Book -T Z- 
 GopightN 
 
 COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 
 
OUR 
 
 MISUNDERSTOOD 
 
 BIBLE. 
 
OUR 
 
 MISUNDERSTOOD 
 
 BIBLE 
 
 COMMON ERRORS 
 ABOUT BIBLE TEXTS AND TRUTHS 
 
 BY 
 
 H. Clay Trumbull 
 
 Author of 
 
 "How to Deal with Doubts and Doubters;" 
 
 'Prayer: Its Nature and Scope ; " " Illustrative Answers 
 
 to Prayer ; " " Individual Work for 
 
 Individuals," etc. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA 
 
 THE SUNDAY SCHOOL TIMES COMPANY 
 
 1907 
 
_£ 
 
 <£ 
 
 A 
 
 *£^<\ 
 
 LIBRARY of CONGRESS 
 Two Cooies Received 
 
 APR 27 1907 
 
 7/ Copyright .Entry 
 CLASS A XXc, No/ 
 
 copy b: 
 
 Copyright, 1907. by 
 The Sunday School Times Company. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 No book is, in its more important truths, easier 
 to understand than the Bible. Yet, at the same 
 time, no book has suffered more than the Bible 
 from being misunderstood at important points, 
 as well as in other particulars. Some of these 
 misunderstandings are easily accounted for, and 
 might be easily removed; others are not easily 
 accounted for, yet have prevailed, without being 
 accounted for, from generation to generation. 
 
 There are many difficulties growing out of the 
 radical differences between Oriental and Occi- 
 dental methods of thought and speech, and cus- 
 toms and practises. Even such terms as " love M 
 and " hate " can hardly be comprehended by a 
 Westerner, as an Easterner would employ them, 
 and on such a difference as this two schools of 
 theology might array themselves in determined 
 and persistent opposition. Again, the Oriental 
 method of poetic imagery in ordinary speech is 
 well nigh incomprehensible to the Occidental, 
 accustomed as he is to cling to the letter of the 
 text that killeth, as over again the spirit of a 
 figure or an illustration that would give life. 
 
 There are many ideas about the Bible that 
 generally prevail, without their having any basis 
 
ii Preface 
 
 in the Bible itself. These erroneous ideas have 
 even a stronger hold on Bible readers generally 
 than the Bible text; and in pulpit and in pew 
 they are taken for granted as if they had some 
 truth in them. Thus it is often said, without any 
 sufficient thought on the subject, that " Law pre- 
 vails in the Old Testament," and that " Love pre- 
 vails in the New Testament;" and again that 
 " the Holy Spirit strives directly with the sinner 
 to bring him to repentance." Again, there have 
 been wrong uses of a word, through mistransla- 
 tion, or through a misunderstanding of the tech- 
 nical or the popular meaning of that word in 
 former times, which tend to mislead the reader. 
 Such is the term " be converted," instead of the 
 simple term " turn." The Revisers have not 
 been able to change all the ideas that had grown 
 out of the error of their predecessors, by show- 
 ing as they have that " be converted " is not a 
 Bible term in the sense that it was long sup- 
 posed to be. Again the term " cross-bearing " or 
 " bearing the cross " cannot be made to conform 
 to the truth without considering the meaning it 
 had in New Testament times. What it is now 
 generally supposed to mean is very far from its 
 Bible meaning. 
 
 " Perfection " and " sanctification " and " sacri- 
 fice," and other Bible words, have one meaning 
 
Preface iii 
 
 as they appear in the Bible, and a very different 
 meaning as they are commonly understood in 
 religious conversation or controversy. They 
 often have a very good meaning even as popu- 
 larly understood — or misunderstood. But the 
 Bible meaning is really the best one, even though 
 another meaning may be commonly preferred. 
 
 Single Bible words, like " Mizpah," or 
 " Angel," or " Cherubim,*-' or " Amen," are by 
 many readers so misunderstood that they are a 
 means of misleading than of rightly guiding those 
 who would know and be helped by the truth. 
 
 Having found the gain to himself, and to some 
 others, in the added light on Bible terms and 
 truths by these explanations and corrections, the 
 writer presents the statements and suggestions 
 herewith, hoping that they may help still others. 
 Yet none of the views here expressed are to be 
 accepted by a Bible reader unless he find them 
 to be conformable to Bible teachings on his more 
 careful study. But in any event good can hardly 
 fail to come of readers being stimulated to a 
 closer examination of the grounds for believing 
 or of questioning as to the ideas they have been 
 accustomed to connect with certain Bible words 
 and terms and truths. 
 
 Certain preliminary statements as to Bible 
 teachings in general are given as precedent to a 
 
iv , Preface 
 
 treatment of specific texts and truths. The value 
 of these also will be found in their possible sug- 
 gestiveness rather than in any dogmatic value. 
 
 H. Ci<ay Trumbuu,. 
 Philadelphia. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 I 
 
 Bible Words Not Always a Safe Guide . . 9 
 
 II 
 Harming Souls by Quoting Scripture . . 17 
 
 III 
 Understandest Thou What Thou Readest . . 23 
 
 IV 
 Principles Rather Than Rules in the Bible . . 30 
 
 V 
 Questions of Authorship Not Always Important . 40 
 
 VI 
 Ivove in the Old Testament, Law in the New . 47 
 
 VII 
 
 In His Name, Not for His Sake ... 65 
 
 VIII 
 The Holy Spirit's Mission To and Through Believers 71 
 
 IX 
 Conversion Man's Responsibility Not God's . . 81 
 
 X 
 
 Needless W T orry as to being "Born Again" . . 90 
 
 XI 
 Is There Any Real Gain in Salvation . . 94 
 
 v 
 
vi Contents 
 
 XII 
 Not a Duty To work Out One's Salvation . . 103 
 
 XIII 
 Sanctification, Not ^Sanctincation" . . . 108 
 
 XIV 
 Purity of Heart Not a State of Sinlessness . . 119 
 
 XV 
 Bible Perfection Not Sinlessness .... 125 
 
 XVI 
 Denying Self, Not Denying Things to Self . . 130 
 
 XVII 
 Bearing the Cross, Not Bearing Crosses . . 137 
 
 XVIII 
 Sacrifice as a Means of Personal Enjoyment . . 145 
 
 XIX 
 
 Ivove Not a Matter of Feeling .... 155 
 
 XX 
 
 Whom Does God I/)ve? . . . . . 164 
 
 XXI 
 
 Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed . 169 
 
 XXII 
 Bible Rest Not Inaction 210 
 
 XXIII 
 Busy Marthas Never Good Housekeepers . .217 
 
Contents vii 
 
 XXIV 
 Clergymen Not the Chief Preachers . . . 226 
 
 XXV 
 
 Chastisement Not Punishment . . . .235 
 
 XXVI 
 
 Mizpah: A Barrier Not a Bond . . . . 241 
 
 XXVII 
 The Inferiority of Angels 245 
 
 XXVIII 
 Cherubim Utterly Unlike Angels .... 252 
 
 XXIX 
 
 Spirit, Not Soul, Man's Pre-eminence . . 260 
 
 XXX 
 
 What Will Satisfy Us When We Awake ? . .268 
 
 XXXI 
 
 The Resurrection Not a Mere Rising Again . 271 
 
 XXXII 
 11 Amen, and Amen" 280 
 
 XXXIII 
 Can Man Define Infinite Truth . . . .293 
 
I 
 
 BIBLE WORDS NOT ALWAYS 
 A SAFE GUIDE 
 
 If one were seriously to ask the question, 
 "Are Bible words always a safe guide to a 
 reader?" many a Bible lover would reply 
 promptly, and with positiveness, "Of course 
 they are, and I am surprised to hear you ask 
 such a question." Other Bible lovers, quite as 
 intelligent and quite as reverent as those with 
 whom they differ, might say, "It depends on 
 whose words in the Bible you are speaking of 
 as 'Bible words,' and how you understand those 
 words. God's words are recorded in the Bible; 
 so are the words of God's servants and messen- 
 gers and prophets. Some of Satan's words 
 are recorded in the Bible ; so are the words of 
 Pharaoh and Jezebel, and others of God's ene- 
 mies. It will not do to say sweepingly that all 
 of the Bible words are a safe guide to all." 
 Such a question about the Bible, and the whole 
 subject it suggests, are worth careful consid- 
 eration, in order that we may realize our duty 
 and our privileges. 
 
 Even when we are sure that we have the 
 
 9 
 
10 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 words of a chosen man of God, we may not be 
 sure that we read, or use aright, or correctly 
 understand, those words. We owe it to God, 
 and we owe it to ourselves, to know as to this. 
 Here is an illustration, for example, of Bible 
 words misused in order to mislead. 
 
 A mischievous young lad, of godly parents, 
 was in the habit of being away from home much 
 of the night, often not going to bed until day- 
 light, or near it. His excellent grandmother, 
 whose husband was a clergyman, expostulated 
 with him, saying that night was the time for 
 sleep, and days were for activity. 
 
 "Why, grandmother," said the mischievous 
 youngster, "the Bible teaches us quite the op- 
 posite of that statement." 
 
 "What makes you say that?" asked the sur- 
 prised and shocked grandmother. 
 
 At this the lad brought his grandmother the 
 words of Paul to verify his assertion, and he 
 added full notes (notes of his writing, not 
 Paul's). His "text" was from I Thessalonians 5: 
 6-8 : " Let us not sleep, as do the rest, but let 
 us watch and be sober. For they that sleep 
 sleep in the night; and they that are drunken 
 are drunken in the night. But let us, since we 
 are of the day, be sober." The young scapegrace 
 said that in these teachings drunkenness and 
 
Bible Words Not Always a Safe Guide 1 1 
 
 night-sleeping were classed together as mis- 
 doing, while Christians were enjoined to watch 
 in the night, and to be sober. He said that our 
 world began in the better way. In Eden and 
 in the beginning of earthly time "the evening 
 and the morning" — not the morning and the 
 evening, but the evening and the morning — 
 "were the first day," and so on day after day. 
 The sun guarded men in the daytime while they 
 slept, and they could guard themselves nights, 
 when they were about their business, as they 
 ought to be. But in these later and more cor- 
 rupt days many now slept nights, or were 
 drunken nights. 
 
 That good grandmother was not convinced by 
 her grandson's use, or misuse, of Bible words; 
 neither was she encouraged as to the helpful 
 Bible study of that graceless youth. But he repre- 
 sented, in his misuse of the Bible, a multitude of 
 those who fail to get what the Bible could teach 
 them, and others through them, even while 
 they are becoming acquainted with Bible words. 
 
 Indeed, any one familiar with the world's best 
 books, whether those books be counted sacred 
 or common, knows, or ought to know, that 
 there is no other book in all the world so often 
 and so shockingly misquoted as is the Bible. 
 That statement is rather hard on the Bible — is 
 
12 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 it not? Yet that it is a correct statement will 
 be testified to by many who believe that the 
 Bible is true, even while they often quote what 
 is not true, thinking it is in the Bible. 
 
 There are places in the Bible teachings, or 
 in the Bible texts and words, where a truth is 
 stated in two seemingly contradictory ways, when 
 both are correct, yet where the truth as to this 
 is not shown on the surface. One has to think 
 and to study before he can explain or understand 
 Bible words. And it is well that this is so, al- 
 though the reader may not perceive this at first. 
 
 For instance, one says that the Bible com- 
 mand is: 
 
 " Answer a fool according to his folly, 
 Lest he be wise in his own conceit" (Prov. 26: 5). 
 
 And the one who would follow this counsel al- 
 ways tries to talk with fools in this way. "No," 
 says another, "the Bible command is, 
 
 " Answer not a fool according to his folly, 
 Lest thou also be like unto him " (Prov. 26: 4). 
 
 And he who would follow this instruction does 
 not waste his time matching words with fools. 
 As to the words in the Bible, both readers are 
 correct, but neither Bible text is a positive com- 
 mand. It is the reader's duty to find when the 
 proverb, rather than a command, is in order, and 
 this calls for study and a measure of wisdom. 
 
Bible Words Not Always a Safe Guide 13 
 
 So in many another case, with Bible words in 
 
 the Old Testament and in the New. 
 
 "Bear ye one another's burdens" (Gal. 6: 2). 
 "Each man shall bear his own burden" (Gal. 6: 5). 
 
 No book in the world is so safe a guide for any 
 and for all as the Bible ; yet it is not enough to 
 know the mere words of the Bible, if we would 
 profit by this Book of books. It demands study, 
 and a sincere, prayerful desire to learn its mean- 
 ing. 
 
 Blunders are often made through supposing 
 that all the words of the Bible are to be taken 
 literally, just as they stand, instead of being taken 
 for what they evidently mean, in the light of their 
 surroundings, and of the obvious purpose of 
 their w r riter, and of the known spirit and teach- 
 ings of Him who gave the Bible for the guidance 
 of his children. 
 
 If a man says that it is wrong to go into a grog- 
 shop, or a saloon, or a bar-room, in order to res- 
 cue or warn one whom he loves, or to reform 
 others who are there, and whom he would lead 
 into better paths, he would certainly not be justi- 
 fied in this view by quoting the Bible words when 
 they say: 
 
 " Be not among winebibbers " (Prov. 2y. 20). 
 Yet these words as they stand might seem to be 
 a more sweeping condemnation than was often 
 
14 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 made of poor Mrs. Nation and other "reformers" 
 who spend so much time in disobeying the 
 Bible, — if the Bible words are to be taken liter- 
 ally. 
 
 Most of us have heard, from childhood, the 
 statement or declaration, as if from the Bible, 
 "Spare the rod and spoil the child." As com- 
 monly understood, this "text" is supposed to 
 mean, or to teach, that a loving father or mother 
 must now and then thrash or flog a boy or girl 
 with a "rod" or a switch or a shingle or a strap. 
 How many little creatures have suffered from 
 the application of that "text," or of the "rod" 
 spoken of in that text! And how many mis- 
 guided parents have tried to comfort themselves, 
 when causing their children to- suffer, with this 
 idea, perhaps supposing that they obeyed God 
 in this thing even if they never tried to obey 
 God in anything else ! 
 
 Yet there is no such injunction, or proverb, in 
 the Bible as "Spare the rod and spoil the child." 
 Perhaps the proverb that is as likely as any other 
 to have been perverted into an encouragement to 
 misguided parents to show their bad temper in 
 this way is this : 
 
 "He that spareth his rod hateth his son; 
 But he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes." 
 
 (Prov. 13: 24.) 
 
Bible Words Not Always a Safe Guide 15 
 
 But this does not justify flogging a boy or a 
 girl merely in order to show that that child is not 
 hated. One meaning for the Bible word trans- 
 lated "rod" is "scepter f it stands for "authority/' 
 "rule," "government," "control." A parent is set 
 of God to represent God in love toward his chil- 
 dren. In this spirit a parent is to "chasten." To 
 "chasten" is to train or to "bring up," not neces- 
 sarily to flog or thrash. 
 
 Other Bible texts have been as badly abused 
 and misused as that text. Let us be sure, then, 
 first, that a quoted "text" is in the Bible, and 
 then that it means what it says, instead of some- 
 thing very different, before we suppose that the 
 Bible teaches what we infer from the familiar 
 words. 
 
 In saying or thinking that Bible teachings, or 
 Bible statements, are contradictory, let us not be 
 surprised that this can be so. Many of the les r 
 sons of experience in our ordinary life course 
 seem, or are, contradictory. Our greatest help 
 often comes from our hindrances. Perhaps an 
 obstacle in our way hinders our rapid descent 
 down a steep hill, and thus helps us to safety and 
 a fresh foothold. That which is our real grief 
 to-day may be the cause of great gladness by and 
 by. Our being brought lower in thought and 
 spirit in the present may enable us to rise higher 
 
16 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 in the future. Even a mere athlete stoops low 
 as preparatory to his jumping high or to his leap- 
 ing long. Indeed, there is hardly anything in a 
 man's earthly experience that does not incident- 
 ally call for, or cause, the opposite. 
 
 Why, then, should we wonder that the best 
 gold of Bible truths does not lie in open sight 
 on the very surface ? We have to dig as for hid 
 treasure if we would get that which we should 
 and shall value most. We have reason therefore 
 to thank God that his Word must be studied, and 
 its meaning found out and pondered, by those 
 who would have its full benefits. 
 
II 
 
 HARMING 50ULS BY QUOTING 
 SCRIPTURE 
 
 Not only Bible words, but many other good 
 things in use in daily life are liable to be mis- 
 used, and so to harm instead of help. That 
 which has power for good, if well used, is likely 
 to have a corresponding power for evil if used 
 unwisely. Its value depends on the skill and care 
 displayed in its handling. A sharp carving knife, 
 which in the hand of the head of the household 
 may be a means of providing food for those who 
 sit around the family table, may, in the hand of 
 a little child or of a careless user, be a means of 
 harm or of death to the one who has it in hand, 
 or to those who are near him. As with mate- 
 rial instruments, so with spiritual — their helpful- 
 ness or harm pivots on their right using as surely 
 as on their intrinsic worth. 
 
 Thus, "the word of God is living, and active, 
 and sharper than any two-edged sword, and pierc- 
 ing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of 
 both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the 
 thoughts and intents of the heart." Yet the very 
 writer who assures us of this great truth, speak- 
 
18 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 ing for those who indite inspired Scripture, and 
 of those who receive the message, says, as to the 
 truth concerning Jesus Christ: "We have many 
 things to say, and hard of interpretation, seeing 
 ye are become dull of hearing. For when by 
 reason of the time ye ought to be teachers, ye 
 have need again that some one teach you the 
 rudiments of the first principles of the oracles 
 of God; and are become such as have need of 
 milk, and not of solid food." Hearers who are 
 of an age or who are in a position where they 
 "ought to be teachers'' often fail to perceive the 
 difference between truths which are as milk for 
 babes and those which are as solid food for full- 
 grown men, and in consequence harm others by 
 not "handling aright the word of truth" and 
 giving proper portions for their nourishment and 
 upbuilding. 
 
 Even the wisest religious teachers may be a 
 means of harming souls who are not sufficiently 
 considered in the manner and matter of the truth 
 presented to them. Peter and Paul were cer- 
 tainly above the average as religious teachers, 
 specially inspired for their exalted mission; but 
 Peter says as to the epistles of Paul concerning 
 Christ and his salvation : "Even as our beloved 
 brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given 
 to him, wrote unto you ; as also in all his epistles, 
 
Harming Souls by Quoting Scripture 19 
 
 speaking in them of these things; wherein are 
 some things hard to be understood, which the 
 ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the 
 other scriptures, unto their own destruction.'' 
 
 What we call "Holy Scripture" or "Holy 
 Bible" contains, as covering the pages and con- 
 tents of our English Bible, words of truth and 
 words of falsehood. This is not a matter of out- 
 side opinion ; it is so declared in the Holy Bible 
 itself, and it is to be recognized as the declara- 
 tion of holy men who gave us this inestimable 
 record. It is distinctly said in that record that 
 certain words came from God, and that certain 
 other words came from Satan, as illustrated in 
 succeeding pages ; that certain words were 
 spoken by men whom God approved and who 
 spoke for God, and that certain other words were 
 spoken by enemies of God, whose falsehoods and 
 whose falsity God by his representatives pointed 
 out. Who will dare to say, for one minute, that 
 the words of God and the words of Satan are 
 of equal worth, that there is to be no distinction 
 between the declarations of evil men contrary to 
 the principles of God's law, and the declarations 
 of men who spoke for God on the basis of eternal 
 principles disclosed by him? 
 
 Paul, writing to Timothy as to the Old Testa- 
 ment Scriptures, which he had learned from his 
 
20 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 childhood, says, "Every scripture inspired of 
 God/' or, as many read it, "is inspired of God, is 
 also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for cor- 
 rection, for instruction which is in righteousness." 
 That declaration of Paul's is true, as he meant it, 
 and as he meant it to be understood ; but as it is 
 often understood, or misunderstood, and is 
 quoted, or misquoted, it is not true. If it be 
 understood and quoted, as it often is, as meaning 
 that every written word, including all the words 
 of a certain version of the Sacred Scriptures, are 
 equally true, even those words that God shows 
 to be false, then that utterance of Paul is misun- 
 derstood, misquoted and misapplied, and souls 
 are harmed or imperiled by the act. And so of 
 many another portion of Scripture. 
 
 This is not merely a possible danger as to the 
 use of Scripture, it is a very common and a very 
 practical matter. The error of using Scripture 
 words to the injury of precious souls by misun- 
 derstanding and therefore by misusing them, is 
 widespread among teachers of well-nigh every 
 grade. It is to be noted in the Sunday-school 
 teacher's chair, in the superintendent's desk, at 
 the editor's table, in the clergyman's pulpit, in the 
 evangelist's tent, in the place of the theological 
 professor or the ecclesiastical delegate. It does 
 not even seem to be generally guarded against by 
 
Harming 5ouIs by Quoting Scripture 21 
 
 those who value most highly Bible words as their 
 weapon of attack and defense. 
 
 Many a man quotes from the book of Job as 
 if its words were all true, because it is part of 
 the Bible, without considering whether it is Job, 
 or Eliphaz, or Bildad, or Zophar, or Elihu, or 
 Satan, or God himself, who is the speaker. Simi- 
 larly as to the book of Ecclesiastes ; often no 
 difference seems to be noted between its passages 
 of truth and those of avowed error. Words of 
 the idolatrous Philistines are quoted as if they 
 were the words of a prophet of Israel. So as to 
 such texts as "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for 
 a tooth ;" "Jehovah watch between me and thee, 
 when we are absent one from another ;" "We all 
 do fade as a leaf;" "Handle not, nor taste, nor 
 touch (all which things are to perish with the 
 using). " "If meat causeth my brother to stumble, 
 I will eat no flesh for evermore, that I cause not 
 my brother to stumble." Such texts and others 
 have been so often misused that many now do 
 not have any idea of what is their true meaning. 
 Every week, sermons are preached from texts 
 misunderstood or misused by the preacher; and 
 similarly in other spheres. Can Scripture be 
 thus perverted without harm to hearers? 
 
 In quoting a Bible text, the first thing to be 
 considered is whether it is declared in the Bible 
 
22 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 as true or as false ; and the next thing is to learn 
 — not what it says, but — what it means. This 
 often requires close study. When these two 
 points are clear to the user's mind, it is time to 
 consider, as then of chief importance, whether it 
 is intended and fitted of God for application to 
 those to whom the user has a message at this par- 
 ticular time. How seldom all this is duly consid- 
 ered in advance ! And how much harm is done, 
 or risked, in consequence ! 
 
Ill 
 
 "UNDLRSTANDL5T THOU WHAT 
 THOU RLADLST?" 
 
 It is one thing to read the Bible ; it is an- 
 other thing to understand the Bible. Even 
 though one has a reverent spirit, and a sincere 
 desire to know the truth, as he reads in the Book 
 of books, it does not follow that he will have an 
 understanding of that which he reads. Knowl- 
 edge is necessary in order to the gaining of 
 knowledge. Study is essential to the acquire- 
 ment of the results of study. Guidance from 
 others is important, if we would be gainers from 
 our own efforts in research. It is not enough to 
 go to the Bible for instruction in that of which it 
 treats. We must have knowledge outside of that 
 which the Bible supplies, and help from outside 
 of ourselves as earnest seekers after truth, if we 
 would understand what we read and profit by 
 our reading. 
 
 A man high in authority in the court of Ethi- 
 opia, and presumably of more than ordinary in- 
 telligence, had journeyed from his country to 
 Jerusalem in order to worship Jehovah, the God 
 
 23 
 
24 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 of gods and the Lord of lords, at the one proper 
 house of worship. He was a student of the Old 
 Testament Scriptures. He had some knowledge 
 of the truth, and he wanted to have more. After 
 enjoying the advantages of a visit to the Holy 
 City, he was returning homeward. As he jour- 
 neyed he read in the book of Isaiah. Philip the 
 evangelist, a special messenger of God, guided 
 by the Holy Spirit; joined the Ethiopian as he 
 rode in his chariot, and his first question to him 
 was: 
 
 " Understandest thou what thou readest ? " 
 (Acts 8: 30.) 
 
