some
in the palace in Jerusalem, some in prisons in Rome. Each has his own
peculiarity of style, and to understand it all, you would have to
be conversant with almost every branch of human learning. It is no
figure of speech when Locke says that theology is the direction of
all knowledge to its true end, or when Parley P. Pratt says: "It is
the science of all other sciences and useful arts, being in fact, the
very fountain from which they emanate. It includes philosophy, {390}
astronomy, history, mathematics, geography, languages, the science
of letters, and blends the knowledge of all matters of fact in every
branch of art or research" (Key to Theology, p.2).
Seeing now that such requirements are made upon us in order to
understand the Bible, and that lack of knowledge necessarily involve
misunderstanding of many of the sacred passages, we ask every
reasonable being, Can it be supposed that the Bible ever was intended
to be a substitute for immediate divine revelation? If it were intended
for this purpose it has signally failed in its purpose; and if the
Bible alone be intended to be the guide to heaven, it is to be feared
that a majority of people will be led to hell for the simple reason
that they never had an opportunity of mastering the difficulties
attending their attempts at understanding what the Bible doctrines
really are.
"CHRISTIAN" SECTS AN EVIDENCE.
If further proofs for the necessity of continuous revelation were
needed, the deplorable state of the Christian world, where "each goes
his own way," furnishes those proofs in abundance.
The object God had in view in giving to His people men through whom He
could reveal His plans and purposes was to "perfect the Saints" and
preserve "unity of faith" (Eph. iv, 11-14). As long as the church had
apostles and prophets, there was no necessity for the churches breaking
up into factions or sects. Differences could arise, and did arise, but
when referred to the inspired men, God, through His Holy Spirit always
settled the difficulties, preserving the unity.
Some instances, illustrating this, have been recorded for our
information.
In the church at Jerusalem, as the members increased, a feeling of
jealousy grew up between the different nationalities. The "Grecians"
thought that their widows did not receive a fair portion of the alms
daily distributed among the poor, the "Hebrews" keeping all for their
widows. Among the Jews the "Grecians," that is to say, such Jews that
were not born in Palestine, were held in contempt like everything that
originated outside the confines of the Holy Land. It was thought that
the Jewish converts to Christianity had retained this feeling, and so
neglected their foreign brethren. Now, here was a secret power of evil
at work, strong enough to break the first church up into factions. For
evil grows, if {391} not conquered, and what at first appears like a
cloud, the size of a man's hand, develops into a terrible storm with
thunder and lightning. Small as the matter appeared to be, it was
an attempt at destroying the unity of the Church of Christ. But the
church was equal to this occasion. Its foundations were solid and its
guardians awake. The whole matter was laid before the apostles, and
these found the proper remedy. "Look ye out among you," they said to
the church members, "seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost
and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business." The people, on
hearing this wise counsel, made their choice, and the apostles set the
chosen apart for this office. And it may be noted as a characteristic
feature of God's way of managing elections, in contrast to the farcical
proceedings of the iniquitous world, that the seven men elected on this
occasion were all "Grecians," judging from their names. The majority,
prompted by the love of God, gave to the minority--the complaining
party--the whole control of the distribution. The church was saved from
the spirit of destruction. Unity was preserved. But it took inspired
men to solve the difficulty in this way, so contrary to all rules,
recognized among men (see Acts, vi, 1-8).
The next instance is a difference concerning doctrine.
As soon as the Gospel principles spread and were embraced by the
Gentiles, a struggle necessarily followed between the Jewish and the
Gentile element. Both had much to give up and much to learn from each
other, before a complete unity could be secured. In this struggle,
various questions were brought up for discussion, and amongst others
this:
Ought not a Gentile convert to first be circumcised and promise to
keep the law, before he was baptized and incorporated in the church?
Many Jewish converts held that this was necessary. For to them the
entrance to the church ought to be through the Mosaic dispensation, to
Gentiles as it had been to Jews. But the Gentiles considered this an
unnecessary circuitous road to the church, holding that the acceptance
of Christ and his ordinances was all that should be required. Here was
a difficult question to decide, and the principle involved was one of
vital importance to the whole Christian community. The danger of a
split was great, but the church had inspired leaders, men who communed
with God. To them the question was referred. And they decided it, not
only according to the Scriptures but according to the revelation given
for the occasion. "It seemed good," they say, "to the Holy Ghost, and
to us, to lay upon you no greater {392} burden than these necessary
things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood
and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep
yourselves ye shall do well." (Acts xv, 28, 29.) Here is a decision
arrived at under the direct influence of the Holy Ghost, and one that
brought unity into the churches and joy among the various Gentile
branches.
Thus we see exemplified the object of continuous revelation, and the
necessity of it. Without it unity cannot be preserved. "That ye may be
one" as Christ is one with His Father, is, however, the very essence
of Christianity, the mark on which it can be distinguished from the
"world," which is all strife and contention. Destroy the unity, and
Christianity is gone, or, since unity is impossible without continuous
revelation, abandon such revelation, and Christianty is no more.
It is noticeable that the Christian churches, as long as the inspired
men were among them and they listened to their words, kept clear of
all schisms. _So long_, we say, but no longer. For soon men arose
who thought themselves too wise to listen to the counsel of inspired
men. And such imposed upon themselves upon the church with big
words and subtle sophistry, thus drawing many away from the path of
righteousness. This was the work of the spirit of anti-Christ, and the
result was schisms, sects. But still the spirit of revelation lingered
among the churches, uniting the honest everywhere in the love of God
and of one another, until after a long struggle amid persecution from
the outside and rebellion from the inside, the Spirit of revelation was
withdrawn. "The child was taken up to the throne of God." (Rev. xii,
5). The light gave way to darkness.