 The intelligent and modest response of the 
 Ethiopian courtier was : 
 
 " How can I, except some one shall guide 
 me?" 
 
 And he there sought and received the help of 
 Philip in his Bible reading. 
 
 When two of the disciples of Jesus, better 
 trained than the Ethiopian chamberlain, were 
 wondering that their Master had submitted him- 
 self to death, that Master joined them, as they 
 walked in anxious thought, and, after reproach- 
 ing them for their dulness in the comprehension 
 of Bible truth, he became anew their teacher, 
 " and beginning from Moses and from all the 
 prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scrip- 
 
" Understandest Thou What Thou Readest?" 25 
 
 tures the things concerning himself." (Luke 
 24: 27.) Then for the first time they under- 
 stood what they had often read in the Bible with- 
 out understanding. 
 
 In the days of Jesus it was, as it is now, im- 
 portant, not merely to know the words of the 
 Bible, but to Understand what was meant by 
 those words as used by Bible writers, and as in- 
 tended to be understood by Bible readers. Such 
 understanding calls for knowledge and study, as 
 well as spiritual guidance. 
 
 Bible words do not always mean just what 
 they say, although Bible words always mean just 
 what they mean. In reading Bible words it is, 
 therefore, important for us to know just what 
 those words mean, as well as just what those 
 words say. When Jesus says, " The words that 
 I have spoken unto you are spirit, and are life," 
 (John 6: 63) we know that he means just what 
 he means, while he does not mean just what he 
 says. His " words " are not themselves " spirit " 
 or " life," although they be made the means of 
 both spirit and life. So, again, when Jesus says 
 concerning his betrayer, " Good were it for that 
 man if he had not been born" (Mark 14: 21), we 
 have no doubt as to what he means, but we do 
 not claim that the utterance as it stands is liter- 
 ally true. Of course it could not really be good 
 
26 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 for a man, unless there was a man for it to be 
 good for. 
 
 Not all that is in the Bible is written because it 
 is the truth. There are lies recorded there as 
 lies, intended to be understood as lies ; yet many 
 a time one of these lies is quoted as if it were 
 the truth. A gentleman once said to the writer, 
 in support of the idea that nothing is so precious 
 to a man as his life :' 
 
 "All that a man hath will he give for his life." 
 (Job 2: 4.) 
 
 " Where did you get that idea ? " said the 
 writer. 
 
 " From the Bible," was the answer. 
 
 "Who said it?" 
 
 " Really I don't remember." 
 
 " Well, it was Satan who said it. It was a lie 
 then, and it is a lie now. The Lord proved it 
 was a lie ; and here you are quoting that old lie 
 of Satan as if it were the truth, just because the 
 words as you quote them are in the Bible." 
 
 Yet that gentleman was not an ignoramus. He 
 was one of the original International Lesson 
 Committee, an exceptionally intelligent and care- 
 ful Bible student. He simply illustrated in his 
 course the liability there is of being deceived, or 
 of being a means of deceiving others, by taking 
 it for granted that all the words of the Bible are 
 
" Understandest Thou What Thou Readest?" 27 
 
 in themselves true, or are to be taken as meaning 
 just what they say, or seem to say. 
 
 While the Bible is from God, it was written by 
 men in human language ; and men are dependent 
 on their knowledge of human language for their 
 knowledge of the truths which God would teach 
 them through the Bible. Originally written in 
 Hebrew, Chaldaic, and Greek, the Bible had to 
 be translated into the vernacular of modern men 
 in order to be understood by modern men. Every 
 man needs help in the simplest reading of the 
 Bible in his own language. As a child he has to 
 be taught the meaning of Bible words in his ver- 
 nacular; and in his maturity he needs fresh light 
 on the significance and force of Bible terms that 
 he has but partially apprehended hitherto. A 
 man who called on Mr. Moody in his study was 
 surprised to find some open volumes of commen- 
 taries on his table. 
 
 " What, Brother Moody, do you use com- 
 mentaries ?" he asked. 
 
 " Of course I do, " said Moody. 
 
 " Well, I sha'n't enjoy your preaching so much, 
 now. I thought you preached right from the 
 Bible. " 
 
 " Did you ever like my sermons ? " 
 
 " Indeed I did. " 
 
 " Then you liked Moody's commentaries." 
 
28 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 Mr. Moody was shrewd enough to point out 
 in this way that that hearer was helped to an 
 understanding of what he read in the Bible by 
 Mr. Moody, as every one must be helped by 
 somebody in order to get the most and the best 
 from the Bible. 
 
 At the best, human language is imperfect and 
 liable to various interpretations and consequent 
 ambiguity and misunderstandings. Moreover, 
 words are figurative rather than exact and defini- 
 tive, and it is necessary to get at the truth by 
 the living suggestions in language, instead of 
 taking that language as finally conclusive in its 
 dead literalness. This difficulty in the use of 
 Bible language is increased, or intensified, by the 
 fact that the Bible was primarily written by 
 Easterns for Easterns; and that Easterns, by 
 their very nature, are prone to speak in figures 
 of speech as an appeal to the imagination. Yet 
 all human language is, in a sense, figurative, and 
 this fact must be borne in mind by one who would 
 understand the meaning of words as he reads 
 them. 
 
 A scoffer was finding fault with Bible language 
 because of its ambiguity, and claiming that relig- 
 ious truth, like scientific truth, should be stated in 
 exact terms that could never be misunderstood. 
 Terms for color and shape, he said, could not 
 
" Understandest Thou What Thou Readest?" 29 
 
 have two or more meanings, and would be the 
 same in the same language in all the passing 
 centuries. His Christian opponent responded: 
 
 " How would that be in a case like this : ' A 
 blackberry is red when it is green/ Is there no 
 ambiguity in the use of the terms for color 
 there ? " 
 
 Wherever human language is employed for the 
 expression of truth, scientific, poetic, or religious, 
 there are possibilities of misunderstanding by in- 
 telligent hearers or readers, and these must be 
 recognized and guarded against. 
 
 " Understandest thou what thou readest ? " is 
 a question that comes home with force to every 
 one who looks to the Bible for instruction and 
 guidance ; and the more intelligent the student of 
 the Bible is, the more inclined he is to say, " How 
 can I, except some one shall guide me ? " 
 
IV 
 
 PRINCIPLES RATHER THAN RULES 
 IN THE BIBLE 
 
 A chief value of the Bible as a guide of human 
 conduct is found in the fact that it is a book of 
 vital principles, instead of being a book of rigid 
 rules; that it indicates in its precepts the spirit 
 that should influence us in all our actions, instead 
 of declaring to us in specific injunctions the 
 application of those principles in every imagin- 
 able case. Yet it is just at this point that the 
 Bible is misunderstood by many, and that many 
 are perplexed by what seems to them a lack of 
 explicitness in the divinely inspired teachings of 
 the Bible. 
 
 Men go to the Bible for rules of conduct, when 
 they ought to go there for principles to guide 
 them in framing rules. They find there a state- 
 ment which is in the form of a rule, and they 
 accept it as unqualifiedly binding on themselves 
 and others for all time, when a closer study of 
 its meanings would show that it was intended not 
 as an invariable rule, but as an incidental illus- 
 tration of a principle that is of unvarying appli- 
 cation to all persons and all times. In this way 
 
 30 
 
Principles Rather than Rules in the Bible 31 
 
 men are often misled by the letter of the Bible 
 text, and fail to perceive the life-giving spirit of 
 that text. 
 
 In the Old Testament it is written : " Thou 
 shalt love Jehovah thy God with all thy heart, 
 and with all thy soul, and with all thy might ; " 
 and again : " Thou shalt love thy neighbor as 
 thyself. " In the New Testament these com- 
 mandments are repeated in the same form ; and 
 Jesus says of them : " On these two command- 
 ments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets." 
 Yet these commandments are of small account as 
 mere rules of conduct, while they are "exceed- 
 ing broad " as principles to guide all conduct. 
 They do not tell us what to do to show that we 
 love God, or that we love our neighbor. They 
 do give us a principle by which we can shape our 
 actions towards God and towards man. We must, 
 however, first know what love is, and then we 
 must learn by study and thought what is required 
 as an exhibit of love. 
 
 He who really wants to know and to do just 
 what is right in any given case, has the respon- 
 sibility laid upon him of finding out for himself 
 how the principle of these commandments bears 
 upon that case, and then of acting accordingly. 
 But if a man is puzzled to know whether love 
 requires him to take the right hand or the left 
 
32 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 when he meets a fellow-man on a narrow cross- 
 ing in a muddy street, he will find no specific 
 declaration on the subject in the pages of the 
 entire Bible. The principles enunciated in the 
 Bible ought to enable a man to see that it is his 
 duty to conform to the well-defined current prac- 
 tise in such -a matter and to concede to his 
 fellow-man that portion of the pathway which 
 custom or law declares to be his fellow-man's. 
 But unless a man is willing to study out from 
 Bible principles a rule that should guide him in 
 the case, he must be so far without a rule that 
 has the Bible sanction. And thus it is in all the 
 range of human duty; the Bible enunciates the 
 principle that ought in every case to be a man's 
 standard of action, while it does not purpose to 
 supply a man with a specific rule for every partic- 
 ular case before him for decision. 
 
 Although this is unmistakably the truth con- 
 cerning the Bible, it is by no means generally 
 recognized as the truth ; and because of the mis- 
 conceptions of the purpose and methods of the 
 Bible so far, men are constantly misleading them- 
 selves in courses of conduct through their con- 
 viction that the Bible does or does not specifically 
 pass upon those courses of conduct for all time 
 and for every person. They perceive, for example, 
 that a certain course of conduct seems, at the 
 
Principles Rather than Rules in the Bible 33 
 
 present time, to tend to the injury of the one 
 who pursues it, and of others who are affected by 
 its influence. This causes them to ask whether 
 or not the course be a sinful one. Going to the 
 Bible with an idea that that is a book of specific 
 rules of conduct, instead of a book of principles 
 from which rules of conduct are to be deduced, 
 they look for some explicit forbidding of the 
 course in question, and, not finding that there, 
 they decide that the conduct itself cannot prop- 
 erly be counted sinful. Their mistake is not as 
 to what is in the Bible, but as to what the' Bible 
 is. They suppose the Bible to be a book of rules, 
 when it really is a book of principles illustrated 
 by historic applications of principles to particu- 
 lar cases. 
 
 A gentleman once challenged the writer to 
 point to a single Bible text that forbade human 
 slavery, or if he could not do so to admit that 
 human slavery was in conformity with Bible 
 teachings. Thus challenged, the writer replied: 
 
 " I frankly confess that I cannot point to any 
 Bible text which, taken as it stands in the obvious 
 meaning attached to it by its writer, specifically 
 forbids slavery, polygamy, or wine drinking. At 
 the same time, I cannot point to any single Bible 
 text which specifically commands any one of these 
 practises. Therefore, as at present advised, and 
 
34 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 in the light of gospel principles as I understand 
 them, and in the exercise of a sound Christian 
 discretion, I shall have but one wife, no negro, 
 and drink cold water. " 
 
 There was the argument in a nutshell as to the 
 view of Bible texts as expressive of principles, or 
 of rules. One man looked to the Bible as a mere 
 book of rules ; the other looked to it as a thesau- 
 rus of principles, from which rules were to be 
 deduced for the guidance of conduct from time 
 to time. 
 
 It is true that the New Testament (Col. 3: 
 22) says explicitly: "Servants [the Greek is 
 bond-servant or slave] obey in all things them 
 that are your masters, according to the flesh/' 
 and that slaves were exhorted to be in subjection 
 to their own masters. But that was simply the 
 enunciation of a principle which is to guide all 
 Christians in their relations to those having 
 authority over them. It is not a rule which en- 
 joins the practise of human slavery at all times. 
 It is true that a proverb in use in Solomon's day 
 says : " Look not thou upon the wine when it is 
 red," but that is no more binding as an invariable 
 rule for all men everywhere, than the other 
 proverb : " Go to the ant, thou sluggard." It 
 does not mean it is safe to drink wine with your 
 eyes shut. It does mean that if you want to be 
 
Principles Rather than Rules in the Bible 35 
 
 clear of danger from wine, you will do well to let 
 it alone, without even looking towards it in its 
 attractiveness. It is true that office bearers in the 
 church were required to have only one wife ; but 
 that does not mean that laymen holding no offi- 
 cial position were to have more than one wife. 
 The principle enunciated in that command was 
 that in a polygamous community no man who 
 indulged in polgyamy was to be chosen for an 
 office in the Christian church. 
 
 An eminent and highly honored bishop of the 
 Church of England said, in an address on the 
 subject of betting and gambling, in the presence 
 of the clergy of his diocese : " There is no sin 
 in racing or betting, any more than there is sin in 
 drinking; excessive betting is sin, just as exces- 
 sive drinking is sin." Then, as showing how he 
 arrived at this conclusion, he added : u If a man 
 says, ' I will bet you £5 that it will not rain to- 
 morrow, ' I think it would take a long time to 
 prove from the Bible that that man was guilty of 
 a sin. " The trouble with the learned bishop in 
 this case was not so much in his view of betting 
 as in his view of the Bible. He seemed to sup- 
 pose that unless a perilous practise is specifically 
 condemned in the Bible, it cannot be reckoned 
 a sinful practise ; whereas the principles enunci- 
 ated in the Bible are sufficiently comprehensive 
 
36 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 and clear to prove that it may be sinful for us to 
 indulge in a perilous practise which is not in itself 
 a sin. 
 
 The Bible does not declare cabbage-eating to 
 be a sin ; but if, during a season of cholera, or at 
 any other time, a man's physician should tell him 
 that for him to eat cabbage would be sheer sui- 
 cide, does it need any proof-text from the Bible 
 to show that cabbage-eating by that man would 
 be sinful ? The Bible would exhibit to that man 
 the principle by which his conduct should be 
 guided, but it would give him no explicit rule as 
 to cabbage-eating. Even if he were to find in the 
 Bible narrative that patriarchs, prophets, and 
 apostles had eaten cabbage freely, that fact would 
 not make it any the less sinful for him to eat 
 cabbage in the face of its probable consequences 
 to him and to his. And it matters not whether 
 the illustration be taken from the cabbage- 
 garden, the orchard, or the vineyard. 
 
 If, indeed, the Bible is properly reckoned as 
 a book in which are to be found explicit rules of 
 conduct in every emergency, it would seem to be 
 strangely incomplete in its categories of good and 
 evil performances. What Bible texts explicitly 
 forbid the counterfeiting of government money, 
 the forging of another's name, the cutting of 
 public telegraph wires, the distilling of whisky 
 
Principles Rather than Rules in the Bible 37 
 
 without a permit from the authorities, the 
 " watering " of the capital stock of the company 
 which one controls or of the milk which one 
 offers for sale ? There is a great deal of down- 
 right rascality current in the community at the 
 present day which can be shown to be immoral 
 and sinful by a reference to the principles enunci- 
 ated in the Bible, but which is not declared to be 
 a sin by any specific rule of the Bible text. And 
 this is because the Bible is a book of principles 
 instead of a book of rules. 
 
 A denomination of Christians which is very 
 rigid in its practises, and very literal in its inter- 
 pretation of Bible texts, was called on at one of 
 its formal conferences to declare whether bicycle 
 riding was allowable for its members. Turning 
 to the Bible, with the belief that a specific rule 
 must be found applicable for every such case it 
 actually gave utterance to the decision that bicycle 
 riding was improper for Christian believers, be- 
 cause of its undoubted popularity ; " for that 
 which is highly esteemed among men is an 
 abomination in the sight of God." 
 
 It is true that the ancient Levitical law included 
 a great number of specific rules of conduct, as 
 illustrative of the application of the great prin- 
 ciples of the Bible to everyday life in all its de- 
 tails ; but those rules were for a single people and 
 
38 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 for a limited period, and their purpose was rather 
 to show how Bible principles might apply to all 
 human practise, than to indicate the only lines of 
 human practise in which Bible principles were to 
 find their application. 
 
 There is a decided unwillingness in the popular 
 mind, and indeed in many a professional mind, 
 to accept this view of the Bible as the correct 
 view; for it would be so much easier to learn 
 one's duty without the study of principles than 
 it is to study in order to this learning, that it 
 seems to the average man that if the Bible is 
 good for anything as a guide of conduct, it must 
 be as a book of rules rather than as a book of 
 principles. What a relief it would be to most 
 minds to have a Bible that would tell a man 
 specifically just what is right, and just what is 
 wrong, in every imaginable crisis of affairs ; just 
 what he may do, and just what he must not do, 
 in every sphere of human conduct ! 
 
 If only the Bible were thus divinely arranged, 
 and a full index of subjects were added to it, how 
 simple would be the matter of learning one's duty 
 in life ! Any one could turn to the topics in the 
 Bible index and learn for himself the right or 
 wrong of a mooted question. " Backgammon, " 
 " Betting, " " Bicycles, " " Billiards, " " Cards, " 
 " Church Fairs, " " Cider, " " Civil Service Re- 
 
Principles Rather than Rules in the Bible 39 
 
 form/' " Dancing," "Free Trade," " Gam- 
 bling," " Golf," " Grab Bags," " Horse Racing," 
 and so on all the way down to " Operas," " Pool 
 Rooms, " " Prohibition, " " Theater-going, " 
 " Unf ermented Wine, " and " Woman's Suf- 
 frage. " A mere child could find the references 
 when the index showed the page of the rule in 
 the premises. This would seem to the average 
 mind, such a gain over the tedious process of 
 hunting out the Bible principle involved, and 
 then studying over its application to the case in 
 question ! There is a difference in these two 
 ways ; but the one way is that which man would 
 prefer, while the other is that which God sees 
 to be best. 
 
QUESTIONS OF AUTHORSHIP NOT 
 ALWAYS IMPORTANT 
 
 Who wrote a document is sometimes deemed 
 all-important in considering its value ; and again 
 it is not so deemed* If it is a promissory note, 
 the personality of the signer is counted the chief 
 thing in an estimate of its pecuniary worth. If 
 it is a last will and testament, it pivots entirely 
 on the authenticity of the signature. On the 
 other hand, when one reads on a public guide- 
 post a direction to a village or city which he 
 desires to reach, he is more interested in the 
 direction than in the question of its authorship. 
 If he is a sensible man, he usually takes it for 
 granted that the guide-post was set up by some 
 one who knew the road, and who desired to help 
 seekers of that place, and the traveler is likely to 
 keep on his course, nothing doubting. 
 
 Yet there have been misplaced guide-posts and 
 deceived travelers. It is possible that this guide- 
 post was erected in ignorance, or with a desire 
 to mislead and deceive, and that he who follows 
 its directions will go astray. If one stops to 
 think, he has to consider these truths ; and of 
 
 40 
 
Questions of Authorship Not Always Important 41 
 
 those who do think, nine hundred and ninety-nine 
 persons out of every one thousand cannot have 
 positive evidence of the authority and knowledge 
 and right purpose of the original writer of the 
 time-worn guide-post which has led successive 
 generations of travelers on their way. They 
 must take it for granted that those who went 
 before them, following the directions on the 
 guide-post as it stands, were on the right track, 
 and can be imitated prudently. 
 
 If a man who was crossing a desert plain, and 
 thirsted for water, were to come to a finger-post 
 pointing to a tempting hollow just beyond the 
 ordinary pathway, with the words, " To an ever- 
 flowing spring, " what would be thought of that 
 man if he were to fail to turn towards that spot, 
 because he did not know who wrote those direc- 
 tions, and he was unwilling to follow an unknown 
 guide ? Suppose, further, that that man had 
 been told by different travelers over that same 
 road that they had turned to that spring and 
 been refreshed, and that, although they were not 
 sure who wrote it originally, they could testify 
 to the accuracy of the direction, — suppose that 
 that man still refused to turn to the spring be- 
 cause of the lack of evidence of authorship, and 
 famished at the foot of the finger-post, waiting 
 for further evidence ! Would not the universal 
 
42 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 verdict be that his foolish questioning had been 
 his deserved destruction ? 
 
 Is there nothing of this sort in the sphere 
 of intellectual or of spiritual life ? Are we sure 
 of the hand that inscribed all the directions on 
 the guide-posts along the way of life in the 
 books of Holy Scripture? Or is a knowledge 
 of that hand comparable in importance with 
 the directions found there? Would it not be 
 folly to refuse to heed those directions which 
 have guided generation after generation of 
 seekers of the way and the water of life, be- 
 cause there is fair question as to the hand that 
 first inscribed those directions? 
 
 Many Bible scholars spend much precious 
 time in discussing questions as to the propor- 
 tion of the first five books of the Old Testament 
 actually written by Moses, or of the number 
 of Psalms written by David. And yet, as show- 
 ing that these questions are not of chief im- 
 portance, the most positive of such scholars do 
 not claim to know who was the author of such 
 books as Judges, and Kings, and Chronicles, 
 and Ruth, and Esther, and Job, and Daniel, 
 even while they admit the importance of the 
 truths recorded in those books. 
 
 No book of the Old Testament canon is of 
 more importance and value, as bearing on the 
 
Questions of Authorship Not Always Important 43 
 
 coming of the Messiah as recorded in the New 
 Testament, than the book of Malachi. Yet just 
 who wrote the book of Malachi neither Jewish 
 nor Christian scholars have claimed to know. 
 All that we can be confident of is that the name 
 of its writer was not "Malachi." "Malachi " rep- 
 resents the writer's office or mission, but not 
 his name. Yet of what supreme importance to 
 the race have been the directions on the Mala- 
 chi guide-post, pointing out the coming of the 
 Messiah as the world's Saviour. Would it not 
 indeed be folly to refuse to heed the pointing 
 of that spiritual finger-post because its inscriber 
 is not known, while the verity of its inscription 
 has been proved by the test of two thousand 
 years ? 
 
 Take again, for instance, a single illustration 
 of methods in New Testament criticism. Do not 
 some thirsty, groping travelers hesitate to follow 
 the directions given in what is commonly known 
 as the Fourth Gospel, because they are not 
 entirely certain as to its original authorship, and 
 are unwilling to follow an unknown guide ? There 
 is more spiritual help proffered in that one book 
 than in any other of the Bible, from Genesis to 
 Revelation. All that is in the other books of the 
 Bible has added light thrown on it through the 
 words of that one book. More persons testify to 
 
44 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 the surpassing help given to those who follow 
 these teachings than do as to any other portion 
 of the Bible. Yet there are those who actually 
 famish for spiritual refreshing, and who grope 
 in spiritual darkness, because they are not quite 
 sure as to the authorship of the Gospel, and are 
 unwilling to receive the Water of Life, and to 
 walk in the Light of Life, until they have more 
 evidence as to the authorship of the book. Is 
 not this strange ? 
 
 An exceptionally intelligent student who had 
 come to accept the general views of Darwin and 
 Huxley and Spencer, and who called himself an 
 agnostic, was familiar with the strongest writ- 
 ings of those of that school. But one day he 
 thought he would look fairly at what was called 
 the strongest presentation of the Christian side 
 of truth, and he took up the Fourth Gospel, and 
 read it through from beginning to end. He sim- 
 ply took it as a book, aside from any outside 
 evidence as to its authenticity. When he had 
 read it through, he said to himself : 
 
 " The One of whom that story tells either is 
 the Saviour of the world or ought to be." 
 
 Because of what that book told him of that 
 Person, he was ready to heed the call of that 
 Person when he said : 
 
 " If any man thirst, let him come unto me and 
 
Questions of Authorship Not Always Important 45 
 
 drink, " and again, " I am the light of the world : 
 he that followeth me shall not walk in the dark- 
 ness, but shall have the light of life. " 
 
 Because of thus reading that book, instead of 
 waiting for outside evidence of its authorship, 
 that true scholar is a follower of the Light of the 
 World, pointing others to the finger-post that 
 indicates the direction out of the shadow into the 
 sun. 
 
 That is the way it has been with many a trained 
 scholar and honest inquirer. Similarly it is with 
 those of humbler and more simple minds. When 
 Bishop Patteson began his work among the sav- 
 ages of the islands of Melanesia, he wasted no 
 time in teaching the early history of the human 
 race, and the progress and development of relig- 
 ious doctrine. He began at once with the simple 
 yet profound teachings of the Fourth Gospel as it 
 stands in our Bibles, and his success evidenced 
 the correctness of his method. 
 
 For eighteen centuries the children of men and 
 the children of God who have followed the point- 
 ing of that spiritual finger-post, have walked in 
 the unfading light, and have been refreshed at 
 the Fountain that satisfies all thirst. None who 
 would consent to be thus guided have ever been 
 led astray. The spiritual history of our race has 
 been shaped by the teachings of that book as by 
 
46 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 no other book, human or divine. Why should 
 any hesitate or doubt because of subordinate 
 questions of authorship, when the internal evi- 
 dence of truth in the book is so strong, and so 
 many generations have followed safely the way 
 it points out ? 
 
 What shall we say of the poor doubters who 
 famish at the foot of the spiritual finger-post, 
 straining their weak eyes to discover whether 
 there be not some reason to believe that certain 
 letters of the inscription show a later date or 
 another artist than the alleged author of the direc- 
 tion ? " Lord, open their eyes, that they may 
 see. n 
 
VI 
 
 LOVE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, 
 LAW IN THE NEW 
 
 " Law is the religion of the Old Testament, 
 Love is the religion of the New. " That is a 
 popular idea, among Christians, as to the Bible 
 and its teachings. The idea is proclaimed in this 
 form of statement in pulpit and in press so fre- 
 quently, if not so generally, that very many accept 
 it as not to be questioned or qualified. Yet it 
 might, with equal fairness and propriety, be 
 asserted that " Love is the religion of the Old 
 Testament, and Law is the religion of the New. " 
 Both statements are true in a sense : neither state- 
 ment is complete by itself, or as ordinarily under- 
 stood. In God's government, and in God's revela- 
 tion of himself, love is in all his law, and all his 
 law is in love. Whoever fails to recognize this 
 truth, fails to understand the Bible as a revelation 
 of God, in both the Old Testament and the New. 
 If, indeed, it could be shown that the New Tes- 
 tament is not consistent with the Old, and that it 
 presents God as of a different spirit from that in 
 which he is revealed in the earlier disclosures of 
 himself to man, it would be necessary to accept 
 
 47 
 
48 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 one of these Testaments as true, and to reject the 
 other as not true. If it could be shown that Jesus 
 Christ was not a manifestation of God as God 
 was from the beginning, then either God or Jesus 
 Christ would have to be accepted as the object of 
 worship and of confidence, as the other could not 
 be ; for " God is not a God of confusion, but of 
 peace, " — or of unity. If the claims of Chris- 
 tianity be urged as those of a new religion, with 
 no place in the world's history prior to twenty 
 centuries ago, they bear no comparison with the 
 claims of Christianity as the flower and fruit of 
 Judaism, rooted in the love of God to man, as 
 shown in law and promise and guard and guid- 
 ance in all the centuries told of, from Adam to 
 Abraham, from Abraham to Judas Maccabeus, 
 and again from John the Baptist to John the 
 Apocalyptist. 
 
 That love is only, or primarily, or mainly, of 
 the New Testament, in contrast with the Old, is 
 a comparatively modern error, widespread 
 though it be to-day. It did not come from a 
 careful study of the teachings, nor from an 
 apprehension of the spirit, of the Old Testament. 
 It was not taught by Jesus or his apostles. It is 
 not a declaration of the New Testament. It was 
 not presented as the view of the early Christian 
 teachers. St. Augustine, for instance, distinctly 
 
Love in the Old Testament, Law in the New 49 
 
 affirmed the opposite. He said, " If . . . all 
 divine Scripture, which was written aforetime [in 
 the Old Testament], was written with a view of 
 presignifying the Lord's advent ; and if whatever 
 has been committed to writing in times subsequent 
 to these, and established by divine authority [in 
 the New Testament], is a record of Christ, and 
 admonishes us of love, it is manifest that on those 
 two commandments of love to God and love to 
 man hang not only all the law and the prophets, 
 which at the time when the Lord spoke to that 
 effect were as yet the only Holy Scripture, but 
 also all those books of the divine literature which 
 have been written at a later period for our health, 
 and consigned to remembrance. Wherefore, in 
 the Old Testament there is a veiling of the New, 
 and in the New Testament there is a revealing 
 of the Old. " Love is in law, and there is law in 
 love. Or, as Browning phrases it, by the lips 
 of David as foreseeing the greater Son of David : 
 
 " I report, as a man may of God's work, — all's love, 
 yet all's law." 
 
 When God manifested himself to his people 
 
 Israel at Sinai, with lightnings and thunderings 
 
 and the voice of a trumpet and the smoking of 
 
 the mountain, and when the people were 
 
 affrighted, and stood afar off, Moses bade them 
 
 fear not, for God had come, not for their punish- 
 
50 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 ment, but for their good. At that time God made 
 a covenant of love with his people, and the Ten 
 Words of that loving covenant, not the Ten Com- 
 mandments of an arbitrary law as we are accus- 
 tomed to consider them, were written on two 
 stone tablets, to be kept in a casket, or the " Ark 
 of the Covenant, " as a permanent memorial. 
 That the Israelites understood love to be at the 
 basis of this law, or this covenant, was shown in 
 the fact that when the law was rewritten, or 
 repeated, in Deuteronomy, the sum of the law 
 was given in this form : 
 
 " Hear, O Israel : Jehovah our God is one Je- 
 hovah : and thou shalt love Jehovah thy God with 
 all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all 
 thy might. And these words, which I command 
 thee this day, shall be upon thy heart: and thou 
 shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and 
 shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thy 
 house, and when thou walkest by the way, and 
 when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. 
 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy 
 hand, and they shall be for frontlets between 
 thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the 
 door-posts of thy house, and upon thy gates " 
 (Deut. 6: 4-9). 
 
 This summary or substance of the Covenant of 
 Love between God and his people was inscribed 
 
Love in the Old Testament, Law in the New 51 
 
 on the " mezuzah " attached to the door frame of 
 every pious Jew's home, as it was also written in 
 the phylacteries bound on the forehead and on 
 the hand of the stricter Jew. As it was in more 
 ancient times, so it was in the days of Jesus, and 
 so it is to-day. It was in the very heart of the 
 Levitical law that it was also commanded, " Thou 
 shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart," " but 
 thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself " (Lev. 
 19: 17, 18). And that both an enemy and a 
 stranger were to be included in the scope of 
 neighborly love was shown by the Mosaic injunc- 
 tions, " One law shall be to him that is home- 
 born, and unto the stranger that sojourneth 
 among you" (Exod. 12: 49); "The stranger 
 that sojourneth with you shall be unto you as the 
 homeborn among you, and thou shalt love him 
 as thyself; for ye were sojourners in the land of 
 Egypt" (Lev. 19: 34); "If thou meet thine 
 enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt 
 surely bring it back to him again" (Exod. 23: 
 4, 5). It is in the Proverbs of old that we read, 
 
 44 If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; 
 And if he be thirsty, give him water to drink: 
 For thou wilt heap coals of fire upon his head, 
 And Jehovah will reward thee" 
 
 (Prov. 25: 21, 22). 
 
 These teachings are not first found in the Ser- 
 
52 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 mon on the Mount, or in the other words of 
 Jesus, or of his disciples, but in the Old Testa- 
 ment. Is there not love in the religion which 
 enjoins them? When Jesus declared that an- 
 other religion than his was taught by "them of 
 old time/' he did not refer to the writers of the 
 Old Testament, but to the popular commenta- 
 tors of a later time — who had perverted the 
 meaning of the love-filled law. 
 
 When Jesus asked a questioning Jewish 
 teacher of the law what he understood to be the 
 main requirements of the law, the teacher 
 promptly replied, " Thou shalt love the Lord thy 
 God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and 
 with all thy strength, and with all thy mind. ,, 
 (Luke 10: 2j.) Jesus then said unto him, 
 " Thou hast answered right : this do, and thou 
 shalt live/' On another occasion Jesus himself 
 cited as correct the Old Testament teaching of 
 God's requirement, in answer to a Jewish scribe's 
 question as to what was duty. This scribe, 
 speaking as one well instructed in the truths of 
 the Old Testament, replied, "Of a truth, 
 Teacher, thou hast well said that he is one ; and 
 there is none other but he ; and to love him with 
 all the heart, and with all the understanding, and 
 with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as 
 himself, is much more than all whole burnt offer- 
 
Love in the Old Testament, Law in the New 53 
 
 ings and sacrifices " (Mark 12: 32, 33). The 
 comment of Jesus on that answer was, " Thou 
 art not far from the kingdom of God." Jesus 
 saw love in the Old Testament ; so did that Jew- 
 ish scribe. 
 
 It is true that there was progress in the dis- 
 closure of God's love according as man was 
 capable of comprehending its fulness, its ten- 
 derness, and its limitless scope; but in the ear- 
 liest ages man was shown that God was actuated 
 by love for him in all his dealings with him. As 
 soon as man felt his need of forgiveness and 
 salvation, God promised to open a way of restor- 
 ation for him (Gen. 3: 15). Just because Abra- 
 ham was willing to trust God utterly, God called 
 him his " friend/' and treated him accordingly 
 (Gen. 12: 1-4; 15: 1-6; 18: 17-19; 2 Chron. 
 20: 7). This was long before the day of Moses 
 at Sinai. Afterward God told Israel tenderly 
 of his love for that people : " Jehovah did not 
 set his love upon you, nor choose you, because 
 ye were more in number than any people ; for ye 
 were the fewest of all peoples ; but because Jeho- 
 vah loveth you. . . . And he will love 
 thee" (Deut. 7: 7, 8, 13). God's love for man 
 was not because of man's lovableness, but be- 
 cause of God's lovingness. Love, and mercy, 
 and compassion, and tenderness, are in the dif- 
 
54 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 ferent books of the Old Testament, from Genesis 
 to Malachi. 
 
 The Psalms are tremulous with these feelings : 
 
 " For my father and my mother have forsaken me, 
 But Jehovah will take me up" (Psa 2J: 10). 
 
 "Oh how great is thy goodness, which thou hast laid 
 up for them that fear thee, 
 Which thou hast wrought for them that take refuge 
 in thee, before 1 the sons of men !" 
 
 (Psa. 31: 19.) 
 
 " O God, thou art my God ; earnestly will I seek thee : 
 My soul thirsteth for thee, my flesh longeth for thee, 
 In a dry and weary land, where no water is. . . . 
 Because thy lovingkindness is better than life; 
 My lips shall praise thee" (Psa. 63: 1, 3). 
 
 "Jehovah is merciful and gracious, 
 Slow to anger, and abundant in lovingkindness. . . . 
 He hath not dealt with us after our sins, 
 Nor rewarded us after our iniquities. . . . 
 As far as the east is from the west, 
 So far hath he removed our transgressions from us. 
 Like as a father pitieth his children, 
 So Jehovah pitieth them that fear him" (Psa. 103: 
 8, 10, 12, 13). 
 "Oh that men would praise Jehovah for his loving- 
 kindness, 
 And for his wonderful works to the children of men!" 
 (Psa. 107: 15.) 
 
 " Oh give thanks unto Jehovah ; for he is good : 
 For his lovingkindness endureth for ever " 
 
 (Psa. 118: 1). 
 
Love in the Old Testament, Law in the New 55 
 
 Isaiah, whose prophecies are the gospel of the 
 Old Testament, repeats and carries on this 
 strain : " Thus saith Jehovah, . . . Fear 
 not, for I have redeemed thee ; I have called 
 thee by thy name, thou art mine. When thou 
 passest through the waters, I will be with thee ; 
 and through the rivers, they shall not overflow 
 thee : when thou walkest through the fire, thou 
 shalt not be burned, neither shall the flame kindle 
 upon thee. For I am Jehovah thy God, the 
 Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour " (Isa. 43: 1-3). 
 " Can a woman forget her sucking child, that 
 she should not have compassion on the son of 
 her womb ? Yea, these may forget, yet will not 
 I forget thee " (Isa. 49: 15). "As one whom 
 his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you " 
 (Isa. 66: 13). Not to sons of Abraham, or to 
 children of Israel, alone, is God thus a loving and 
 tender Father, in the thought of the Evangelical 
 Prophet. " For thou art our Father, though 
 Abraham knoweth us not, and Israel doth not 
 acknowledge us : thou, O Jehovah, art our 
 Father ; our Redeemer from everlasting is thy 
 name " (Isa. 63: 16). 
 
 Thus with the later prophets also. How God 
 pleads in tireless love with his disobedient chil- 
 dren ! " Wilt thou not from this time cry unto 
 me, My Father, thou art the guide of my youth?" 
 
56 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 (Jer. 3:4). "I have loved thee with an ever- 
 lasting love : therefore with lovingkindness have 
 I drawn thee" (Jer. 31: 3). "Ye my sheep, 
 the sheep of my pasture, are men, and I am your 
 God, saith the Lord Jehovah" (Ezek. 34: 31). 
 " I will say to them which were not my people, 
 Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou 
 art my God " (Has. 2: 23). "Jehovah thy God 
 is in the midst of thee, a mighty one who will 
 save; he will rejoice over thee with joy: he will 
 rest in his love; he will joy over thee with sing- 
 ing" (Zeph. 3: 17). "He that toucheth you 
 toucheth the apple of his eye " (Zech. 2:8). "I 
 have loved you, saith Jehovah. Yet ye say, 
 Wherein hast thou loved us?" (Mai. 1: 2). 
 " Have we not all one father? Hath not one God 
 created us?" (Mai. 2: 10). "Then they that 
 feared the Lord spake one with another; and 
 the Lord hearkened, and heard, and a book of 
 remembrance was written before him, for them 
 that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his 
 name. And they shall be mine, saith the Lord 
 of hosts, in the day that I do make, even a pecu- 
 liar treasure ; and I will spare them, as a man 
 spareth his own son that serveth him" (Mai. 3: 
 
 16, 17). 
 
 Who shall say that in the Old Testament love 
 is not more prominent than law? Of course, 
 
Love in the Old Testament, Law in the New 57 
 
 there is law, and the exhibit of the consequences 
 of its violation, in the Old Testament, as again 
 in the New ; but in the Old Testament, as in the 
 New, there is shown love as back of all law, as 
 evidenced in all law, and as promising redemp- 
 tion from the consequences of law violated by 
 unloving man. 
 
 On the other hand, does not the law show itself 
 in the New Testament, as binding in love on all 
 of God's children? It is so emphasized by Jesus 
 Christ, and so taught by his followers from Mat- 
 thew to Paul. What more emphatic expres- 
 sion of the obligations of the law is found in all 
 the Old Testament than in the words of Jesus 
 in what is called the " Sermon on the Mount," — 
 not of Mt. Sinai, but of the mountain of Galilee : 
 " Think not that I came to destroy the law or 
 the prophets : I came not to destroy, but to ful- 
 fil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and 
 earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no 
 wise pass away from the law, till all things be 
 accomplished. Whosoever therefore shall break 
 one of these least commandments, and shall 
 teach men so, shall be called least in the king- 
 dom of heaven : but whosoever shall do and 
 teach them, he shall be called great in the king- 
 dom of heaven. For I say unto you, that except 
 your righteousness shall exceed the righteous- 
 
58 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 ness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no 
 wise enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 
 5: 17-20). "Not every one that saith unto me, 
 Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of 
 heaven ; but he that doeth the will of my Father 
 who is in heaven" (Matt. 7: 21). Again 
 Jesus said : " The scribes and the Pharisees sit 
 on Moses' seat: all things therefore whatsoever 
 they bid you, these do and observe ; but do not 
 ye after their works ; for they say, and do not " 
 (Matt. 23:2, 3). 
 
 It is Jesus who foretells the future punish- 
 ment of evil-doers, the violators of God's laws 
 and commandments. There are no such pic- 
 tures of future judgment and of hell for the 
 disobedient, in the Old Testament, as Jesus gives 
 in the New. " The Son of man shall send forth, 
 his angels, and they shall gather out of his king- 
 dom all things that cause stumbling, and them 
 that do iniquity, and shall cast them into the 
 furnace of fire : there shall be the weeping and 
 the gnashing of teeth" (Matt. 13: 41, 42). 
 " When the Son of man shall come in his glory, 
 and all the angels with him, then shall he sit on 
 the throne of his glory : and before him shall be 
 gathered all the nations : and he shall separate 
 them one from another, as the shepherd sepa- 
 rateth the sheep from the goats ; and he shall set 
 
Love in the Old Testament, Law in the New 59 
 
 the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the 
 left. . . . Then shall he say . . . unto them 
 on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, 
 into the eternal fire which is prepared for the 
 devil and his angels. . . . Inasmuch as ye 
 did it not unto one of these least, ye did it not 
 unto me. And these shall go away into eternal, 
 punishment " (Matt. 25: 31-46). "That serv- 
 ant, who knew his lord's will, and made not 
 ready, nor did according to his will, shall be 
 beaten with many stripes ; but he that knew not, 
 and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten 
 with few stripes " (Luke 12: 47). 
 
 This is taught not only in the earlier words 
 of Jesus, but in his later words also ; not alone 
 to the Jewish multitudes, but to the inner circle 
 of his disciple friends. It was on the night of 
 his betrayal that he said to those dearest to him, 
 "If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments. ,, 
 " He *that hath my commandments, and keepeth 
 them, he it is that loveth me." " If a man love 
 me, he will keep my word [my commandments] : 
 and my Father will love him. . . . He that 
 loveth me not keepeth not my words : and the 
 word [the commandment] which ye hear is not 
 mine, but the Father's who sent me " (John 14: 
 15, 21, 23, 24). And again, "If ye keep my 
 commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even 
 
60 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 as I have kept my Father's commandments, and 
 abide in his love." " Ye are my friends, if ye 
 do the things which I command you " (John 15 : 
 10, 14). Here is law as well as love; love shown 
 in the giving and in the keeping of law. 
 
 The disciples of Jesus gave prominence to the 
 observance of law as the proof of love, as the 
 evidence of faith.. Paul, who extolled faith as 
 a means of salvation, by no means ignored or 
 undervalued the demands of law. On the con- 
 trary, he says, " Do we then make the law of 
 none effect through faith? God forbid: nay, 
 we establish the law" (Rom. 3: 31). He speaks, 
 moreover, of the "day of wrath and revelation 
 of the righteous judgment of God; who will ren- 
 der to every man according to his works : . . . 
 unto them that . . . obey not the truth, but 
 obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath and indig- 
 nation, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul 
 of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and 
 also of the Greek; but glory and honor and 
 peace to every man that worketh good, to the 
 Jews first, and also to the Greek ; for there is no 
 respect of persons with God" (Rom. 2: 5-11). 
 
 Again he says : " We must all be made mani- 
 fest before the judgment-seat of Christ; that 
 each one may receive the things done in the body, 
 according to what he hath done, whether it be 
 
Love in the Old Testament, Law in the New 61 
 
 good or bad. Knowing therefore the fear of 
 the Lord, we persuade men" (2 Cor. 5: 10, 11). 
 "At the revelation of the Lord Jesus from 
 heaven with the angels of his power in flaming 
 fire, rendering vengeance to them that know 
 not God, and to them that obey not the gospel 
 of our Lord Jesus : who shall suffer punishment, 
 even eternal destruction from the face of the 
 Lord and from the glory of his might, when he 
 shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be 
 marveled at in all them that believed ... in 
 that day" (2 Thess. 1 : 7-10). 
 
 James says : " Faith apart from works is bar- 
 ren ; " " Ye see that by works a man is justified, 
 and not only by faith. . . . For as the body 
 apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart 
 from works is dead " (Jas. 2 : 20, 24, 26). Peter 
 says : " The Lord knoweth how to deliver the 
 godly out of temptation, and to keep the unright- 
 eous under punishment unto the day of judg- 
 ment " (2 Pet. 2:9). John, the apostle of love, 
 says : " Hereby know we that we know him, if 
 we keep his commandments. He that saith, I 
 know him, and keepeth not his commandments, 
 is a liar, and the truth is not in him " ( 1 John 2 : 
 3, 4). "He that doeth righteousness is right- 
 eous, even as he [God] is righteous; he that 
 doeth sin is of the devil" (1 John 3: 7, 8). 
 
62 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 " This is the love of God, that we keep his com- 
 mandments : and his commandments are not 
 grievous " (i John 5:3). "This is love, that 
 we should walk after his commandments. This 
 is the commandment, even as ye heard from the 
 beginning, that ye should walk in it " (2 John 6). 
 It is in John's book of Revelation that we re- 
 peatedly find the figure of the lake of fire burn- 
 ing with brimstone, as a place of punishment for 
 the disobedient, and all the opposers of God, who 
 maketh the law (Rev. 14: 9, 10; 19: 20; 21 : 8). 
 Who will say, then, that there is no law in the 
 New Testament and in its religion ? 
 
 Love and law are in the Old Testament; law 
 and love are in the New. That " God is love ; 
 and [that] he that abideth in love abideth in God, 
 and God abideth in him" (1 John 4: 16), — is 
 not a truth of the New Testament, and the New 
 Covenant, alone; it was in the Old Testament, 
 or the Old Covenant, also. God was always in 
 Christ, and God always bore for man the love 
 which showed itself in Christ as the manifesta- 
 tion of God's love for man. " Before Abraham 
 was born, I am," said Jesus to the Jews (John 8: 
 58). " Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my 
 day ; and he saw it, and was glad " (John 8 : 56) . 
 God spoke out of the thunderings of Mt. Sinai, 
 telling of his love unto the thousandth genera- 
 
Love in the Old Testament, Law in the New 63 
 
 tion of those who would love him and keep his 
 commandments (Exod. 20: 6). Prophet, and 
 psalmist, and scribe, and apostle, alike recognized 
 love as the prompting and requirement of law, 
 Godward and manward. " Will Jehovah be 
 pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thou- 
 sands of rivers of oil? . . . What doth Je- 
 hovah require of thee, but to do justly, and to 
 love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy 
 God? " said Micah (Micah 6: 7, 8). The Psalm- 
 ist says : 
 
 " It is time for Jehovah to work ; 
 For they have made void thy law. 
 Therefore I love thy commandments 
 Above gold, yea, above fine gold. 
 Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning 
 all things to be right" (Psa. 119: 126-12S). 
 
 Said the Jewish scribe, " To love him [the 
 Lord thy God] with all the heart, and with all 
 the understanding, and with all the strength, and 
 to love his neighbor as himself, is much more 
 than all whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices " 
 (Mark 12: 33). The Apostle Paul sums up the 
 whole matter in the words : "He that loveth his 
 neighbor hath fulfilled the law. . . . Love 
 worketh no ill to his neighbor: love therefore is 
 the fulfilment of the law " (Rom. 13: 8, 10). 
 
 Mere obedience to law could not save a man. 
 
64 Cur Misunderstood Bible 
 
 God never taught that it could. Man never had 
 reason to think that it could. Love was shown 
 in God's laws ; love prompted man to doing 
 as the loving God wanted done ; love trusted God 
 beyond all sight and proof. In the Old Testa- 
 ment this was taught in precept and in promise. 
 In the New Testament it was taught in fresh 
 prominence and power, by the crowning evidence 
 of God's love, and the addition of a new motive 
 for man's recognition of it, in the gift of Jesus 
 Christ as the Son of God and the Son of man. 
 Sovereign and Saviour. " God so loved the 
 world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that 
 whosoever believeth on him should not perish, 
 but have eternal life" (John 3: 16). "Herein 
 is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved 
 us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for 
 our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also 
 ought to love one another" (1 John 4: 10, II). 
 
VII 
 
 IN HIS NAME, NOT FOR HIS SAKE 
 
 A Christian believer is specifically assured that 
 he can come to God " in the name of " Jesus. 
 No such assurance is given him, in the Bible, 
 that he will have his prayers answered " for the 
 sake of " Jesus. Yet the phrase " for Christ's 
 sake," or " for His sake," is even more com- 
 monly used in modern prayers than "in Christ's 
 name," or " in His name." What is the reason 
 for this ? Is the error a common one of suppos- 
 ing that " in His name " means the same as " for 
 His sake " ? Or is there no particular thought 
 in the ordinary mind as to the meaning of either 
 phrase? It certainly is too important a matter 
 not to be well understood and carefully consid- 
 ered. 
 