Not that the Christian churches became annihilated, not that the
doctrines preached by Christ or, what is the same, the Christian
theology at once vanished. No! It was all there, but wrapped in
darkness.
Suppose yourself on a ship trying to make for the harbor on a dark,
stormy night. There are the lights along the shore, according to
whose guiding rays alone you can steer your course. But suppose all
these lights are suddenly extinguished. You can see no more where to
go. All your calculations are in vain. Those rays of lights from the
lighthouses were just as necessary for your safety as are your maps
and your compass. Something analogous to this happened to the world,
or, rather to the Christian churches. The guiding light of continuous
revelation was extinguished and {393} the ship left in darkness. At
what precise time this took place we do not presume to say. But it is
certain that the time of revelation did not extend much beyond the
age of the apostles. The church was still there for years, but the
lighthouses were not shining.
What followed? The most pitiable confusion. The leaders of the
church, no longer guided by inspiration, were unable to preserve
love and unity. Factions became numerous and each faction leader
claimed the supreme authority for himself. Contests for power ensued,
accompanied by scandalous scenes. The church was abandoned, each
faction constructing their own raft and each steering their own course,
occasionally trying to sink other rafts as these by wind and current
were driven out. This was the result of the withdrawal of divine
revelation.
People were in total darkness. They split on the most trivial questions
as well as over the more important ones. What are we to think when we
read the "history of the church" and find that "Christians" are trying
to find out whether Christ was a real man or only an apparition! Or
whereto had truth gone, when, after long struggles about the doctrine
of the Godhead, it was finally decided, as the standard of orthodoxy,
that: "Incomprehensible is the Father, incomprehensible is the Son, and
incomprehensible is the Holy Ghost; yet not three incomprehensibles,
but one." (Symbol Athan.)? Christ says: "This is eternal life, that
they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast
sent." (John, xvii, 3); Paul prays that he may know Christ and the
power of His resurrection. (Philippians, vi, 7-10); and John says that
we by keeping God's commandments, know that we "know" Him. (I John
ii, 3), but the Church, as soon as the Spirit of revelation withdrew,
declared that she was in darkness. God, she said, is incomprehensible.
The contrast is so conspicuous that only a blind man can help seeing it.
This spirit of darkness still enwraps the whole "Christian" world.
The work of dissolution has been going on all the time, and is still
going on. The "Christians" stand against each other like enemies on
a battlefield. Nobody knows where to seek or to find truth. Has the
Roman Catholic church the truth? or the Coptic? or the Armenian? or
the Reformed church? or the church of England? or Luther's faction? or
Methodists? or Baptists? or Presbyterians? or Irvingians or Adventists?
or Universalists? or Quakers? Which has the truth? Which faction is the
Church of Christ?
{394} Paul says that factions are the result of a "carnal" condition.
"For whereas there is among you envyings and strife, and divisions, are
ye not carnal, and walk as men?" (I Cor. iii, 3.) The "Christian" world
to-day, the Apostle then declares to be a "carnal" christendom. But to
be carnally minded, we further learn (Rom. viii, 6, 7), is "death,"
and "enmity against God." The Christian world to-day is therefore
in a state of "death" and "enmity against God." The word of God has
pronounced His judgment, and all as a consequence of their having
despised and rejected continuous revelation from God.
This suggests the remedy to be applied: Divine revelation.
God has promised, in the last days, "And it shall come to pass
afterward that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons
and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams,
your young men shall see visions * * * * and it shall come to pass that
whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: For
in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath
said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call" (Joel ii, 28-33).
And this promise God will fulfill. Revelations are necessary for the
deliverance of His people in these last days, and God is faithful.
Already the light of revelation has broken through the dark clouds
of medieval errors. The prophets of God have again spoken, revealing
_God's_ way of salvation. Will the "Christian" world believe? Or will
they, like the Jews formerly, reject the light of revelation, to their
own damnation?
One objection, and only one, needs to be answered before we close
this part of our investigation. It has been said that God prohibits
people from adding anything to the Bible, since John the Revelator
says: "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto
him the plagues that are written in this book" (Rev. xxii, 18). The
prohibition is given for any "man" to add anything of his own to
the book of Revelation, or to the word of God. And woe to the man
who is preposterous enough to add his own productions to the sacred
compositions of God! But neither this passage nor any other passage in
the Bible states that God would never any more reveal anything. God
does not prohibit himself from adding whatever He thinks necessary.
In fact, God has added to the volume of the New Testament since the
book of Revelation was written. The Gospel of John, and, in all
probability, the three epistles of John, were all written after the
book of Revelation. The latest {395} date assigned to the Revelation is
96 A. D., while others (and more probably) give it the date of 67 or
68. The three epistles were written 68 and the gospel 97, so that there
is no possibility for thinking that God did not intend to add anything
to the existing records.
The Gospel of John is the last book of the New Testament. And in this
very book we have the comforting promise of Christ recorded: "He (the
Spirit) shall glorify Me: for he shall receive of Mine, and shall show
it unto you. All things that the Father has are Mine: therefore, said
I, that he shall take of Mine, and shall show it unto you" (John xvi,
14, 15). Here is a promise of continuous revelation.