 Jesus said to his disciples, when he was to 
 leave them for a season, as to his return by the 
 Holy Spirit, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, If 
 ye shall ask anything of the Father, he will give 
 it you [who are] in my name. Hitherto ye have 
 asked nothing in my name: [now] ask, and ye 
 shall receive, that your joy may be made full 
 (John 16: 23, 24)." "Whatsoever ye shall ask 
 in my name, that will I do, that the Father may 
 
 65 
 
66 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask me any- 
 thing in my name, that will I do " (John 14: 13). 
 " In that day ye shall know that I am in my 
 Father, and ye in me, and I in you." (John 14 : 
 20.) What is here meant by "in my name" ? 
 What, indeed, is one's " name " as the term is 
 used in the Bible, in the Old Testament and the 
 New, and in primitive thought and customs gen- 
 erally ? 
 
 One's " name," as thus spoken of, is not a mere 
 designation, or label; it is one's truest self, or 
 personality. It enwraps one's very being as a 
 covering and protection, as the flag of one's 
 country enwraps and shields its every citizen 
 when endangered. Thus " the name of Jehovah 
 is a strong tower : the righteous runneth into it, 
 and is safe." (Prov. 18: 10.) It was while 
 enclosed in that name that David confidently met 
 Goliath, and vanquished him. David said, " Thou 
 comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, 
 and with a javelin : but I come to thee [enclosed] 
 in the name of the Jehovah of hosts, the God of 
 the armies of Israel, which thou hast defied." 
 (1 Sam. 17: 45). Similarly, one who is in Christ 
 is sure of acceptance with Christ and with God, 
 as being in the common name, or personality, of 
 the Father, of the Son, and of the disciple; or, 
 as Jesus expresses it, " I am in my Father, and 
 
In His Name, Not for His 5ake 67 
 
 ye in me, and I in you " (John 14: 20). That 
 is being " in His name," living " in His name," 
 praying " in His name." 
 
 In this view of the truth, it is not the mention 
 of the name of Jesus, but it is the being in the 
 name of Jesus, that gives one acceptance with 
 Jesus and with the Father. Indeed, it would 
 perhaps better convey to many the idea of the 
 promise, as Jesus gave it to his disciples, if the 
 clauses in our English translation were arranged 
 differently, without in any degree doing violence 
 to them : " If ye [being] in my name, shall ask 
 me anything, that will I do" (John 14: 14). 
 " Whatsoever ye [being] in my name, shall 
 ask, that will I do" (John 14: 13). 
 
 Thus Jesus communes with his Father con- 
 cerning the Name that is his, and his Father's, 
 and in which he desires to have his disciples 
 kept: "Holy Father, keep them in thy Name, 
 which thou hast given me [that is, keep in 
 thy Name, them which thou hast given me], that 
 they may [in thy Name] be one, even as we 
 are [one]. While I was with them [here in the 
 flesh] I kept them in thy Name. . . . But 
 now I come to thee" (John 17: 11-13). And, 
 therefore, Jesus confidently commends to his 
 Father's keeping all his who are in that Holy 
 Name. 
 
68 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 The Revision has made some changes that 
 bring out the truth more clearly. For instance, 
 the King James version had it, at Acts 4: 12, 
 "There is none other name under heaven given 
 among men whereby we must be saved." The 
 Revision more correctly renders this : " Neither 
 is there any other name under heaven, that is 
 given among men, wherein we must be saved." 
 This shows the difference — "wherein," not 
 "whereby." 
 
 How different is this idea from the one that 
 might seem to be conveyed in the common con- 
 clusion to a prayer, " All this we ask in the name 
 of Jesus Christ our Saviour," as though we, the 
 petitioners, were apart from the one prayed to, 
 and not one with him and in him; he in the 
 Father, and we in him, and he in us. No one 
 who feels that he is in Christ — enclosed in 
 Christ's name — one with the Father in Christ, 
 ought to address God as though he were apart 
 from him, not privileged to come to him freely, 
 trustfully, making known his needs and desires. 
 
 For Christ's sake, for the Lord's sake, for 
 Jesus' sake, for the gospel's sake, for the truth's 
 sake, and other such phrases — those are very 
 different terms. If they are used in prayer, they 
 ought to be used intelligently. Where such 
 terms are employed in the New Testament, the 
 
In His Name, Not for His Sake 69 
 
 context plainly shows their meaning. " Blessed 
 are ye when men shall reproach you, and perse- 
 cute you, and say all manner of evil against you 
 falsely, for my sake " (Matt. 5:11). "In their 
 synagogues they will scourge you; yea and be- 
 fore governors and kings shall ye be brought 
 for my sake " (Matt. 10: 17). " He that loseth 
 his life for my sake shall find it " (Matt. 10: 32). 
 "We are fools for Christ's sake" (1 Cor. 4: 
 10). It is evident what such phrases mean. 
 " For the sake of " Christ is for the cause of 
 Christ. One can ask help " for the sake of n 
 Christ when he feels that his cause is identified 
 with Christ as over against Christ's enemies, and 
 that to give help to the petitioner is to win honor 
 to Christ's cause. 
 
 In the Old Testament times, Jehovah was said 
 to have set his name in the tabernacle, or in the 
 temple, as the central place of his worship. In 
 view of this fact, Jerusalem and the Jewish na- 
 tion could ask for protection for his " name's 
 sake," because his honor was supposed to be 
 involved in the protection of that place and peo- 
 ple. But this was obviously on God's own ac- 
 count that he was to act, and not on account of 
 the people petitioning for help. For "his sake," 
 or for " his name's sake," was a direct petition 
 for God's own glory, not for a reflected glory 
 
70 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 accruing to his people because of their appeal 
 to him, or their dependence on him. 
 
 As Christ's disciples, we are authorized to be 
 in his name, to speak in his name, to ask in his 
 name, confidently, nothing doubting. All our 
 prayers ought to be while we are in his name, 
 whether his name be mentioned or not. There 
 are special occasions, conditions, and circum- 
 stances, when it would be manifestly proper for 
 us to ask help from God for Christ's sake. In 
 such cases, we ought to pray understanding^, 
 as realizing our peculiar reason for thus praying. 
 But we ought not to fall into the common error 
 of supposing that " in His name " is in any sense 
 identical with " for His sake." 
 
VIII 
 
 THE HOLY SPIRITS MISSION TO AND 
 THROUGH BELIEVERS 
 
 In the popular thought of Christians, an im- 
 portant mission of the Holy Spirit is in arresting 
 the attention of unbelievers, striving with those 
 who are out of Christ, bringing sinners under 
 conviction of sin, and converting or regenerating 
 the ungodly. Yet there is little, if anything, in 
 the New Testament to justify this belief, or to 
 lead one to suppose that the mission of the Holy 
 Spirit is directly to any who are not already dis- 
 ciples of Jesus. 
 
 As to the Holy Spirit's work and workings, 
 the New Testament teachings, both in precept 
 and illustration, are explicit and uniform. The 
 Holy Spirit dwells with, and abides in, believers 
 in Jesus, having no immediate communication 
 with unbelievers. Whatever mission to the 
 ungodly the Holy Spirit has, is exercised medi- 
 ately through believers, not immediately on the 
 unbeliever. This truth is of main importance to 
 the believer, who so often fails to perceive it, 
 and hence to avail himself of the power await- 
 ing his acceptance of it; while the consequences 
 
 71 
 
72 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 of the believer's failure to recognize it are mo- 
 mentous to unbelievers who are neglected on 
 account of this error. 
 
 It is in, and by, and through the Holy Spirit's 
 power, that believers in Jesus can know the 
 truth, can proclaim the truth effectively, or can 
 influence in favor of the truth any unbeliever to 
 whom they are sent, or in whose behalf they 
 labor and pray. It is by and through the agency 
 of believers who are in the power of the Holy 
 Spirit that any unbeliever is attracted to the 
 truth, or is shown his sinfulness, or is won to 
 the loving service of Jesus. The trusting be- 
 liever in Jesus is, as it were, the agent, the in- 
 strument, the avenue, of the Holy Spirit, in be- 
 half of the outside world ; and the Holy Spirit is 
 the supreme source of all knowledge and power 
 and practical efficiency on the part of the trust- 
 ing believer in Jesus, both in that believer's 
 personal attainment and in his evangelistic en- 
 deavor in the world. On all these points the 
 New Testament teachings would seem to be 
 unqualified and unmistakable. 
 
 Jesus promised to his disciples an unfailing 
 supply of the satisfying water of life, for them- 
 selves and for others. " This spake he of the 
 Spirit, which they that believed on him were to 
 receive" (John 7, 39), not, as so many would 
 
The Holy Spirit's Mission To and Through Believers 73 
 
 seem to read the promise, " This spake he of 
 the Spirit, by which they that receive were to be 
 made believers in him." Again he said : " I will 
 pray the Father, and he shall give you [my dis- 
 ciples] another Comforter, that he may be with 
 you for ever, even the Spirit of truth : whom the 
 world [the outside unbelievers] cannot receive ; 
 for it beholdeth him not, neither knoweth him: 
 ye know him ; for he abideth with you, and shall 
 be in you " (John 14: 16, 17). As to the source 
 of all power to his disciples in their witnessing 
 for him, Jesus said specifically to those disciples, 
 at the very time of his ascension : " Ye shall re- 
 ceive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon 
 you: and [in that power] ye shall be my wit- 
 nesses . . . unto the uttermost part of the 
 earth" (Acts 1:8). In fulfilment of these 
 promises of Jesus, the Holy Spirit came upon his 
 disciples at the following day of Pentecost, and 
 those disciples were thenceforward " filled with 
 joy and with the Holy Spirit " (Acts 13 : 52) ; 
 as it is the privilege of every disciple of Jesus 
 to be, at the present time, and until the coming 
 again of Jesus. 
 
 This truth the disciples understood and illus- 
 trated in all their teaching and in all their toil- 
 ings. When Peter was first preaching in the 
 power of the Holy Spirit, and his sin-convicted 
 
74 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 hearers asked what was their duty, in view of 
 their transgression and its consequences, " Peter 
 said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every 
 one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the 
 remission of your sins; and ye [also] shall re- 
 ceive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2: 38). 
 He did not say, " Receive ye the gift of the Holy 
 Spirit, and then you may be baptized as disci- 
 ples of Jesus Christ." Again, when standing be- 
 fore the Jewish council, Peter and his fellow- 
 apostles testified of Jesus as the crucified and 
 risen Saviour, saying : " And we are witnesses 
 of these things ; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom 
 God hath given to them that obey him " (Acts 5 : 
 32) ; not, " God causes to obey him those who 
 have the gift of the Holy Spirit." The apostles 
 and other disciples were " all filled with the Holy 
 Spirit" (Acts 2:4). Peter, as a preacher, was 
 " filled with the Holy Spirit " (Acts 4:8). Ste- 
 phen, as a preacher, was " full of faith and of 
 the Holy Spirit" (Acts 6: 5). Barnabas, as a 
 preacher, was " full of the Holy Spirit and of 
 faith " (Acts 11 : 24). Paul, as a preacher, was 
 " filled with the Holy Spirit " (Acts 13 : 9). The 
 entire church in all Judsea and Galilee and Sa- 
 maria was edified and was multiplied when it was 
 " walking in the fear of the Lord and in the com- 
 fort of the Holy Spirit " (Acts 9: 31). 
 
The Holy Spirit's Mission To and Through Believers 75 
 
 When the prayers and alms of the Gentile Cor- 
 nelius had come up to God acceptably, and God 
 had sent an angel messenger to direct Cornelius 
 as to his duty, it was not until Peter, himself a 
 man already in the power of the Holy Spirit, 
 was present to proclaim to Cornelius and his 
 fellow-hearers the truth concerning Jesus as 
 the Saviour of sinners, that " the Holy Spirit 
 fell on all them which heard the word." Even 
 when Jesus himself met Saul the persecutor, on 
 the road to Damascus, and summoned him to his 
 service, it was not until three days were passed 
 that Saul received the Holy Spirit ; and then that 
 blessing came to him in the appointed way 
 through Ananias, who before this was a disciple 
 of Jesus. Saul's conversion was not by the Holy 
 Spirit, but through the presence and voice of 
 Jesus. Then Saul was a subject for the Holy 
 Spirit's mission through a Spirit-endowed be- 
 liever in Jesus. Afterwards Paul found a dozen 
 disciples or so in Ephesus, who were apparently 
 in the state in which he had been in that three 
 days' interval of darkness before Ananias was 
 brought to him. " Did ye receive the Holy 
 Spirit when ye believed ? " asked Paul of these 
 men. " And they said unto him, Nay, we did 
 not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was 
 [yet] given." Then he laid his hands on those 
 
76 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 believers, and " the Holy Spirit came on them " 
 (Acts 19: 2, 6) also. 
 
 It was apparently in this view of the order of 
 the Holy Spirit's workings, and of the scope of 
 the Holy Spirit's work, that Paul wrote to be- 
 lieving disciples in Galatia and in Rome : " Be- 
 cause ye are sons [of God], God sent forth the 
 Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, 
 Father " (Gal. 4:6). "The fruit of the Spirit 
 [in the hearts of believers] is love, joy, peace, 
 long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 
 meekness, self-control " (Gal. 5 : 22, 23) — all the 
 Christian graces, in fact. " If [therefore] we 
 [disciples] live by the Spirit, by the Spirit let us 
 [as disciples] also walk" (Gal. 5: 25). "For 
 we know not [even] how to pray as we ought; 
 but the Spirit himself maketh intercession for us 
 with groanings which cannot be uttered; and 
 he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the 
 mind of the Spirit [in our behalf], because he 
 maketh intercession for the saints according to 
 the will of God" (Rom. 8: 26, 27). And so 
 throughout the teachings of Paul and of the 
 other New Testament writers. 
 
 It is a strange fact, that, notwithstanding the 
 explicitness and uniformity of the New Testa- 
 ment teachings on this subject, there is a wide- 
 spread popular opinion that the Holy Spirit's 
 
The Holy Spirit's Mission To and Through Believers 77 
 
 work is directly and immediately on or in the 
 heart of the unbeliever, without the intervention 
 or agency of the Christian believer. To hear 
 what is said in the sermons, or sung in the 
 hymns, or prayed in the prayers, of many Chris- 
 tians, one might believe that the Holy Spirit is 
 sent directly to the unbelieving sinner, to strive 
 with him, to show him his sin, and to point him 
 to the Saviour ; and that therefore the Christian 
 preacher or teacher has rather to wait the results 
 of this work of the Spirit, than to be the instru- 
 ment or the avenue of this work. Many a Chris- 
 tian seems to think that the Holy Spirit's work 
 is that of a revival preacher, in moving sinners 
 to repentance by a direct appeal to their con- 
 sciences and understandings, instead of stirring 
 up Christians to appeal, in the power of the 
 Spirit, to unbelievers to believe and to turn to 
 God. 
 
 It would almost seem as if Christians thought 
 that preachers and teachers, at home or abroad, 
 were not a necessity, in the declared plan of 
 God's working, in order to the Holy Spirit's 
 evangelizing of the world ; that, in fact, the Holy 
 Spirit — in the present dispensation — would be 
 just as likely to reach sinners without the inter- 
 vention of Christian believers as with them. That 
 this error of opinion has no basis in the teach- 
 
78 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 ings of the Bible, does not, certainly, make it any 
 the less dangerous in its practical influence ; nor 
 does this lack of foundation seem to hinder its 
 acceptance by many a professed student of the 
 Bible. 
 
 There would even seem to be more reason- 
 ableness in the high ecclesiastical view that the 
 Holy Spirit abides in, and works through, the col- 
 lective church alone, for the winning of sinners 
 and the saving of souls, than for the unbib- 
 lical view, so common among Protestant Chris- 
 tians, that the Holy Spirit works in and on the 
 hearts of the ungodly for their winning to Christ. 
 There is no justification in the New Testament 
 text for the claim that the Holy Spirit operates 
 directly upon the sinner to induce him to believe 
 in Jesus or to commit himself to him. 
 
 It is true that, in this present dispensation of 
 the Spirit, all power in the evangelizing of the 
 world, and in the swaying of the hearts of men 
 towards Christ and in the service of Christ, is pri- 
 marily with the Holy Spirit. But it is also true 
 that the Holy Spirit, according to the Bible 
 teachings, works in and by and through believers 
 in Jesus. Hence if one who is not a believer in 
 Jesus is to be won to discipleship, the question is 
 not, Will the Holy Spirit work on his mind im- 
 mediately ; or will the Holy Spirit work through 
 
The Holy Spirit's Mission To and Through Believers 79 
 
 one who already believes? for that question the 
 Bible has already answered. The question would 
 rather seem to be, By which disciple of Jesus is 
 the Holy Spirit to work for the winning of this 
 sinner to the loving service of the Saviour? If 
 indeed a sinner be won through the Bible itself, 
 that is really being won through the believer who 
 wrote that portion of the Bible. The Holy 
 Spirit can use the written words, like the spoken 
 words, of a chosen messenger of God to an un- 
 believing soul. But in every case the Spirit 
 reaches the believer mediately, not immediately. 
 If the power of the Holy Spirit's drawing 
 were to be likened, for a mere figure of speech, 
 to magnetic attraction, the disciple through whom 
 the Holy Spirit w r orks would be the already mag- 
 netized piece of steel, and the outside sinner 
 would be the bit of iron in its natural state. The 
 natural iron is not moved by itself or in its own 
 power, neither is it, in the present course of 
 things, reached directly by the primitive lode- 
 stone ; but it is by means of the magnetized steel 
 that this iron is now lifted and drawn in the di- 
 rection of the Polar Star of the universe. The 
 power is the mysterious magnetic attraction, but 
 the method of that attraction's working is 
 through the magnetized steel that was once a 
 bit of impotent iron. So it is with him that is 
 
80 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 won of the Spirit, or by whom the Spirit wins, 
 in the plan of God's working. 
 
 If Christians generally would but realize this 
 truth concerning the mission and workings of 
 the Holy Spirit, what an added sense of respon- 
 sibility would rest on them, as the chosen instru- 
 ments and avenues of the Holy Spirit's power in 
 their sphere of labor and of influence ! Without 
 the Holy Spirit's power no Christian can pray 
 aright, or study aright, or teach aright, or live 
 aright. And unless Christians are ready, as the 
 believing disciples of Jesus, filled with the Holy 
 Spirit, for the declaring of the truth impres- 
 sively to outside sinners, the one agency which 
 God chooses to honor for the reaching of those 
 sinners is lacking — because of the unreadiness 
 of believers. 
 
 Sinners will not, it is true, be drawn to Jesus 
 unless the Holy Spirit draws them ; but we have 
 no reason to suppose that the Holy Spirit 
 will draw sinners to Jesus except through 
 believers in Jesus ; for this is the dis- 
 closed plan and order of the Holy Spirit's work- 
 ing in this present world of ours. This is the 
 Bible teaching, even if it be not the common 
 Christian idea. 
 
IX 
 
 CONVERSION MAN'S RESPONSIBILITY, 
 NOT GOD'S 
 
 As a natural consequence of the common mis- 
 understanding of the mission and work of the 
 Holy Spirit, there is a widespread popular feeling 
 that sinners are converted from their evil course 
 to the service of God, rather than that they them- 
 selves turn to God, when they see it to be their 
 duty to do so. The incorrect language of our 
 ordinary English Bible, in referring to this act 
 or process of conversion, has been a fruitful 
 cause of this misconception. 
 
 In our old version it would appear that Jesus 
 said to his disciples, " Except ye be converted, 
 and become as little children, ye shall not enter 
 into the kingdom of heaven n (Matt. 18: 3). But 
 in the new, and more correct, version it reads, 
 " Except ye turn, and become as little children, 
 ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of 
 heaven/' In our old version, again, Jesus is said 
 to have counseled Peter, in view of his coming 
 denial and repentance, " When thou art con- 
 verted, strengthen thy brethren " (Luke 22: 32). 
 But the new version gives it thus : " When once 
 
 81 
 
82 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 thou hast turned again, establish thy brethren." 
 According to the old version, Peter preached, 
 after the day of Pentecost, to the people in the 
 temple courts : " Repent ye therefore, and be con- 
 verted, that your sins may be blotted out." Ac- 
 cording to our new version, Peter's call was : 
 " Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your 
 sins may be blotted out" (Acts 3: 19). 
 
 These differences in the two versions, in their 
 teachings on this point, represent fairly well the 
 difference between the popular idea of "conver- 
 sion," and the Bible idea of it. The popular 
 thought is that conversion is wrought on or in a 
 man by outside influences, or by a force from 
 above. The Bible thought is that conversion is 
 the act of the individual himself, for which he is 
 directly responsible, however he may be affected 
 by influences from without and above. The old 
 version seemed to say to the sinner, " Be con- 
 verted." The new version distinctly says to 
 him, "Turn" (Matt. 13: 15; Mark 4: 12; Luke 
 22 : 32 ; John 12 : 40 ; Acts 3 : 19 ; 28 : 2j) . There 
 is no such command, either in word or spirit as 
 " Be converted," in the new and more correct 
 version. Yet that command is still repeated in 
 pulpit and press, as if it were justified by the 
 Bible teachings, and many believe that it is not 
 at variance with the teachings of the Bible. 
 
Conversion Man's Responsibility, Not God's 83 
 
 The practical bearing of this truth on the ap- 
 peals made to sinners to submit themselves to 
 Christ, and on sinners in their response to these 
 appeals, is incalculably important. It makes a 
 vast difference whether a man is summoned to 
 immediate personal action in his attitude and 
 conduct toward Christ, or whether he is led to 
 suppose that he must wait passively for some 
 process on or in him which shall give him differ- 
 ent views and feelings, and make him a different 
 man. The tendency of this error as to the Bible 
 call to men has been manifest in innumerable in- 
 stances, whatever good has been done, in spite 
 of it, by those who held the error, or who were 
 appealed to in view of it. 
 
 The writer knew an upright, God-fearing man, 
 who was a firm believer in the Bible and an 
 earnest student of it, who was faithful in all his 
 duties as he understood them, constant in private 
 prayer, conducting family worship day by day 
 in his household, a teacher in the Sunday-school, 
 and an example to Christian believers in his re- 
 lations to God and to his fellow-men, who was 
 kept back from communion with Christ's people 
 in church fellowship by the thought that he had 
 not been converted, and that he could not prop- 
 erly connect himself with the church until he had 
 been. He grew gray in his waiting to be con^- 
 
84 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 verted, and finally he died without being con- 
 scious of any experience which seemed to him 
 like conversion as he was taught to expect it. 
 Of course, God knows his own, and will care 
 for them, however they may be misled by wrong 
 teachings or mis-translations ; but they may suf- 
 fer seriously all their lifetime from a lack of priv- 
 ileges to which they were entitled, but which 
 were wrongly denied them. 
 
 When the writer urged upon a young man his 
 personal duty to become a follower of Christ, the 
 answer was, " I wish I could be, but I am not 
 converted, nor can I convert myself. I go to 
 church regularly, and I put myself in the way of 
 a blessing, but conversion doesn't come." That 
 young man had been taught by his parents, and 
 his church teachers, that he must be converted, 
 and he waited aimlessly for the result. 
 
 In another instance, a young man of excep- 
 tionally high standards of thought and conduct 
 told the writer that he had put himself in the way 
 of the best influences, in the hope of " being con- 
 verted/' but without avail. He had sat under 
 good preaching, and had been talked to and 
 prayed with by excellent men ; but he was not 
 converted. There has been many a case like this. 
 
 When, again, the writer urged upon a man 
 the duty of a change of attitude toward Christ, 
 
 
Conversion Man's Responsibility, Not God's 85 
 
 and pressed him for a decision, the man said he 
 would gladly begin immediately to follow Christ 
 as his Master. They knelt together, and the 
 writer prayed with and for the other. The other 
 responded heartily, and, as he rose from his 
 knees, he exclaimed: 
 
 " I guess it is all right now. I sort o' felt some- 
 thing break inside o' me just then." 
 
 He thought he was converted. If, in conse- 
 quence of that thought, he was encouraged to 
 trust Christ and serve him, he was advantaged 
 thereby ; but if he merely relied on his belief that 
 he had had a saving experience, he was likely 
 to become fixed in a harmful error. 
 
 On one occasion, when the writer talked with 
 an ill-tempered, violently profane man, he was 
 moved to rebuke the man for his godless course, 
 and for his open defiance of the authority of 
 God. At this the man changed his tone, and 
 said whiningly: 
 
 " Oh ! when it comes to that, I'm all right. I 
 know I'm a rough fellow, but I was soundly 
 converted twenty-three years ago the seventeenth 
 of last September, and I've never lost that old 
 hope." 
 
 All that that man had of religion was the men- 
 tal record of his " sound " conversion, and his 
 hopes rested on the saving power of that. 
 
86 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 Mr. Moody tells of the definition of " conver- 
 sion " given by a believer who was won to Christ 
 while a soldier in the British army. 
 
 "It was just/' he said, "Halt! About face! 
 March ! " 
 
 That is the Bible idea of conversion, as con- 
 trasted with .the popular idea, illustrated in the 
 other cases. 
 
 The writer heard a preacher telling his con- 
 gregation, as they waited on his words of coun- 
 sel, that they could not convert themselves 2 and 
 that there was, in fact, nothing for them to do 
 but to wait for God's movement in this matter. 
 Such preaching would not lead the hearers to 
 action, nor was it intended to. 
 
 As " conversion," in the Bible use of that term, 
 is the deliberate turning of an individual toward 
 God, it follows, as a matter of course, that a man 
 may thus turn as often as he finds himself in a 
 wrong attitude toward God, or facing in the 
 wrong direction. When Andrew found Jesus, 
 and was convinced that he was the Messiah, 
 Peter turned, or "converted," and followed 
 Jesus. When, again, Peter " turned " away from 
 Jesus, by denying him, Jesus wanted him to turn, 
 or convert, back again. Thus any man can turn, 
 or convert, again, as many times as he goes 
 astray. 
 
Conversion Man's Responsibility, Not God's 87 
 
 This view of conversion does not necessarily 
 affect the theological doctrines of " falling from 
 grace " and of " the perseverance of saints/' 
 Whatever be thought on these points, the doc- 
 trine does not pivot on the meaning of the Bible 
 word " convert." That word can hardly be in 
 dispute. 
 
 In illustration of the fact, however, that a mis- 
 taken and unbiblical view of conversion is wide- 
 spread and misleading, a circular sent broadcast 
 through the country from a center of religious 
 interest in New York City furnishes abundant 
 evidence. The object of this circular is to obtain 
 information for permanent preservation as " a 
 study of conversion." It gives a series of spe- 
 cific questions which the person receiving it is 
 desired to answer. Here are specimens of these 
 questions, with this preliminary caution : 
 
 " Persons answering the following questions 
 should be especially careful not to confuse beliefs 
 and experiences of a later date with those of the 
 time of conversion." 
 
 " Where, on what occasion, and under what 
 circumstances, were you converted? Had you, 
 before that moment, made up your mind that 
 you would be converted if possible? Tell, in 
 detail, what you then meant by conversion. Why 
 did you desire it? What did you expect of it? 
 
88 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 . . . What was the state of your health ? " 
 
 " Relate your conversion. What were the var- 
 ious thoughts in your mind, and the various feel- 
 ings in your heart, at the moment of conversion ? 
 . . . Were you very much moved ? By what 
 or by whom were you moved ? " 
 
 " Describe - your feelings and your thoughts 
 immediately after conversion. Were you aware 
 that you had experienced conversion? In what 
 particulars had you become changed ? " 
 
 " If you have passed through more than one 
 similar experience, or through other less mo- 
 mentous moral crises, describe each one sepa- 
 rately, giving date of each." 
 
 In all these questions not a word is said as in- 
 dicating or suggesting any sense of responsibility, 
 on the part of the individual, for his turning from 
 the wrong to the right, from self to God. All 
 of them look not to a man's turning to God, but 
 to a man's being converted to God. 
 
 Turning to God whenever one is away from 
 him is the plain duty of believer and unbeliever. 
 That is conversion. There is nothing in the 
 Bible which, read and understood as it was writ- 
 ten, would lead one to suppose otherwise. Of 
 course, the power to turn, or to go forward, to 
 halt or to move, to act, to speak, or to breathe, is 
 from God ; but when God calls a man to halt or 
 
Conversion Man's Responsibility, Not God's 89 
 
 to turn, God is ready to give the man all neces- 
 sary power to enable him to act accordingly. 
 
 Regeneration, whenever that takes place, is 
 the work of the Holy Spirit ; it is not the work 
 of man. But the Bible never confounds regen- 
 eration with conversion ; nor ought a man to 
 make this mistake for himself or for others. 
 
X 
 
 NLLDLE5S WORRY AS TO BEING 
 "BORN AGAIN" 
 
 Various theories of Christian "regeneration," 
 or the "new birth," or the being "born again," 
 have been held and taught by different Christians 
 along the centuries, since the conversation of 
 Jesus with Nicodemus was first recorded in the 
 Fourth Gospel. Yet, whatever be the view enter- 
 tained, the new life is to be accepted as a gift or 
 grace from God, and is not to be worried over 
 as a duty or work on the part of the individual. 
 
 It has been claimed by many that Christian 
 baptism is the means or vehicle of a new spiritual 
 birth, or of regeneration. More than one denom- 
 ination of Christians has practically made this 
 opinion fundamental to its membership. 
 
 Again, it has been held by many that the term 
 "conversion" is synonymous with "regeneration," 
 and that "to be converted" is practically the same 
 as to "be born again." This view it is, however, 
 more difficult to reconcile with the Bible text 
 since the Revisers have removed from the text 
 the passive form, "be converted," and substituted, 
 as more correct, the active form, "turn." 
 
 90 
 
Needless Worry as to Being Born Again 91 
 
 Other views also have been held with positive- 
 ness by Christian scholars and Bible students. 
 And with all these views needless worry has often 
 come to the individual sinner. 
 
 Without entering into a discussion as to the 
 real meaning of the term to "be born again," or 
 as to the precise nature of the new birth, or 
 changed spiritual being, it is worth while to call 
 attention to the unmistakable fact that Jesus 
 does not in any place, nor does any inspired disci- 
 ple of his, give a command to an individual soul 
 to "be born again/' or speak of a new birth as 
 if it were a personal duty of the individual. Only 
 a failure to perceive the force of the words of 
 Jesus in that conversation with Nicodemus can 
 account for the error, into which many have 
 fallen, of supposing that the words " Ye must 
 be born again" are in the nature of a command 
 or of an obligation. It is the statement of a fact 
 or a truth; it is not the imperative command to 
 a duty. 
 
 In the first place, it is to be noted that it was 
 not to the multitude on the hillside, or the shore, 
 or by the way, that Jesus stated this truth, as if 
 it were to enjoin on all a plain duty. It was in a 
 conference at night-time with a theological pro- 
 fessor. It is to be considered accordingly. No 
 disciple of Jesus, according to the New Testa- 
 
92 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 ment, repeated that statement to those who 
 were called to serve and trust Jesus. 
 
 " Except one be born anew [or, from 
 above], he cannot see the kingdom of God," 
 Those are the words of Jesus. And again, "Mar- 
 vel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born 
 again." This is not a command to a duty, but is 
 a plain statement of a fact or a truth. It is a 
 perversion of the Scriptures to quote the words 
 as if they were a command. 
 
 Being born, the first time or the second time, is 
 clearly not a duty to be performed by ourselves. 
 No man can "born" himself. Turning to God, 
 submitting himself to God — that is a duty. Be- 
 ing made a new man, being spiritually renewed, 
 being given a clearer sight — that is a blessing 
 from above. Turning, trusting — that is man's 
 part. Renewing, regenerating — that is God's 
 part. If we will do our part, God can be relied 
 on to do his part. To doubt this is wrong and 
 unjustifiable. 
 
 Yet this statement of a philosophical fact to a 
 theological teacher is often used as if it were a 
 command in an address to a child or to the 
 childlike; and thus it is made a stumbling-block 
 before, instead of a help towards or into, the 
 kingdom of God. What sad consequences may 
 result to those who are misled by their mistaken 
 
Needless Worry as to Being " Born Again" 93 
 
 guides, through this misconception of an impor- 
 tant truth as declared by the Teacher of teach- 
 ers ! 
 
 It is because the writer himself groped and 
 agonized for long years in the Christian life 
 through being mistaught by those who knew no 
 better, that he sounds a note of warning against 
 supposing that being born again is a personal 
 duty of the individual who would serve and 
 trust Christ. Whatever view is held of the spirit- 
 ual change spoken of in the words of Jesus, "Ye 
 must be born anew/' of one thing we may be 
 sure, — they are not meant to teach any person 
 that he is to wait outside the loving service 
 of Christ until some great change is wrought in 
 him, whereby he becomes personally conscious 
 that he has another nature than before. The 
 reference is clearly to God's part, not man's, in 
 the blessing of salvation. 
 
XI 
 
 15 THERE ANY REAL GAIN 
 IN SALVATION? 
 
 As there is no possibility of salvation except 
 to those who were lost, the very term salvation 
 presupposes the idea of a lost condition. Hence, 
 salvation has ever had an aspect that is not at- 
 tractive to all. Many, very many, prefer to be 
 counted among those who were ever stainless, 
 rather than among those who have been 
 cleansed; among the pure from the beginning 
 rather than among the now redeemed. And this 
 it is that is one of the hindrances to the gospel 
 message. Thus it is in our day, and thus it was 
 in the day of Jesus. 
 
 Salvation, the salvation of the lost, is the dis- 
 tinctive message of the New Testament; it is, 
 indeed, in itself the " gospel," the " evangel," the 
 "good news," which is the substance of that new 
 revelation from God. The Old Testament shows 
 God's requirements of man, and man's failure to 
 conform to God's requirements ; it discloses 
 man's lost estate, and gives promises of a plan 
 for his rescue. The New Testament brings for- 
 ward God's plan of salvation for the lost, and 
 
 94 
 
Is There Any Real Gain In Salvation? 95 
 
 presses the offer of it upon all who are in need 
 of it. 
 
 Not the reward of the sinless well-doer, but 
 the salvation of the sinner, is the theme of 
 themes of the gospel story. " They that are in 
 health have no need of a physician ; but they that 
 are sick " (Luke 5: 31), said Jesus. And as 
 showing that his mission was a new and a start- 
 ling one, he added : " But go ye and learn what 
 this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice : 
 for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners. " 
 (Matt. 9 : 13.) Again he said : " The Son of man 
 came to seek and to save that which was lost." 
 (Luke 19: 10.) Over and over again our Lord 
 affirmed this truth specifically, while he was il- 
 lustrating it in his daily ministry of love. He 
 welcomed publicans and sinners, moral outcasts 
 as they were, to his following and companion- 
 ship ; and when he was criticised for this he said 
 plainly that this was the main feature of his mis- 
 sion. He even went so far as to say that there 
 was more rejoicing in heaven over those who 
 were saved from a lost condition than over those 
 who were never lost; and that here on earth, 
 those who had greatest love for God were those 
 who had had most forgiven them. 
 
 This was a shocking doctrine to the average 
 well-doer in the days of our Lord; and it is a 
 
96 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 doctrine that is still repugnant to the natural 
 mind. The scribes and Pharisees, who were 
 the most upright and religious classes in the 
 community at that time, felt that this doctrine 
 put a premium on evil-doing, and tended to 
 make men- believe that they would really be the 
 gainers in the end by indulging in sin before 
 coming into the active service of God. And 
 there are not a few intelligent and earnest Chris- 
 tian believers at the present time who take the 
 same view of this doctrine ; nor is it to be won- 
 dered at, in one view of the case, that this is so. 
 Our Lord's parable of the Prodigal Son is a 
 test illustration of this truth of the gain of salva- 
 tion, in its attractiveness and in its more repel- 
 lent features. A profligate son, who has wasted 
 in evil-doing his possessions and his opportuni- 
 ties, is not only welcomed back to his home with 
 signs of rejoicing, but is made the recipient of 
 tokens of honor that seem to put him into a 
 larger prominence in his father's house than 
 was ever accorded to a son who had never been 
 a profligate. From the time that that parable 
 was spoken, down to the present hour, there 
 have always been those whose sense of justice 
 was outraged by the suggestion that a rescued 
 profligate is to receive higher honor in God's 
 presence than one who has never lapsed from 
 
Is There Any Real Gain In Salvation? 97 
 
 the path of duty. Yet that this is the plain 
 teaching of the parable as it stands, and in the 
 connection of its presenting, would seem to be 
 unmistakable. 
 
 In very recent days a distinguished and most 
 excellent clergyman declared in public comment 
 on this parable, "For myself I immensely prefer 
 the non-prodigal son, and so did the father." 
 Another distinguished clergyman was reported 
 as saying publicly, " I'm with the elder brother 
 every time." These clergymen represent a 
 large class of those who, in the modern pulpit 
 or in our modern community, instinctively re- 
 coil from some aspects of the gospel of salva- 
 tion. And this fact it is that raises the emi- 
 nently practical and most important question, 
 Is there any real gain in salvation? 
 
 Viewed simply as a matter of justice, the re- 
 turned prodigal was not treated according to 
 his deserts. It is to be borne in mind, how- 
 ever, that salvation is not a matter of justice, 
 but is a matter of grace ; and grace abounds, in 
 God's plan of salvation, according to the oppor- 
 tunities for its exercise. The action of grace 
 is, therefore, not to be judged by the claims of 
 bald justice, but is to be looked at as an expres- 
 sion of the Divine love that has prompted it. 
 Justice requires that " whatsoever a man sow- 
 
98 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 eth, that shall he also reap " (Gal. 6:7). When 
 a man has sinned, justice demands his punish- 
 ment; but grace may interpose and secure his 
 pardon. It may even be true that " where sin 
 abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly " 
 (Rom. 5 : 20) ; and that added prominence comes 
 in consequence to him who is the greatest tro- 
 phy of God's grace in salvation. All this is, of 
 course, apart from any question as to the phil- 
 osophy of the plan of salvation, or the rela- 
 tions of God's action to principles of eternal 
 justice. Strictly speaking, salvation is clearly 
 not a matter of justice, but is a matter of grace. 
 Salvation is not, however, unjust toward any; 
 even though it is non-just — that is, not pivoted 
 on justice in its original plan — toward those who 
 are saved. 
 
 Take, for an illustration of this truth in an- 
 other sphere, the workings of human surgery. 
 Surgery is not a normal agency; it is an abnor- 
 mal one. Its mission is to rescue from death 
 the subjects of various destructive forces, rather 
 than to minister to those who have never re- 
 ceived harm. As a consequence of this mission 
 of surgery, a skilful surgeon would naturally 
 have more rejoicing over his success in behalf 
 of a man who would have perished miserably 
 but for his intervention, than he could have over 
 
Is There Any Real Gain In Salvation? 99 
 
 a hundred men whose condition never called 
 for his aid. When, at the close of our Civil 
 War, the United States Government would 
 make known to the world the triumphs of its 
 representative surgeons in their sphere, it issued 
 a volume with full-page chromo-lithograph por- 
 traits of men who had been successfully oper- 
 ated upon after injuries that had left them mere 
 physical wrecks. Every man in that roll of 
 honor was a sadly maimed man; not a solitary 
 unharmed military athlete was included in its 
 numbers. More joy seemed to be shown by 
 the Government over one person thus rescued 
 from ruin than over a thousand men who had 
 never responded to a surgeon's call. Was there 
 any injustice in this proceeding? Who would 
 claim that there was? 
 
 Could it be said, however, that this added 
 honor put by the Government upon the success- 
 fully treated subjects of surgery was giving a 
 premium to physical disability? Would any 
 fair-minded man suppose that thereby the 
 United States surgeons indicated their belief 
 that a man with one leg was better off than a 
 man with two, or that he who had lost the sight 
 of an eye and the hearing of an ear was better 
 fitted for the ordinary duties of life, after the 
 war's campaigning, than if he had come out of 
 
 LOFfc 
 
100 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 the war unscathed? No, no! It is not the 
 being maimed to which honor is here given, 
 but it is the being successfully treated while so 
 fearfully maimed. So in the realm of salva- 
 tion; not the wretched profligacy of the prodi- 
 gal son, but the glorious rescue of the son lost 
 through his profligacy, calls for the honor of 
 the best robe, the signet ring, the fatted calf, 
 and the household rejoicings. The son whose 
 moral nature was a loser by his excesses must, in 
 some sense, remain a loser permanently; but he 
 will, nevertheless, have special honor in God's 
 presence as a miracle of grace and redeeming love. 
 It is because so many fail to see the distinc- 
 tion here made between the gain of salvation 
 from sin, and the gain of being a sinner as 
 precedent to being saved, that they are thought- 
 lessly inclined to approve the course and the 
 spirit of the elder brother in the parable, in com- 
 parison with the course and spirit of the 
 younger brother. They are right in thinking 
 that the elder brother did better than the 
 younger, in remaining at home with his father 
 instead of going off in evil courses. They are 
 wrong in thinking that the elder brother was 
 in any sense excusable for his lack of rejoicing 
 that the lost was saved, and that his father's 
 heart was made glad again. 
 
Is There Any Real Gain In Salvation? 101 
 
 Looked at in the light of the duty and the 
 privileges of love, there is a despicable side to 
 the character of that elder brother in the para- 
 ble of the Prodigal Son, with his cold-hearted, 
 calculating, selfishly reputable morality. He had 
 remained at home, it is true ; but it was his home, 
 and he was the gainer by remaining in it. So lit- 
 tle, however, did he have of sympathy with his 
 father, or of love for him, during all his life at 
 home, that when he found that that poor old 
 father's heavy heart had been made glad again 
 by the return of a mourned-for son, his first im- 
 pulse was to jeer at his father, to insult his 
 father, to traduce his father, and to cause his 
 father mental anguish by his baseless and selfish 
 reproaches. He was angry. He was boastful. 
 He charged his father with injustice. He was 
 unfilial and unfraternal, and every way unloving. 
 But his good father loved him even in spite of 
 his unloveliness ; as that father loved the other 
 son in spite of his waywardness. 
 
 Salvation is of love. He who appreciates 
 salvation is moved by love; and he who is 
 moved by love appreciates salvation. He who 
 has had most forgiven loves most. The re- 
 turned prodigal had much forgiven, and it is 
 reasonable to suppose that he loved much. 
 
 The elder brother's desire was not salvation, 
 
102 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 but justice — in spite of his misconduct; and 
 love seems to have had no place in his heart. 
 If he had rightly appreciated his own spirit and 
 his own lack, he might have said as to himself 
 when he had finished with his list of claimed 
 good qualities and deeds, " Yet if, in addition 
 to all this, I even ' have all faith, so as to re- 
 move mountains, but have not love, I am noth- 
 ing. And if I bestow all my goods to feed the 
 poor, and if I give my body to be burned, but 
 have not love, it profiteth me nothing ' " ( I Cor. 
 13: 2, 3). Do we always realize the true worth 
 and indispensableness of salvation and of love? 
 Let us see to it that the elder brother's unlove- 
 liness is not ours also. 
 
XII 
 
 NOT A DUTY TO WORK OUT 
 ONL'S SALVATION 
 
 If there is one passage in the Bible that is 
 commonly, and perhaps generally, misunder- 
 stood and perverted, and supposed to teach the 
 very opposite of what it means, that passage is 
 in Paul's letter to the Philippians, where he 
 says, as he is going away from the believers 
 whom he loves, " Work out your own salvation 
 with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2: 12). The 
 common idea as to this text is that it means 
 that the sinner has a share in the work of secur- 
 ing his own salvation. As a matter of fact, it 
 means nothing of the sort. 
 
 Salvation is Christ's work. It is not a work 
 that is partly Christ's and partly the sinner's. 
 He who begins a good work will doubtless finish 
 it. This we are to believe, and this we are to 
 teach. Our share in our salvation is not to our 
 credit, but to the added credit of our Saviour. 
 A New England boy, who was brought before 
 the church authorities as an applicant for ad- 
 mission, had the right idea as to this, although 
 he expressed it quaintly. 
 
 103 
 
104 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 "Why do you want to join the church?" 
 asked the pastor. 
 
 " Because I want to show that I am a saved 
 sinner." 
 
 " Do you feel that you are saved ? " 
 
 "Yes, sir." 
 
 " Who saved you ? " 
 
 " It was the work of Jesus Christ and of my- 
 self." 
 
 "Of yourself? What was your share in the 
 work of your salvation?" 
 
 " I resisted, and Jesus Christ did the rest." 
 
 That boy understood the case better than one 
 who thinks that he has a part of his own salva- 
 tion to accomplish by personal endeavor. 
 
 Perhaps the term " work out " is, in a meas- 
 ure, responsible for the popular misconception 
 of Paul's counsel to the Philippians. In New 
 England, and possibly in other parts of the 
 United States, " work out " has a technical, or 
 a popular, signification. Highways are built 
 and kept in repair by the public for the public. 
 Every citizen, especially every property-holder, 
 has to pay his share of the road-tax in his vi- 
 cinity. His amount of tax is assessed by the 
 selectmen, or the supervisors, as they are called. 
 This includes his share, to be paid in cash, or to 
 be " worked out " by personal labor. A large 
 
Not a Duty to Work Out One's Salvation 105 
 
 majority of citizens in New England "work 
 out " their share of the highway tax instead of 
 paying it in cash. In consequence of this the 
 term to " work out " is understood in New 
 England to mean doing one's share in the pay- 
 ment of government taxes. 
 
 But Christ's salvation is not wrought for 
 sinners on the plan of New England road-mak- 
 ing. He came into the world to save sinners, 
 not to help sinners save themselves or work out 
 their own salvation. 
 
 If, however, the injunction to work out one's 
 own salvation with fear and trembling does not 
 mean that there is any part of one's salvation 
 to be worked out, or to be wrought by one's 
 self, what does the Bible injunction mean? This 
 will be asked by many a reader, and not unnat- 
 urally. 
 
 The plain answer to this question will be 
 found in the context of the passage in question, 
 if one will but read it attentively. 
 
 Paul is writing, not to outside, or unsaved, 
 sinners in Philippi, but to disciples of Christ 
 who are saved by him, and who are sharers of 
 his life. He is not telling unsaved sinners how 
 to be saved, but he is telling saved sinners what 
 to do with their salvation, and how to make it 
 tell for their Saviour's glory, and in the dis- 
 
106 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 charge of their obvious duty toward him and 
 toward those whom he loves. 
 
 " Have this mind in you/' Paul says, " which 
 was also in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 2: 5). And 
 he reminds them what were the mind and spirit 
 of Christ which he commends to them as an 
 example. Paul is going away, and he wants 
 the Philippian disciples to bear faithful witness 
 to Christ, in the absence from them of their 
 loving human teacher. " So then, my beloved, 
 even as ye have always obeyed, not as in my 
 presence only, but now much more in my ab- 
 sence, work out your own salvation with fear 
 and trembling; for it is God which worketh in 
 you both to will and to work, for his good 
 pleasure" (Phil. 2: 12, 13). 
 
 It has been suggested that the word " out- 
 work " would give an idea of the meaning of 
 Paul's injunction " work out." You have ob- 
 tained salvation wholly from God, now let it 
 appear ; " outwork your salvation," so that 
 others may see what it is. Again, it is as 
 though Paul had said, " manifest your salva- 
 tion ; " " evidence your salvation ; " " bring up 
 your salvation from below the surface, so that 
 it may be seen and felt by those who see you, 
 and feel you, and know you and your joy and 
 your faith." 
 
Not a Duty to Work Out One's Salvation 107 
 
 Paul's counsel to the Philippian believers is 
 counsel also for us and for all. It is not a 
 suggestion that Christ is unable to compass 
 more than a part of the sinner's salvation. It is 
 a suggestion that, Christ having wrought our 
 full salvation, and having wrought it without 
 our aid, we certainly owe it to him and to others 
 whom he has saved, or whom he is ready to 
 save, to work out from ourselves the salvation 
 that we rejoice in, and which Christ is ever 
 glad to give to others fully and freely. 
 
XIII 
 SANCTIFICATION, NOT "SANCTIFICATION" 
 
 " Sanctification " is a Bible word, and again 
 it is a theological word. It has two different 
 meanings in these two spheres. Each meaning 
 is distinct and well defined, and important by 
 itself ; but the one meaning ought not to be con- 
 founded with the other, as too commonly it is. 
 Trouble comes from supposing that the word 
 means the same thing in both cases. 
 
 According to the Bible, " sanctification " is 
 the being devoted to a sacred use or purpose; 
 the being set apart to a holy service; the being 
 consecrated to God or to God's cause. Accord- 
 ing to common theological teachings or termi- 
 nology, " sanctification " is a process by which 
 one makes attainment in godliness, and ad- 
 vances toward purity of life and being; or, 
 again, it is a state or attainment as a result of 
 processes and progress. In the one case, "sanc- 
 tification " is the immediate act of an individual 
 for himself, or it is the immediate result of the 
 act of another in or for him. In the other case, 
 " sanctification " is not compassed all at once, 
 at the beginning, by the action of one's self or 
 
 108 
 
Sanctification, Not " Sanctification " 109 
 
 of another, but it is a movement toward a de- 
 sired state, or the final state itself, not to be 
 reached except by continued processes with re- 
 sultant progress. 
 
 In Bible usage, he who sets himself apart to 
 God's service, or whom God sets apart to him- 
 self, is a sanctified man. He is the Lord's now, 
 and he has a call to count himself wholly the 
 Lord's sanctified one. His sanctification is in 
 the act or fact of his setting himself apart, or 
 of his being set apart. His progress as a sanc- 
 tified man is his progress from the point of his 
 being definitely sanctified. Whatever gain comes 
 to him in God's service is his gain as an already 
 sanctified man, not his gain toward fuller sanc- 
 tification. But in theological parlance, sancti- 
 fication, or " progressive sanctification," is a 
 gradual process by which one who is not yet 
 wholly sanctified makes attainment toward that 
 state. In the one case, sanctification is counted 
 the true beginning of right Christian service ; 
 and, in the other case, it is an end in, or a de- 
 sired result of, such service. 
 
 God's repeated commands to his special serv- 
 ants, or his deputed representatives, were to 
 sanctify others to his service by formal acts of 
 consecration and cleansing. " Sanctify unto me 
 all the first-born," he said to Moses in Egypt 
 
1 1 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 (Exod. 13: 2). "Jehovah said unto Moses," 
 at Sinai, " Go unto the people, and sanctify 
 them to-day and to-morrow, and let them wash 
 their garments, and be ready against the third 
 day" (Exod. 19: 10, 11). "And Moses went 
 down from the mount unto the people and sanc- 
 tified the people; and they washed their gar- 
 ments" (Exod. 19: 14). When Aaron and his 
 sons were set apart for the priesthood, God's 
 command to Moses was, " Anoint them, and 
 consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they 
 may minister unto me in the priest's office " 
 (Exod. 28: 41). "And Moses took of the 
 anointing oil, and of the blood which was upon 
 the altar, and sprinkled it upon Aaron, upon 
 his garments, and upon his sons, and upon his 
 sons' garments with him ; and sanctified Aaron, 
 his garments, and his sons, and his sons' gar- 
 ments with him" (Lev. 8: 30). Joshua's com- 
 mand from God was, " Up, sanctify the people " 
 (Josh. 7: 13). God said to Joel: "Sanctify a 
 fast, call a solemn assembly: gather the people, 
 sanctify the assembly" (Joel 2: 15, 16). 
 And so again and again in the Bible record. 
 
 Frequently the people of God were com- 
 manded to sanctify themselves. " Sanctify your- 
 selves therefore, and be ye holy" (Lev. 20: 7), 
 said the Lord to Moses concerning the Israel- 
 
5anctification, Not " 5anctification " 111 
 
 ites. " Sanctify yourselves against to-morrow " 
 (Num. ii : 18), was God's command in the 
 wilderness. At the Jordan, Joshua's word was, 
 " Sanctify yourselves ; for to-morrow the Lord 
 will do wonders among you" (Josh. 3: 5). 
 Samuel said to the elders of Bethlehem, " Sanc- 
 tify yourselves, and come with me to the sacri- 
 fice " (1 Sam. 16: 5). David commanded the 
 priests and Levites at Jerusalem : " Sanctify 
 yourselves, both ye and your brethren, that ye 
 may bring up the ark of Jehovah, the God of 
 Israel. ... So the priests and the Levites 
 sanctified themselves to bring up the ark of 
 Jehovah, the God of Israel" (1 Chron. 15: 
 12, 14). This idea is often repeated in the Old 
 Testament story. 
 
 Things, as well as persons, were sanctified by 
 a specific dedication, or a formal act, according 
 to the Old Testament text. The seventh day 
 was sanctified, or made holy, as a rest day to 
 the Lord, from the creation. The same He- 
 brew word means both " made holy " and " sanc- 
 tified," and is thus interchangeably translated. 
 (Gen. 2:3; Deut. 5: 12; Neh. 13: 22, etc., 
 revised text.) Mt. Sinai (Exod. 19: 23); the 
 tabernacle, its altar, its vessels, and its instru- 
 ments (Exod. 29: 43, 44; 40: 11; Num. 7: 1) ; 
 the offerings (Exod. 29: 2j) ; the temple (2 
 
112 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 Chron. 29: 5) ; a city gate (Neh. 3: 1) ; houses, 
 fields (Lev. 27: 14-22), and other possessions, 
 were thus consecrated, sanctified, dedicated, or 
 renewedly fitted for God's acceptance. 
 
 Even God himself speaks of being sanctified, 
 and is spoken of by others as thus being held 
 sacred. The Lord " was sanctified," or " showed 
 himself holy " at " the waters of Meribah " in 
 Kadesh-barnea (Num. 20: 13; Deut. 32: 51). 
 He said to his people by the prophet Ezekiel, 
 " I will be sanctified in you in the sight of the 
 nations" (Ezek. 20: 41); and again, "I will 
 sanctify my great name, which hath been pro- 
 faned among the nations " (Ezek. 36: 23). And 
 thus over and over again. 
 
 There is no room for question as to the mean- 
 ing of " sanctifying " in the Old Testament. Not 
 a single passage in that portion of the Bible 
 suggests the idea of a gradual and progressive 
 work. In every instance it has reference to an 
 immediate purposeful dedication, a deliberate 
 setting apart, a formal devoting to God, of one's 
 self or of another or of a particular thing. It 
 corresponds with the idea of counting holy. It 
 is not consistent with the thought of a mere 
 entering upon a process of growth in grace and 
 godliness. And as it is in the Old Testament, 
 so it is in the New. 
 
Sanctification, Not " 5anctification " 113 
 
 The Greek word hagiazo ("to sanctify," or, 
 " to set apart ") corresponds with the Hebrew 
 qadesh ("to count holy;' "to devote," "to 
 sanctify"). The Septuagint recognizes this in 
 all its translations. Our English version, espe- 
 cially in its revision, is conformed to this idea. 
 Jesus suggests that it is " the altar that sancti- 
 fieth the gift" (Matt. 23: 19). A gift laid on 
 the altar is thereby devoted, or made holy. Paul 
 declares that if an unbelieving husband is mar- 
 ried to a believing wife, " the unbelieving hus- 
 band is sanctified in the wife," so that their chil- 
 dren can be counted "holy" (1 Cor. 7: 14). 
 If the wife be devoted to God, her husband and 
 children are counted as included in the dedica- 
 tion. Again, Paul suggests that meats not 
 ceremonially clean may be eaten by a believer: 
 " For every creature of God is good, and noth- 
 ing is to be rejected, if it be received with 
 thanksgiving: for it is sanctified through the 
 word of God and prayer" (1 Tim. 4: 4, 5). 
 
 The writer of Hebrews says emphatically, 
 " Both he that sanctifieth and they that are sanc- 
 tified are all of one : for which cause he is not 
 ashamed to call them brethren" (Heb. 2: 11). 
 That is, as the context shows, our Saviour, hav- 
 ing been himself in subjection while in the flesh, 
 
114 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 was devoted to God, and now he counts those 
 also who devote themselves to God as one with 
 himself. This idea is in accordance with the 
 prayer of Jesus for his disciples on the night 
 of his betrayal : " Sanctify them in the truth : 
 thy word i$ truth. . . . For their sakes I 
 sanctify myself, that they themselves also may 
 be sanctified in truth " (John 17: 17-19). Jesus, 
 while in the flesh, is sanctified or consecrated in 
 the service of his Father, and he wants his dis- 
 ciples to be thus sanctified or devoted within the 
 limits, or according to the teachings of, the truth 
 as found in God's Word. Again, the writer of 
 Hebrews speaks of that " sanctification [or, holi- 
 ness] without which no man shall see the Lord " 
 (Heb. 12: 14). Of course, one who refrains 
 from giving, or devoting, himself wholly to 
 God, cannot be accepted of God. Entire sur- 
 render and entire consecration are the only 
 terms on which any person can enter or con- 
 tinue in the active service of God. 
 
 A passage that has been seized upon by those 
 who think that the Bible counts personal sanc- 
 tification a gradual and progressive work, or a 
 final attainment as following certain processes, 
 is the prayer of Paul for the Thessalonians : 
 " The God of peace himself sanctify you wholly ; 
 and may your spirit and soul and body be pre- 
 
Sanctification, Not m Sanctif ication " 115 
 
 served entire, without blame at the coming of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ" (i Thess. 5: 23). But 
 the evident thought of Paul is, not that the 
 Thessalonians should be sanctified by piecemeal, 
 one portion at a time, or come finally to a state 
 or attainment, but that they should make thor- 
 ough work of it from the start, giving to God, 
 as God seeks it, their entire selves, holding noth- 
 ing back from the consecration. 
 
 A Connecticut farmer came to a well-known 
 clergyman, saying that the people in his neigh- 
 borhood had built a new meeting-house, and that 
 they wanted this clergyman to come and 
 dedicate it. The clergyman, accustomed to 
 participate in dedicatory services where different 
 clergymen took different parts of the service, 
 inquired : 
 
 " What part do you want me to take in the 
 dedication ? " 
 
 The farmer, thinking that this question ap- 
 plied to the part of the building to be included 
 in the dedication, replied : 
 
 " Why, the whole thing ! Take it all in, from 
 underpinning to steeple. " 
 
 That man wanted the building to be wholly 
 sanctified as a temple of God, and that all at 
 once. " Know ye not that ye are a temple of 
 God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you ? 
 
116 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 . . . The temple of God is holy, and such 
 are ye " (i Cor. 3: 16, 17). 
 
 Another passage thought by some to indicate 
 the idea of a gradual process in the work of 
 sanctification is Ephesians 5 : 25-27, where 
 Paul likens Christ's love for his church to a 
 true husband's love for his wife : " Husbands, 
 love your wives, even as Christ also loved the 
 church, and gave himself up for it; that he 
 might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the 
 washing of the water with the word, that he 
 might present the church to himself a glorious 
 church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such 
 thing; but that it should be holy and without 
 blemish." 
 
 But a true husband does not love his wife or 
 take her as his wife by a gradual process. He 
 pledges his love at once and for always at the 
 time he takes her as his wife, and gives himseff 
 as her husband. Jesus Christ gave himself up 
 for his church' in one offering, to sanctify or 
 consecrate or hallow that church. He wants 
 that church to be wholly clean, holy, and without 
 blemish. His act of sanctifying his church by 
 his blood was a complete act in its first perform- 
 ance. The individual members of that wholly 
 sanctified church ought to grow in grace toward 
 perfect holiness. 
 
5anctification, Not " Sanctification " 117 
 
 It can be affirmed positively that there is not 
 a single text in the New Testament, any more 
 than in the Old, which justifies the claim that 
 " sanctification/' as the word is employed in the 
 Bible, applies to a gradual purifying and uplift- 
 ing of the inner being. It always refers to an 
 immediate and formal act of consecration or 
 devotion, complete from the beginning. Thus 
 far as to the Bible term " sanctification/' or " to 
 sanctify." 
 
 As to the theological term " sanctification," — 
 that term refers to a process that is clearly 
 recognized in the Bible, under the term " growth 
 in grace." Growth in grace is the duty and priv- 
 ilege of the Christian believer. " Grow in the 
 grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour 
 Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. 3: 18), says the Apostle. 
 And again, " Grow up in all things into him, 
 who is the head, even Christ" (Eph. 4: 15). 
 And so at many another point in the Bible teach- 
 ings. He who is wholly sanctified has a duty to 
 grow in grace continually. 
 
 The only trouble is that the word " sanctifica- 
 tion," in all its variant forms in the Bible, means 
 one thing, while the word " sanctification " as 
 used in theological discussions, and in popular 
 speech about the Christian life, means quite an- 
 other thing. Each English word has its own 
 
118 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 meaning, and represents a Bible truth, if only 
 the word be recognized as a different word 
 from the other ; but when the one word is taken 
 as meaning the same as the other, there is end- 
 less confusion in consequence. 
 
 During war time the writer heard an illiterate 
 and warm-hearted colored preacher at New 
 Berne, North Carolina, preach from the text 
 " Lo, I come." He began his sermon thus : 
 
 " D'ye har dat, bredren ? ' Low I come/ not 
 ■ High I come.' De Lord Jesus comes to de 
 poor and de lowly." 
 
 That was good gospel, but poor exegesis. The 
 idea was all right, but the preacher had the 
 wrong word to base it on. It is much the same 
 with any one who supposes that the Bible word 
 " sanctification " teaches the Bible truth of 
 growth in grace and godliness. 
 
XIV 
 
 PURITY OF HEART NOT A STATE 
 OF 5INLE55NE5S 
 
 One of the beatitudes that is least understood, 
 and that as it stands seems most difficult of 
 realization, is that which pivots a clear concep- 
 tion of God, or an actual sight of God, on abso- 
 lute purity of heart. " Blessed are the pure in 
 heart: for they shall see God " (Matt. 5:8). 
 If that means that only those who are sinless, 
 stainless, morally pure — free from moral imper- 
 fection, not merely in act and in word, but in very 
 thought and desire — can see or perceive God, 
 then indeed it shuts out every human being from 
 the possibility of such an attainment. Yet the 
 place of this beatitude in the teachings of our 
 Lord forbids the supposition that in its utter- 
 ance, to those who w r ere listeners to his teach- 
 ings on the Mount, he was deliberately closing 
 the doors to all against the longed-for percep- 
 tion of God. Hence it follows that these words 
 cannot mean what their bald literalness in our 
 English translation would seem to indicate ; and 
 that we would do well to ascertain what they 
 do mean. 
 
 119 
 
120 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 Three words in that beatitude liable to be mis- 
 understood, and so to be misleading to the ordi- 
 nary English reader, are " heart/' " pure " and 
 " see." Each one of these words is worth con- 
 sidering by itself, as a help to the understand- 
 ing of the beatitude in its entirety. 
 
 The word " heart " is now used as a synonym 
 of the feelings or emotions or affections, as over 
 against the " head " or " brain " as a synonym 
 of the mind or intellect. We speak of a man 
 of good impulses, but of bad judgment as one 
 " whose heart is right, but whose head is 
 wrong." But the ancients had another mode of 
 anatomical symbolism. They located the mind 
 in the heart, and the affections in the stomach or 
 bowels. In both the Old Testament and the 
 New the term "heart" usually corresponds 
 with our term " mind," and the term " belly," 
 or " bowels," with our term " affections." 
 " Heart " in those days, like " mind " at the 
 present time, could include the idea of the whole 
 man ; as a man who has set his heart to a work, 
 or who is whole-minded to that work. The same 
 Hebrew word is, indeed, frequently translated 
 in our English Bible both " mind " and " heart." 
 Again the Greek word rendered " mind " in the 
 New Testament refers rather to the purpose 
 and will than to the intellect and understanding. 
 
Purity of Heart Not .a State of Sinlessness 121 
 
 But in the nicer distinctions of these anatomical 
 figures of speech of the ancients the " heart " 
 of then stood for the " mind " of now, and the 
 " bowels " of then for the " heart " of now. In 
 the u heart/' or the mind, man thinketh, before 
 his thought takes representative shape in action. 
 With the " heart/' or the mind, man believeth, 
 before his mouth makes confession of his belief. 
 He is swayed by " bowels " or feelings of mercy 
 or of compassion, and out of his " belly " (or, 
 as we would say, heart) there go forth streams 
 of love in feelings of affection for those who 
 are in need. This is the way in which the Bible 
 uses the term " heart ;" therefore in the beati- 
 tudes, as elsewhere, " heart " means, according 
 to our way of speaking, mind, or purpose, and 
 not heart. 
 
 The word " pure," as ordinarily used, in He- 
 brew, in Greek, and in English, means " without 
 alloy/' " clean," " clear," "simple," " single." It 
 is applied, in the Bible, to virgin gold, to a clean 
 table or candlestick, to flawless glass, to un- 
 mixed oil, and to water that is only water. It 
 does not necessarily involve a moral element. 
 It never stands for absolute sinlessness of being. 
 Hence it is to be taken, in the Sermon on the 
 Mount, as well as elsewhere, when connected 
 with " heart," or " mind," as meaning " single," 
 
122 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 "simple/ 1 "unmixed." The "pure in heart" 
 are those whose minds, or very selves, are sin- 
 gle, simple, undivided and unalloyed in one aim 
 and purpose. 
 
 In Bible usage, as in our ordinary modes of 
 speech, to " see " is not merely to have in the 
 field of natural vision, but is to discern, or per- 
 ceive, or recognize, or apprehend. To say " I 
 see " is a familiar and intelligible form of ex- 
 pression by the blind, when a thought or a truth 
 is made clear through the mind's eye. We see 
 a great many things that we do not see. We 
 can see much that we cannot see. " No man 
 hath seen God at any time " (John 1 : 18) ; yet 
 it is the privilege and the duty of every child 
 of God to walk as Moses walked, " as seeing 
 him who is invisible " (Heb. n : 27). 
 
 In the light of Bible usage, therefore, the 
 words of this beatitude might be rendered: 
 " Blessed are the single-minded, or single- 
 purposed : for they shall perceive God." Blessed 
 are those whose whole being is intent on seeing 
 him who is invisible; blessed are those 
 who look toward God all the time, and who will 
 not be diverted from that looking; blessed are 
 those who live to see God: — for they shall see 
 him. Thus rendered, this beatitude is consistent 
 with all the teachings of our Lord and of his 
 
Purity of Heart Not a State of 5inlessness 123 
 
 apostles, as well as with all the great truths in 
 the kingdoms of nature and of grace. It is in 
 this very Sermon on the Mount that our Lord 
 says to his disciples : " The lamp of the body 
 is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single [sim- 
 ple, clear, unblurred], thy whole body shall be 
 full of light" (Matt. 6: 22) ; and in immediate 
 connection with this declaration, as if in appli- 
 cation of its truth, he says : " Xo man can serve 
 two masters : for either he will hate the one, and 
 love the other ; or else he will hold to one, 
 and despise the other" (Matt. 6: 24). The 
 eye that would see the right master must be sin- 
 gle, clear, pure ; for no man can see the master 
 whom he ought to serve if he is looking, or 
 trying to look, in two directions. Such a serv- 
 ant is described by the apostle James as " a 
 double-minded man, unstable in all his ways " 
 (Jas. 1: 8). 
 
 Single-mindedness, or simple-mindedness, is 
 a characteristic of childhood. A child is all at- 
 tent to one thing at a time, looking at that one 
 thing with single eye and simpleness of mind ; 
 while double-mindedness, or divided thinking, is 
 the peril of the full-grown person. How many 
 things a keen-eyed child will see in an everyday 
 walk that are unnoticed by the father whom he 
 accompanies ! The father has too many things 
 
124 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 in his mind, or on his mind, to observe that 
 which, for the moment, is the all in all to the 
 single-eyed and simple-minded — or, as the Bible 
 would call it, the pure-hearted — child. There- 
 fore it is that our Lord said to his maturer dis- 
 ciples : " Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall 
 not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, 
 he shall in no wise enter therein" (Luke 18: 
 17). The pure in heart are the child-minded. 
 They shall see God, because when they are look- 
 ing for him they are not looking for anything 
 else. Their eyes are single, their minds are 
 undivided, and their whole being goes out 
 toward the object of their search. They seek 
 for God, and they find him when they search for 
 him with all their mind. 
 
 He who has his mind, or purpose, his thoughts, 
 his desires, his whole being, clarified and unal- 
 loyed, fixed and centered on God, longing to 
 perceive him, to be in communion with him, to 
 be a partaker of his spirit and his life, shall find 
 him, and shall know that he is one with him. 
 He is one of the pure in heart, of the single-eyed 
 and the simple-minded, who shall perceive God 
 clearly, and in consequence be blessed or happy 
 continually. 
 
XV 
 BIBLE PERFECTION NOT 5INLE5SNE55 
 
 Over against the promised blessing to the 
 " pure in heart " there stands the command of 
 Jesus to his disciples, " Be ye therefore perfect, 
 even as your Father which is in heaven is per- 
 fect " (Matt. 5: 48) ; or, as it reads in the Re- 
 vised text, " Ye therefore shall be perfect, as 
 your heavenly Father is perfect. ,, As this is 
 popularly understood, and frequently preached 
 about, it is a command to sinlessness, or to 
 moral faultlessness, a command to be free from 
 spot or stain or taint of evil, to be like God in 
 holiness and purity; and many of the disciples 
 of Jesus say of this requirement, as others said 
 of his call to oneness with himself by partak- 
 ing of his flesh and his blood, " This is a hard 
 saying; who can hear it?" (John 6: 60.) 
 
 Others, again, console themselves w r ith the 
 belief that, as Jesus would not command the 
 impossible, they can be sinless to the extent re- 
 quired in this injunction; and therefore they 
 strive to that end, and, indeed, think they attain 
 to it. Thus the differences of opinion as to the 
 meaning of this command lead many, on the 
 
 125 
 
126 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 one hand, to hopeless striving after moral per- 
 fectness, and to doubt or despair in view of their 
 obvious failure ; and lead many, on the other 
 hand, to self-deception and a wrong estimate of 
 their moral conduct and spiritual condition. 
 Both these undesirable states of mind are a 
 result of a too common misunderstanding of the 
 plain meaning of the term " perfect," as it stands 
 in that command of Jesus. 
 
 The word " perfect/' or " perfection," or 
 " perfectly," as found in our English Bible, 
 never means a mere state of sinlessness. It has, 
 indeed, no exclusive reference to moral 
 qualities or to a moral condition. Its 
 meaning is rather a state of complete- 
 ness, of wholeness, of entirety. Several He- 
 brew and several Greek words are thus trans- 
 lated, but all of them have practically the same 
 root idea. The command to the Israelites to 
 have " a perfect and just weight," and " a per- 
 fect and just measure" (Deut. 25: 15), had 
 reference only to the material substance of the 
 weight and measure. The host of David's sol- 
 diers who came with him to Hebron " with a 
 perfect heart" (1 Chron. 12: 38) were not sin- 
 less men, but " whole-hearted " retainers of the 
 new ruler. When it was said of Tyre, " Thou 
 wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou 
 
Bible Perfection Not 5inlessness 127 
 
 wast created, till unrighteousness was found in 
 thee" (Ezek. 28: 15), it is clear that symmetry 
 and entirety are included in the idea of perfect- 
 ness, rather than sinlessness or moral purity. 
 So all the way along the Old Testament record. 
 
 When Jesus said to the rich young man who 
 wanted to know how to make sure of eternal 
 life, " If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that 
 which thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou 
 shalt have treasure in heaven ; and come, follow 
 me" (Matt. 19: 21), he clearly meant, "if thou 
 wouldest complete thy work of preparation, if 
 thou wouldest be thorough in this thing." And 
 when James says that the man who can control 
 his tongue " is a perfect man, able to bridle 
 the whole body also " (James 3 : 2), he evidently 
 uses the word " perfect " as meaning " thor- 
 ough," " entire," " complete." Thus in the New 
 Testament as in the Old. 
 
 An examination of the context of the com- 
 mand to " be perfect," in the " Sermon on the 
 Mount," will show to any careful reader that it 
 is impartiality, or freedom from the imperfect- 
 ness of a one-sided view of truth or duty, 
 rather than sinlessness, that is enjoined by 
 Jesus. He is speaking of the common way of 
 loving your friends and hating your enemies. 
 
 " Ye have heard that it was said," he says, 
 
128 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 " Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine 
 enemy : but I say unto you, Love your enemies, 
 and pray for them that persecute you; that ye 
 may be sons of your Father which is in heaven; 
 for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and 
 the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the 
 unjust. For if ye love them that love you, what 
 reward have ye? Do not even the publicans 
 the same ? And if ye salute your brethren only, 
 what do ye more than others? do not even the 
 Gentiles the same? Ye therefore shall be per- 
 fect, as your heavenly Father is perfect " (Matt. 
 
 5: 43-48). 
 
 It is one-sidedness that is warned against. It 
 is impartiality or entirety that is enjoined. It 
 is wholeness of vision, instead of a squint of 
 the eye, that is commended. Gentiles and pub- 
 licans and other sinners may be good to those 
 whom they like, and be unloving toward others ; 
 but the disciples of Jesus are to be loving toward 
 all, as the Father of all is loving toward all. 
 This is the plain command of Jesus in the words, 
 " Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heav- 
 enly Father is perfect." He says practically: 
 " Be impartial, as your heavenly Father is im- 
 partial. Avoid one-sidedness. Let your love 
 and fairness take in the entire sweep of the 
 circle. ,, 
 
Bible Perfection Not 5inlessness 129 
 
 There are many Bible calls to holiness, to 
 godliness, to purity of thought, but that idea is 
 not found in this Bible word " perfect." The 
 supposing that the command to preach perfec- 
 tion, or to press toward it, is a command to a 
 sinless life, is a mistake that has caused no little 
 confusion and misunderstanding in the minds 
 of simple-hearted believers. The conventional 
 term " perfection," and the Bible term "perf ec- 
 tion," are two terms of very different' meaning. 
 
XVI 
 
 DENYING SELF, NOT DENYING 
 THING5 TO 5ELF 
 
 To deny one's self is a fundamental Christian 
 duty. To deny anything to one's self may be 
 a duty or it may not be; it may be right or 
 it may be wrong: all depends on the circum- 
 stances and nature of such denial, and the object 
 of its exercise. Yet both denying self and deny- 
 ing to self are popularly spoken of as " self- 
 denial ;" and under this term both the biblical 
 and the unbiblical ideas of denying self are gen- 
 erally included. An all-essential duty in Chris- 
 tian discipleship is thus commonly confounded 
 with a matter of conditional expediency. 
 
 " If any man would come after me," said 
 Jesus, "let him deny himself, and take up his 
 cross, and follow me" (Matt. 16: 24; Mark 8: 
 34; Luke 9: 23). Here Jesus makes the duty 
 of denying self an essential requisite of Chris- 
 tian discipleship. A man cannot be a follower 
 of Jesus unless he denies himself, or, as the 
 Greek term indicates, denies himself utterly. 
 The requirement is not the denial of anything, 
 
 130 
 
Denying 5elf, Not Denying Things to Self 131 
 
 cither little or much, to self, but the utter denial 
 of self — a very important, and too often un- 
 recognized difference. 
 
 As the term stands in the Greek, the injunc- 
 tion of our Lord to his every disciple, to " deny 
 himself/' includes the idea of turning one's self 
 away from one's self, of rejecting self as the de- 
 sire of self. It suggests the thought of two 
 centers — self and Christ — the one to be denied 
 and the other to be accepted, as an object of 
 attraction and devotedness. Its use in the orig- 
 inal seems to say : " If you would turn toward 
 me, you must turn away from yourself. If you 
 would accept me as the chief object of desire, 
 you must renounce yourself as such an object. 
 If you would henceforward live in my service, 
 you must at once cease to live for your own 
 pleasure and interest." 
 
 It does not directly enjoin the suppression of 
 self, or the overcoming of self, or the constant 
 battling with self; but it calls to the turning 
 away from self, the ceasing to live for self, the 
 practical ignoring or forgetting of self as a 
 center of interest and ks an object of desire. 
 That is the injunction, in its meaning and in its 
 application. Self-denial is self-ignoring in hearty 
 self-surrender. 
 
 It is a very common mistake concerning the 
 
132 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 nature of self-denial, to suppose that it involves 
 a constant thought of self, in order to the entire 
 subjection of self. As a matter of fact, he who 
 lives the truest life of self-denial has very little 
 trouble with himself ; being absorbed in an object 
 of interest outside of himself, he forgets him- 
 self; living for something worthier of his de- 
 votion, he does not give any worrying thought 
 to that self from which he has turned away in 
 his enthusiastic pursuit of a nobler aim. A sol- 
 dier is worth little as a soldier until he forgets 
 himself in his interest in his soldier duties. If 
 he even thinks of prolonging or protecting his 
 life he is more likely to lose his life than if he is 
 absorbed in the effort to do his work manfully as 
 a soldier. An unselfish interest in our fellows 
 causes us to forget ourselves in our loving 
 thought of others. An unselfish interest in our 
 Friend of friends takes us away from ourselves, 
 and fills our mind with a simple purpose of pleas- 
 ing and serving him. A life of self-denial is not 
 a life of conflict with self ; it is rather a life turned 
 away from self in utter self-forgetfulness. 
 
 Self-mortification and self-flagellations and 
 self-inflictions or self-deprivations are often 
 mistakenly supposed to be elements of self- 
 denial, when in truth they are only modes of 
 self-nursing or self-seeking. A man who de- 
 
Denying Self, Not Denying Things to Self 133 
 
 sires to win a prize in an athletic contest will 
 gladly put himself in training in order to be in 
 the best physical condition for that struggle. 
 He will deny to himself anything in the line of 
 food and drink and luxurious indulgences that 
 might lessen his prospects of personal victory. 
 But in all this there is no true self-denial; on 
 the contrary, it is confessedly a method of per- 
 sistent self-advancement. A prize-fighting bully, 
 who lives abstemiously while in training for his 
 contest can hardly be called a man who denies 
 self, and who lives for a nobler object than self- 
 aggrandizement. Professional bank robbers and 
 burglars are known to be carefully abstemious 
 in their personal habits, and to deny themselves 
 the use of liquor or tobacco while in the active 
 practise of their M profession ;" but who would 
 think of claiming that such men were living 
 lives of true self-denial, in denying to them- 
 selves those indulgences which would hinder 
 them in their selfish pursuings? 
 
 He who lives for the acquisition of wealth, or 
 for the attainment of knowledge, or for the se- 
 curing of honor and fame, is ready to deny to 
 himself food, or sleep, or personal ease, if there- 
 by he can promote the chief object of his life 
 struggle. But whatever else he denies to him- 
 self, a worker of this sort does not deny him- 
 
134 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 self to himself. Self is the final center of his 
 living and being. 
 
 If, indeed, a man strives always for the pro- 
 motion of his highest spiritual welfare, and for 
 the completest subjection of himself, his self- 
 deprivations and his self-moftifications may be 
 nothing more than carefully chosen modes of 
 self-improvement, having in them none of the 
 qualities or merit of true self-denial. He may 
 fast and pray and live a life of retirement and 
 deprivation in order to save his spirit or self. 
 There is no denial of self in that. It is all self- 
 ish living. Such a man is living for self. He is 
 seeking to save himself. He lacks the first 
 requisite of a Christian disciple. He who turn- 
 eth not away from self, refusing even to make 
 the eternal saving of himself the chief object 
 of living, cannot be a disciple of Jesus. 
 
 A life of true self-denial, or of denial of self, 
 may be a life of comparative ease and fulness, 
 while a life of endurance and privation may be 
 wholly a life of self-seeking. He whose nature 
 and tastes would prompt him to a life of activity 
 and adventure, may find himself called of God 
 to settle down quietly in loving ministry to one 
 of Christ's dear ones in need of tender care, but 
 whose surroundings are those of relative lux- 
 ury. Only by the denial of self can such a man 
 
Denying Self, Not Denying Things to Self 135 
 
 find pleasure in the acceptance of a lot exempt 
 from toil and hardship. On the other hand a 
 man of social instincts may travel to the end 
 of the earth in loneliness and may deprive himself 
 sorely as he travels, because he wants, for some 
 reason, to hide himself from all who know him, 
 or because he is seeking reputation or reward 
 in a discovery which he hopes to make. There 
 is no denial of self in his deprivations and en- 
 durances, as there is in the other man's settling 
 down in a home of luxury at the call of God, 
 contrary to his personal inclinations. Not what 
 a man has, not what he yields, but the aim of 
 his life — toward self or away from self — settles 
 the question whether he exercises true self- 
 denial as the Bible teaches that duty. 
 
 He who would deny himself at the call of 
 Christ must turn away from himself in hearty 
 rejection and utter forgetfulness of himself as 
 an object of life. Not what seems to be for 
 his own interest or pleasure, but what his Mas- 
 ter directs for him, must occupy his thoughts, 
 and claim his best endeavors, at all times. It 
 may be that his Lord will call him to labors 
 abundantly, and to prisons more abundantly ; to 
 stripes and stonings; to journeyings often; to 
 perils of rivers ; to perils of robbers ; to perils in 
 the city; to perils in the wilderness; to perils 
 
136 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 in the sea; to perils among false brethren; to 
 travails and watchings ; to hunger and thirst and 
 fastings ; to cold and nakedness. It may be that 
 that same Lord will call him to dwell in his own 
 hired house in the world's chiefest city, with 
 friends at hand in Caesar's palace. 
 
 If, indeed, his self-denial be complete, it will 
 matter little to him whether he be in the one 
 state or in the other, provided only he be where 
 He for whom he lives would have him. With 
 all his heart he can say, in either case : " I have 
 learned, in whatsoever state I am, therein to be 
 content. I know how to be abased, and I know 
 also how to abound; in everything and in all 
 things I have learned the secret both to be filled 
 and to be hungry, both to abound and to be in 
 want. I can do all things in him that strength- 
 ened me" (Phil. 4: 11-13). 
 
 True self-denial is the denial of self as an 
 object of service or of interest, through a sur- 
 render of self to One who alone is worthy of su- 
 preme interest and devoted service. It does 
 not depend on, or consist of, either fulness or 
 lack ; but it accepts the one or the other of these 
 conditions gladly, according as the Master for 
 whom self has been renounced may ordain and 
 indicate. 
 
XVII 
 
 BEARING THE CR055, NOT 
 BEARING CR055E5 
 
 " Bearing the cross/' or " taking up one's 
 cross," has a well defined meaning in the Bible. 
 It was, at the beginning of the Christian era, an 
 expression with a technical signification, com- 
 monly understood in the days of the New Tes- 
 tament writers. 
 
 " Cross-bearing " is not, in that precise form, 
 a Bible term ; but it is now popularly employed 
 as the equivalent of the phrase " bearing the 
 cross," although with a very different meaning 
 attached to it. The diverse meanings connected 
 with the supposed equivalent terms is a cause 
 of serious misleading in Bible reading, and in 
 religious conversation and thought. 
 
 " Cross-bearing " is ordinarily considered the 
 bearing of burdens, or the enduring of trials, in 
 Christ's service, or for Christ's sake. " Taking 
 up the cross," or " bearing the cross," as the 
 phrase is employed in the New Testament text, 
 or as it was understood at the opening of our 
 Christian era, was the surrender or devotion of 
 one's life to Christ's service. This distinction is 
 
 137 
 
138 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 an important one as throwing light on the com- 
 mand of Jesus, and on the duty of his every 
 disciple. 
 
 The " cross," or, more literally, the "stake," 
 was the instrument of execution for criminals, 
 as that word was employed in classic and in 
 Jewish literature. It being customary for a con- 
 demned criminal, on his way to the place of 
 execution, to carry upon his shoulder the stake 
 to which he was to be fastened, or by which 
 he was to be transfixed, the term " taking up the 
 cross," or " bearing the cross," came to be equiv- 
 alent to our modern term " halter-wearing " or 
 " going to the gallows." He who bore a cross 
 on his shoulder was recognized as one who was 
 appointed to die, and he must stand or move 
 with that grim fact staring him in the face. 
 
 When Jesus had been sentenced to death, " he 
 went out, bearing the cross for himself, unto the 
 place . . . where they crucified him." (John 
 19: 17, 18). Finding that his strength was 
 insufficient for the heavy burden, his murderers 
 compelled one Simon, of Cyrene, to bear the 
 cross for Jesus. (Matt. 2j: 32; Mark 15: 21; 
 Luke 23: 26.) This was a natural way under 
 such circumstances. The victim himself, or 
 some one who was reckoned with him, bore the 
 cross, or the stake, on his shoulder, to the place 
 
Bearing the Cross, Not Bearing Crosses 139 
 
 of execution. He who thus bore the cross was 
 seen to be on his way to give up his life, or he 
 was accounted as a sharer with the condemned 
 one. 
 
 When Jesus found his disciples expectant of 
 honors in his service as the Messiah, and longing 
 for places nearest him when he should be up- 
 lifted in his kingdom, he told them that they 
 little knew what they were asking. His first 
 uplifting was to be on a cross. Would they 
 be willing to share that experience with him? 
 " Ye know not what ye ask," he said. " Are ye 
 able to drink the cup that I am about to drink ?" 
 (Matt. 20: 22; Mark 10: 38). It costs some- 
 thing, he suggested, to be my follower. A man 
 who enlists in my service must do so with a 
 halter around his neck. If he cares more for 
 his life than for me, he is unfitted to be one of 
 my disciples. " If any man cometh unto me 
 and hateth not [in comparison with me] his 
 own father, and mother, and wife, and children, 
 and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life 
 also, he cannot be my disciple. Whosoever 
 doth not bear his own cross and come after me 
 cannot be my disciple " (Luke 14: 26, 2j). 
 
 Whoever would follow me must be ready to 
 give up his life for my sake, and he must walk 
 after me, bearing his cross on his shoulder, as I 
 
140 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 bear mine, to the place of crucifixion. " If any 
 man would come after me, let him deny him- 
 self and take up his cross and follow me." As 
 showing that this had reference to giving up 
 life for him and his cause, he added : " For who- 
 soever would save his life shall lose it ; and who- 
 soever shall lose his life for my sake and the 
 gospel's shall save it" (Mark 8: 35; Luke 
 9: 23, 24). 
 
 In every instance in which our Lord spoke of 
 taking up the cross, or of bearing the cross as a 
 test of discipleship, he used the term in this 
 sense of voluntary life-surrender. The disciple 
 of Christ must put his life at the disposal of 
 Christ; he must do as Christ would have him 
 do, rather than as he might personally prefer 
 to do. He must live and move and be as one 
 whose life is no longer at his own disposal. 
 This must be his new thought with each new 
 day, and it must control his every act and word 
 and purpose. Not the suffering that might ac- 
 company crucifixion, but the surrender of life 
 even to crucifixion for Christ's sake, was signi- 
 fied and symbolized in bearing the cross, as our 
 Lord enjoined it upon those who would be dis- 
 ciples. 
 
 Just here is where the conventional meaning 
 of the term " cross-bearing " differs so widely 
 
Bearing the Cross, Not Bearing Crosses 141 
 
 from its biblical meaning. A " cross " is no 
 longer understood to be a stake, a gibbet, or a 
 gallows; but it includes anything that crosses, 
 or thwarts, or vexes, or tries, us, in our daily 
 life-path ; hence the bearing of a cross is now 
 supposed to be the bearing or enduring of trials 
 and sufferings, petty or great, for Christ's sake. 
 Alexander Cruden, who has perhaps done as 
 much to shape popular theology by the defini- 
 tions in his Concordance as Milton has to shape 
 popular eschatology by his descriptions in Para- 
 dise Lost, says that " pains, afflictions, troubles 
 and unprosperous affairs, were called crosses " 
 in classic days ; but no classical authorities seem 
 to justify this claim of Cruden. In the Cen- 
 tury Dictionary, with its claim to give the 
 consensus of opinion as to the meaning of fa- 
 miliar words, we are told that " to bear a cross " 
 is " to endure with patience a discomfort or 
 trial ;" and this is a fair rendering of the modern 
 popular meaning of " cross-bearing." We are, 
 moreover, told, in the same Century Dictionary, 
 not only that the term " cross " means " any 
 suffering voluntarily borne in Christ's name and 
 for Christ's sake," but that this was our Lord's 
 use of the word when he said, " He that taketh 
 not his cross and followeth after me, is not 
 worthy of me." And here is a fresh illustration 
 
142 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 of the truth that dictionary-makers are as liable 
 as other men to misread Bible texts, in the light 
 of popular errors of opinion as to the teachings 
 of those texts. 
 
 There is, of course, no such thing as "little 
 crosses" in one's daily life course, although one 
 often hears such things spoken of. If a cross is 
 a cross at all it is big enough to hang on, to die 
 on. If it is not large enough for that, it is not a 
 cross in the Bible sense, or in the classical sense, 
 of that term. 
 
 It is true that cross-bearing, as a synonym of 
 voluntary life-surrender, includes whatever of 
 suffering, or of trial-enduring, or of personal 
 privation, may come to one as a disciple of the 
 Lord Jesus Christ; but it is not true that the 
 essential thing in cross-bearing is suffering, or 
 trial enduring, or personal privation, for Christ's 
 sake. Cross-bearing is the signifying of one's 
 readiness to live or to die, or to live and to die, in 
 Christ's service, with or without suffering — as 
 the duty of the hour may require. 
 
 When the members of the Continental Con- 
 gress decided to sign the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence, they realized that they were thereby 
 putting a halter around their necks. As one pf 
 their own number then said, " Now, we must all 
 hang together, or we shall hang separately." 
 
Bearing the Cross, Not Bearing Crosses 143 
 
 Unless they were ready to die, if need be, in de- 
 fense of the stand they then took, they were not 
 worthy to sign that Declaration. It might, in- 
 deed, be their lot to endure much suffering as a 
 consequence of that act of theirs; but whether 
 they suffered or not personally, they signified 
 their readiness to accept the full consequences of 
 their action, even to the extent of surrender of 
 their lives — thus devoted to the cause of Amer- 
 ican independence. 
 
 As Dr. Bushnell suggested, of a later crisis in 
 American affairs, the practical issue between the 
 two sides in our Civil War was in the question, 
 who could furnish the most dead ; yet no one 
 would claim that the mere suffering or dying of 
 a soldier on the right side of that contest was in 
 itself such a proof of his fidelity as he had given 
 when he enlisted for the war, with his life pledged 
 to the prosecution of that contest to its end. So 
 it is in Christian cross-bearing; it is the devotion 
 of the life to Christ's service, rather than any suf- 
 fering or trial that ensues from such devotion, 
 which makes and marks the Christian disciple as 
 a Christian disciple. 
 
 In the modern popular understanding of the 
 duty of cross-bearing, discomfort or trial or suf- 
 fering for Christ's sake is the all-essential feature 
 of service ; but in the New Testament presenta- 
 
144 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 tion of this duty, the all-essential thing is the 
 voluntary surrender of one's life to Christ's serv- 
 ice — suffering or no suffering. In the one case, 
 the suffering is looked at as essential; in the 
 other case, the suffering is recognized as merely 
 incidental. As men ordinarily see it, he is the 
 truest cross-bearer who has most trials to endure, 
 and who endures them faithfully for his Master. 
 As the Bible presents it, he is the truest cross- 
 bearer who most heartily puts himself at the 
 service of Christ, for joy or for sorrow, for' want 
 or for fulness, for life or for death. Cross- 
 bearing is not hard asceticism ; it is cheerful and 
 unquestioning devotedness. It is not living for 
 the purpose of denying oneself; it is living for 
 Christ, even though one must deny himself in 
 order to such living. 
 
 It is such cross-bearing as this that prepares 
 the way for crown-wearing. He who would save 
 his life by penances and unnecessary privations 
 shall lose it. But he who would surrender his 
 life for Christ's sake shall find it in a joyous here 
 and hereafter, in the presence and service of 
 Christ. 
 
XVIII 
 
 SACRIFICE AS A MEANS OF 
 PERSONAL ENJOYMENT 
 
 Among the Bible words that have been de- 
 flected from their primitive meaning is the word 
 "sacrifice." The English word is from the two 
 Latin words sacer, "sacred," and facio, "to make." 
 It means a sacred offering, a consecrated gift to 
 God. Both the Hebrew and the Greek word 
 generally translated in the Bible "sacrifice" means 
 "to slaughter," or to pour out the blood, or the 
 life, of a victim, as a holy offering. Yet there is 
 another Hebrew word translated "sacrifice" 
 which means simply an "offering," bloody or un- 
 bloody, including prayer. Strictly speaking, 
 therefore, any gift to God, even the gift of 
 prayer or praise or love, is a sacrifice. But such 
 an offering may be given cheerfully or grudg- 
 ingly, and we are so accustomed to give to God 
 grudgingly that we have an idea that there must 
 be something of that nature, of a grudgingly 
 given gift, in every sacrifice. 
 
 Our ordinary idea of a sacrifice is, that it is a 
 painful giving up of that which we prize and 
 delight in, and which we would like to retain. We 
 
 145 
 
146 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 understand that we can sacrifice our life, our 
 health, our ease, our comfort, our worldly means, 
 our reputation, our position in life, and that it 
 may be our duty to do so. But we do not think 
 of sacrifice as in itself a pleasant act, as one that 
 is to us more enjoyable than anything else could 
 be. We do not count a delightful hour, or day, 
 in the society of a friend, the giving of a birthday 
 or a Christmas gift to the one we hold dearest, 
 the singing a song of rejoicing when we have 
 been made happy by another, the sharing our 
 abundant or surplus means with a worthy one 
 in need, as a sacrifice. But the latter may be as 
 truly a sacrifice as the former. Sacrifice does 
 not depend on the cost which it involves, but on 
 the spirit which prompts it. 
 
 Whether a sacrifice is made unto God or to a 
 fellow-being, it has its chief value in being 
 counted a sacred or a holy offering. Any offer- 
 ing deemed sacred or holy ought, of course, to 
 be rendered heartily and with gladness, be it God- 
 ward or man-ward, since that which is a duty 
 ought to be performed cheerfully and with joy- 
 fulness. The more joyous its giving, the more 
 truly is it an acceptable gift. "God loveth a 
 cheerful [literally a hilarious] giver" (2 Cor. 
 9:7), and man, also, loveth a cheerful giver. 
 Yet there are offerings in the line of duty that 
 
 
Sacrifice as a Means of Personal Enjoyment 147 
 
 furnish us conscious enjoyment, while there are 
 others that are consciously made by us at a 
 painful cost. Both are sacrifices, but the differ- 
 ence is in the different spirit in which they are 
 given. Not what the gifts are as an offering, 
 but what we are as their offerers, makes the one 
 painful and the other pleasurable. 
 
 A main cause of our confusion of mind as to 
 the true meaning of sacrifice is that we make self 
 our center, instead of making God and God's 
 dear ones our center. We want to have that 
 which will please ourselves, rather than that 
 which will please God, or God's dear ones. When 
 we find communion with another pleasurable to 
 ourselves, we do not count it a trial to give up 
 our time. When we have sincere love for an- 
 other, we have delight in giving to that object of 
 our love. Communing with God, and giving to 
 God, would be also pleasurable if we were con- 
 trolled by love for him. 
 
 Sacrifices to God, as called for in the ancient 
 law of Israel, were intended to show love for 
 God. We are apt to think of the cost of those 
 sacrifices, instead of thinking of the spirit shown 
 in their making. We forget that love was and is 
 the fulfilment of law, and that the pouring out of 
 the life of beasts sacrificed according to the law 
 was not merely in order to destroy that life, but 
 
148 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 it was in order to render it up as a loving gift to 
 God. It was the love prompting the offering, not 
 the intrinsic value of the offering itself, that made 
 the sacrifice acceptable to God. As it was toward 
 God in the sacrifices of old, so is it toward our 
 fellows in the sacrifices we are now called to 
 make day by day. 
 
 " A true sacrifice to God, " says St. Augustine, 
 " is every work which is done that we may be 
 united to God in holy fellowship, and which has 
 a reference to that supreme end in which alone 
 we can be truly blessed. " It ought not to be a 
 painful duty to us to do that which evidences 
 our highest love, and which best promotes our 
 personal welfare. That is the kind of sacrifice 
 that God wants from us, and that is the kind of 
 sacrifice that we ought to delight in making. But 
 this is not the way we ordinarily look at sacrifice. 
 
 Self-denial, for example, is always hard ; but 
 self-sacrifice may be hard, or it may be easy. 
 Self-denial inevitably involves a battle with self. 
 Self-sacrifice does not necessarily call for a strug- 
 gle. It may, indeed, be pleasant to devote or sur- 
 render one's self, one's powers, one's possessions, 
 one's interests, to another's sway, or to a cause 
 which seems worthy of one's devotedness. But 
 it is a sad illustration of the perversion, if not 
 of the degradation, of the human intellect and 
 
Sacrifice as a Means of Personal Enjoyment 149 
 
 character, that self-sacrifice, self-devotedness 
 which is sacred and holy, has so commonly come 
 to be counted a necessarily painful and unde- 
 sirable outlay of self at the call of dry duty. " I 
 suppose I must sacrifice myself," is the way one 
 is likely to speak when he feels that this is his 
 duty. He would hardly deem it a proper way 
 of speaking to say, " I am called to the most 
 delightful service imaginable. I am going to sac- 
 rifice myself for the cause I love best," or, " to 
 the person dearest to me." 
 
 The common way is as though a man were to 
 say explicitly : " For me to be devoted to another 
 in love, or in friendship ; for me to be devoted to 
 my country, to the welfare of my fellow-beings, 
 or even to my God, — is contrary to all my in- 
 stincts and impulses and conscious desires. I do 
 not want to be devoted to any one or to anything 
 outside of my immediate personal self. In order 
 to any sacred devotedness I must subject myself 
 to a constant denial of the real longings of my 
 lower and of my stronger self. " 
 
 Even if this had to be recognized as the true — 
 and, as human nature is, as the inevitable — state 
 of the case, its simple recognition would tend to 
 aid one in struggling against the disclosure and 
 continued existence of such a pitiable condition 
 of affairs. But, thanks be to God, it is not true 
 
150 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 that self-sacrifice always involves conscious self- 
 denial, or always necessitates an obvious struggle 
 with self. Self-sacrifice is, in one form or an- 
 other, the truest joy of every true man or true 
 woman ; and, the truer one is in real manhood or 
 in real womanhood, the more potent is the sway 
 of self-sacrifice in his or her life-course, and the 
 less prominent in that sphere is the struggle in 
 the direction of self-denial. 
 
 To love devotedly, and to deem one's loving a 
 sacred devotedness, is to be self-sacrificing in 
 love, but it is not necessarily to be consciously 
 self-denying in one's love, even though at times 
 it may be so. A young mother, for example, is 
 self-sacrificing in her love for her child. In the 
 exhibit of her self-sacrificing love, she may have 
 to deny herself sleep which her tired physical 
 nature craves. The specific self-denial, in this 
 instance, costs her a struggle ; but the controlling 
 self-sacrifice, of which the self-denial is an in- 
 cident, does not. The one is not easy ; the other 
 is. The one is not in itself a delight; the other 
 is a real joy. And as the mother's self-sacrificing 
 devotedness gains in power by its exercise, — as 
 all good is sure to gain, — the sense of self-denial, 
 or even the need of self-denial as such, is less 
 and less, the very self of the devoted one com- 
 ing into subjection to, or into conformity with, 
 
Sacrifice as a Means of Personal Enjoyment 151 
 
 the spirit and purpose of the self-sacrificing — 
 the self-surrendered — devotion in love. 
 
 The young patriot who is swayed by a self- 
 sacrificing devotion to his country in its peril, 
 may have to deny himself daily while in the 
 course of his training as a soldier; but because 
 of the all-swaying power of his hearty and joy- 
 ous self-sacrifice, as a patriotic soldier, he hardly 
 thinks of the incidental self-denial involved in 
 its exhibit. And by and by the sorrowful self- 
 denial on his part is practically at an end, being 
 overwhelmed by, and swallowed up in, his glad- 
 some self-sacrifice. So, again, is it with the 
 young student, in training for a part in an inter- 
 collegiate boat-race or football game. Any self- 
 denial in the course of his training is of minor 
 importance, in his mind, in comparison with his 
 self-sacrifice, or with his self-devotedness, in 
 behalf of the college of which he is a joyous 
 representative. 
 
 Whenever, in fact, an all-absorbing devoted- 
 ness has control of a man's affections and pur- 
 poses, his consequent self-sacrifice in that direc- 
 tion practically precludes the idea of self-denial 
 in the same direction. Self is forgotten, in love 
 for that which is dearer than self. The busy 
 man who finds not a minute to spare from his 
 pressing office duties, and who would deem it 
 
152 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 an act of self-denial to give audience to any 
 ordinary special visitor, springs with delight from 
 his seat at the entrance of one whom he loves 
 devotedly in a self-sacrificing friendship. There 
 is no thought of self-denial in the glad surrender 
 of his time in such an instance ; his self-surrender 
 is but a joyous self-sacrifice. So is it with one 
 who makes glad gifts to a loved one in proof of 
 his self-sacrificing devotedness to the recipient. 
 So, moreover, it is with every self-forgetful de- 
 votee everywhere and always. 
 
 As it is man-ward, so it is God-ward. There 
 is practically no conscious self-denial in intelli- 
 gent right-minded and all-controlling self- 
 sacrifice toward God. Loving God as we ought 
 to love him, — as we shall love him if we give 
 him due thought in his relation to ourselves, — we 
 can only joy in the privilege of showing our love 
 for him in every way possible ; and then the more 
 we can do for him, or endure for him, the more 
 we shall have of joy in the exhibit of our pre- 
 vailing self-sacrifice toward him. 
 
 Just here it is that the Jews of old were con- 
 stantly making the mistake which is so common 
 among Christians to-day. God had shown to 
 them that they might evidence their self-devoted- 
 ness to him by bringing their offerings as sacri- 
 fices to his sanctuary. They fell into the error 
 
Sacrifice as a Means of Personal Enjoyment 153 
 
 of looking upon these proofs of their devotedness 
 as having a value because of their intrinsic worth. 
 They practically lost sight of the essential dif- 
 ference between self-denial and self-sacrifice. 
 Therefore it was that the Lord, by his prophets, 
 repeatedly reminded them of the true import of 
 all sacrifices, and of the folly of looking at them 
 in any other light. " What unto me is the mul- 
 titude of your sacrifices? ... I delight 
 not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, 
 or of he-goat' . . . Bring no more vain 
 oblations. . . Cease to do evil : learn to do 
 
 well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge 
 the fatherless, plead for the widow. " (Isaiah I : 
 11-17.) 
 
 " Offer the sacrifices of righteousness, and put 
 your trust in Jehovah. " (Psalm 4:5.) 
 
 And it was in this view of the truth that the 
 inspired Psalmist could say in all earnestness, 
 
 " The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit : 
 
 " A broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou 
 wilt not despise. " (Psalm 51 : 17.) 
 
 " And now shall mine head be lifted up above 
 mine enemies round about me ; 
 
 11 And I will offer in his tabernacle sacrifices 
 of joy; 
 
 " I will sing, yea, I will sing praises unto 
 Jehovah." (Psalm 27: 6.) 
 
154 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 Thanksgiving to God is a sacrifice well-pleas- 
 ing to God. Praise is sacrifice. Jesus Christ had 
 joy in sacrificing himself for us. Our greatest 
 enjoyment ought to be found in continual self- 
 sacrifice to God, and in Christ-like self- 
 sacrifices for those whom God loves, and hence 
 whom we ought to love. 
 
XIX 
 LOVE NOT A MATTER OF FELLING 
 
 There are few words in the English language 
 of so great importance, or which are so vague in 
 meaning to the average person, as the word 
 " love. " " God is love, " and " love is of God. " 
 Love is the very nature of God, and love is the 
 highest attribute and the foremost duty of man. 
 Love is the fulfilling of the law, Godward and 
 manward. Love is the greatest thing in the 
 world, and the holiest. Yet on the other hand, 
 " love " is used as a synonym of lust, and of 
 unholy desire, and of sinful craving; and men 
 are warned against the misleadings of love, with 
 its manifold dangers to the soul. What is this 
 " love," with so much of good in it, and of evil? 
 What does the word itself mean, and how comes 
 it that it represents both that which is right, and 
 that which is wrong; that which is to be sought, 
 and that which is to be shunned ? 
 
 A popular idea of " love " is that it is a matter 
 of feeling or of emotion ; that it is not within the 
 control of the will, but rather that it is a result 
 of attraction or of fancy, regardless of reason 
 or of purpose. Yet the Bible repeatedly com- 
 
 155 
 
156 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 mands love as a duty, and again it warns against 
 love as a temptation; therefore, it is not to be 
 supposed that love, either in its good sense or its 
 bad, is merely a matter of feeling. 
 
 The truth is, there is " love, " and there is 
 "love. " Both in the Hebrew and in the Greek, 
 there are several words, of different shades of 
 meaning, which are, alike translated " love; " and 
 this is a prime cause of the ambiguity of the 
 English word which is taken to represent them 
 all. The root idea of the Hebrew word which 
 stands for divine love, and for the holiest love 
 of which man is capable, is that of " giving, " of 
 " outgiving; " it applies to an unselfish attitude 
 of being, rather than to an emotion, or feeling, 
 of the soul. The idea of another Hebrew word, 
 also translated " love," is that of lust, or of 
 selfish indulgence. These two words, of diamet- 
 rically opposite meanings, are translated by a 
 single word in our English tongue; and it 
 is much the same with the Greek as with the 
 Hebrew. What wonder that the average Eng- 
 lish reader is confused in finding " love " used in 
 one connection in the sense of an unselfish out- 
 giving of devotion, and in another connection in 
 the sense of selfish craving or of sinful desire ! 
 
 Our English word " love " is represented in the 
 Sanskrit, with the original meaning of " covet- 
 
Love Not a Matter of Feeling 157 
 
 ousness, " or of " selfish longing. " Another San- 
 skrit word for " love " stands for our word 
 " friendship, " with the central thought of a gen- 
 erous outgiving of self. Hence there is " love " 
 that is love, and there is " love " that is not love. 
 There is love that represents an attitude of being 
 which is approved of God and of man ; and there 
 is love that represents a mere state of feeling 
 which is not meritorious or gainful. The love 
 which God bears to man is not a matter of feel- 
 ing, but an attitude of being ; and it is such love 
 that God commands and commends in men. 
 
 The central idea of " loving, " in its best sense, 
 is that of " holding dear. " That which we count 
 precious, and are willing to give ourselves to, or 
 to give to of our time and means, we may be said 
 to love, apart from any question of our emotions 
 or feelings. A man who really loves his country, 
 holds his country dear, and is willing to risk, or 
 to lay down, his life for it. But he may have no 
 thrills of feeling as he thinks of his country ; and 
 he may be unable to convince himself that his 
 patriotism is all-prevailing by any process of 
 analyzing his emotions. So of one who loves 
 his parents, or his wife, or his children, sacredly. 
 The proof of his love is in what he is willing to 
 do for them, and to be toward them, and not in 
 how he feels about them. Thus, also, in a man's 
 
158 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 love to God, and in a man's love to those whom 
 God loves, — it is in holding God dear, and in 
 holding dear God's dear ones, that the power of 
 true love is evidenced; the feelings have very 
 little to do with the matter. 
 
 Even where love is strongest, the feelings 
 may work against the will, and the will may have 
 to exert itself in behalf of the love as against 
 the emotions. A soldier's feelings may prompt 
 him to run from danger, when duty calls him to 
 meet it bravely. His love for his country at such 
 a time is shown in the exercise of his will against 
 his feelings. A husband or a father is many h. 
 time called to show love by doing, or by being, 
 as true love prompts, when his feelings incline 
 him to show a very different state. So in every 
 testing hour, as to man's love to God. The 
 question is, What is he ready to do, or to be, in 
 proof of his holding God dear ? not, How does 
 he feel about it all just now ? 
 
 " Loving " and " liking " are often used as if 
 they merely indicated different degrees of affec- 
 tion. To " like, " the dictionary tells us, is " to 
 be pleased with in a moderate degree ; " while to 
 " love " is " to delight in, " or to have a " devoted 
 attachment. " " I like him, but I do not love 
 him, " says one ; thereby meaning that the inter- 
 est felt in him is a very slight interest. " No 
 
Love Not a Matter of Feeling 159 
 
 one who knows him can merely like him ; they 
 must love him, " says another, who would thus 
 indicate that the feeling inspired by him must 
 always be of the superlative degree. This under- 
 standing of the two words relatively is very well 
 as far as it goes; but neither word has only a 
 single meaning. Each word means one thing at 
 one time, and another thing at another time ; 
 and unless we recognize the fact of these differ- 
 ing significations of the two words severally, we 
 lose the power of using them or of noting their 
 use discriminatingly. 
 
 " Liking " is sometimes employed as expres- 
 sive of a feeling of personal satisfaction with a 
 thing ; in contrast with " loving " as expressive 
 of a feeling of unselfish affection for it ; the one 
 representing the subjective, and the other the 
 objective, phase of its enjoyment. Thus we may 
 be said to love nature, and to like the fruits that 
 nature brings to us. It is this view of the case 
 that is taken by the poet Wordsworth, when he 
 illustrates to a child a difference between loving 
 and liking: 
 
 "Say not you love a roasted fowl, 
 But you may love a screaming owl. 
 
 Nor blush if o'er your heart be stealing 
 A love for things that have no feeling: 
 
160 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 The spring's first rose by you espied, 
 May fill your breast with ioyful pride; 
 And you may love the strawberry-flower, 
 And love the strawberry in its bower; 
 But when the fruit so often praised 
 For beauty, to your lip is raised, 
 Say not you love the delicate treat, 
 But like it, enjoy it, and thankfully eat. 
 
 You love your father and your mother, 
 Your grown-up and your baby brother; 
 You love your sister and your friends, 
 And countless blessings which God sends: 
 And while those right affections play, 
 You live each moment of your day ; 
 They lead you on to full content, 
 And likings fresh and innocent, 
 That store the mind, the memory feed, 
 And prompt to many a gentle deed. 
 But likings come and pass away; 
 'Tis love that remains till our latest day: 
 Our heavenly guide is holy love, 
 And will be our bliss with saints above." 
 
 This distinction also is a fitting one ; but it does 
 not exhaust or limit the meanings of the two 
 words severally. " Liking " has a force in con- 
 trast with " loving " that goes deeper and out- 
 reaches farther than would be indicated by these 
 suggestions. 
 
 To " like " is often used as expressive of satis- 
 faction with another, or with another's ways ; as 
 
Love Not a Matter of Feeling 161 
 
 growing out of a similarity of recognized ideals. 
 "I like to see a man as thoughtful of others as 
 he is ; " "I like his high sense of honor ; " "I 
 like his reverent spirit ; " " I like such sensitive- 
 ness and delicacy as he shows ; " "I like him, 
 because of his unselfish devotion to his mother ;" 
 — such expressions as these indicate a great 
 deal more than a selfish pleasure in the conduct 
 of the one criticised. They have even greater 
 force than would have the phrase " I love him 
 dearly. " " Liking " another, in this sense, is 
 approving the standard of the one liked ; and so 
 far it is a step beyond loving him. 
 
 We can even love another without liking him ; 
 and we can be loved while we are not liked. A 
 wife can love a worthless or an unloving hus- 
 band, when she cannot like him. A mother can 
 dearly love a reprobate and ungrateful son, whom 
 it is impossible for her to like. To love is to hold 
 dear. To like is to approve and commend. Lov- 
 ing does not always carry liking with it, any 
 more than liking always carries loving. We can 
 approve and commend and like one toward whom 
 we have no feelings of love ; and we may even be 
 better liked by those who do not love us than by 
 those who do. 
 
 It is pleasant to be loved. It is good to be 
 liked. Best of all is it to be both loved and liked. 
 
162 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 We can be loved by those whose judgments con- 
 demn us. We shall be liked by those whose judg- 
 ments approve our ideals, and whose discern- 
 ment recognizes our steady struggling toward 
 those ideals. If the choice must be made by us, 
 it were better to deserve to be liked by the wise 
 and good, than to win love apart from the ques- 
 tion of our deserts. If, however, we deserve to 
 be liked, we are not likely to live and die unloved 
 in the world. 
 
 It has been said that we ought so to live that 
 God will not only love, but like us. This is an- 
 other way of saying that our lives ought to be so 
 conformed to God's image in Christ, that our 
 likeness to him will have his recognition 
 and approval and liking. God loves us even 
 now, because of what he is. If we are like- 
 minded with his Son, God will so far like us for 
 what we are. 
 
 In reading Bible commands to love, or Bible 
 warnings against love, we ought to bear in mind 
 the two kinds of love, and know that we should 
 love, in the sense of holding dear, what God holds 
 dear; and that we are not to give way to a crav- 
 ing desire for aught that God disapproves. In 
 reading Bible references to liking, or to becom- 
 ing liked, we are to know that we have no right 
 to like, or to be like, what God cannot like. The 
 
Love Not a Matter of Feeling 163 
 
 more we love as God loves, the more we shall be 
 like God in our loving and in our likings. 
 
XX 
 
 WHOM DOES GOD LOVE? 
 
 A prominent Sunday-school worker, who was 
 accustomed, in former years, to visit Sunday- 
 schools, and to address the little ones there, 
 sometimes startled the little folks in the primary 
 department, and even their teachers, by his 
 unlooked-for questions and statements. 
 
 " What kind of children does God love ? " he 
 would ask. 
 
 "Good children," "Good children," would 
 come back the answer from the confident little 
 ones in every part of the room. 
 
 "Doesn't God love any children but good 
 children ? " the visitor would ask. 
 
 " No, sir," would be the hearty response. 
 
 Then the visitor would startle or shock the 
 little ones, and sometimes their teacher, by say- 
 ing plainly and deliberately : 
 
 " I think that God loves bad children very 
 dearly. " 
 
 At this, some of the surprised little ones would 
 draw lip their mouths, and perhaps exclaim 
 " Oh ! " Others would simply stare in bewilder- 
 ment. Perhaps the teacher would have a look of 
 wonder or regret, and wait for the next dis- 
 
 164 
 
Whom Does God Love? 165 
 
 closure of ignorance or error on the speaker's 
 part. 
 
 " Did I say that God loved to have little chil- 
 dren bad ? " was the visitor's next question. 
 
 " No, sir;" " No, sir," would come back from 
 some of the startled little ones in a tone of relief. 
 
 " No, I didn't say that God loves to have chil- 
 dren bad. God loves to have children good. He 
 wants them to be very good, — as good as they 
 can be. But when they are bad children God still 
 loves them. God is very loving, and he keeps on 
 loving little ones who don't even love him at all." 
 
 That would be a new idea to many of those 
 little ones. And there is nothing that a child is 
 quicker to catch, or gladder to receive, than a 
 bright, new idea at any time. The average child 
 would take in the thought suggested quicker and 
 more willingly than the average teacher. Then 
 that visitor would make the thought plainer to the 
 pupils by an illustration. 
 
 " Does your mother love you ? " he would ask. 
 
 Almost every child would promptly answer, 
 " Yes, sir, " to that question. 
 
 " Were you ever a bad child ? " was the next 
 home thrust. 
 
 " Yes, sir, " would come back faintly from 
 some. 
 
 " Did your mother stop loving you then ? Did 
 
166 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 you have to feel that there was no loving mother 
 to go back to, because you were a bad child ? " 
 
 The child heart recoiled from that thought, 
 knowing the mother heart too well to admit it. 
 Then was the time to press the precious truth 
 that God loves bad children more than the lov- 
 ingest father or the lovingest mother in the world 
 loves a child; that, even when the father and 
 mother forsake a needy child, the Lord will take 
 up that child tenderly. That Sunday-school 
 worker found, in his wide field of observation, 
 how common and how deep seated is the idea 
 that a child's acceptance with God is rather be- 
 cause of the child's lovableness than because of 
 God's lovingness. Nor is this fearful error to be 
 found merely, or chiefly, among primary-class 
 pupils and their teachers. 
 
 In Mr. Moody's authorized Life, by his son, 
 W. R. Moody, this incident is mentioned, which 
 shows the existence of the error where it would 
 have been least looked for. Henry Moorehouse 
 of Great Britain had preached in Mr. Moody's 
 mission during his temporary absence from the 
 city. This was in 1866, or a little later. Mr. 
 Moody tells of his asking Mrs. Moody about Mr. 
 Moorehouse, when he returned to Chicago. She 
 said, as if she had heard a new truth proclaimed 
 in that pulpit: 
 
Whom Does God Love? 167 
 
 "Well, he tells the worst sinners that God 
 loves them. " 
 
 " Then, " said I, " he is wrong. " 
 
 " I think you will agree with him when you 
 hear him, " said she, " because he backs up every- 
 thing he says with the Bible. 
 
 Mr. Moody soon came to believe that what he 
 had deemed an error of Henry Moorehouse's was 
 the truth of God in Jesus Christ the Saviour of 
 sinners, — not of saints, but of sinners. Because 
 Mr. Moody came to this conviction, thousands 
 of sinners, who heard him declare it, came to 
 Jesus Christ to be saved. 
 
 The Christian Church is by too many looked 
 at as an exhibition place, where Christians are 
 shown off as Christians, instead of as a hospital 
 where the spiritually halt and maimed and deaf 
 and blind and leprous are treated for their sick- 
 ness and failings. This keeps out of the church 
 a great many who belong there, and would 
 gladly be under treatment there, if only they 
 realized its mission for them. The church also 
 has in its membership many who have come 
 there with a wrong idea of what they proclaim 
 and disclose by their church-membership. 
 
 The writer heard that a former neighbor of 
 his had, when past the middle of life, con- 
 nected himself with the church. Meeting the 
 
168 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 neighbor, he expressed his gratification at the 
 step he had taken. This was the response that 
 came back in a self-satisfied tone: 
 
 " Well, I thought it over a good while. I 
 know I have my faults, but I'm better than the 
 average, and so I thought I'd join the church. " 
 
 It was not easy, in the days of Jesus, for those 
 who thought themselves better than the average 
 to see how it was possible for Jesus to show a 
 loving interest in sinners while they were yet 
 sinners. But Jesus could see it. It was sinners 
 whom he loved, and whom he came to save. This 
 truth, pupils and teachers, sinners and those who 
 think themselves better than ordinary sinners, 
 have yet to realize more fully than most of 
 them do. 
 
XXI 
 
 ARE CHILDREN BORN CONDEMNED 
 OR REDEEMED ? 
 
 " As in Adam, all die, so also in Christ shall all 
 be made alive" (i Cor. 15: 22). Simple and 
 intelligible as this statement of the apostle to the 
 heathen people seems to be, it has been a cause 
 of much difference and discussion among Bible 
 students and theologians for centuries. It is by 
 many held to be a sweeping and general state- 
 ment, not to be taken literally, but by one means 
 or another to be conformed to more exact de- 
 nominational tenets. By others it is accepted as 
 indicating, in its fulness, the abounding love of 
 God for the human race. In view of its import- 
 ance and of the wide differences of opinion as 
 to its general meaning, the truth as to this state- 
 ment is always worthy of consideration. 
 
 It was in love — which God is — that as the 
 crowning act of creation God formed man in his 
 own image, as the head and representative of the 
 human race, giving him high privileges, and en- 
 joining upon him obedience to specific law as the 
 cost of preserved life. Adam, knowing the cost, 
 deliberately and wilfully sinned and incurred the 
 
 169 
 
170 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 " wages of sin." In that sin of Adam the race 
 of man, of which he was the head, came under 
 condemnation. But God's love never failed or 
 wavered. While the first pair, the twain-one, 
 were yet alone in the condemned race, God in his 
 love gave promise and assurance of redemption ; 
 and when the first child was born to that con- 
 demned and redeemed head of the race, it was 
 born into a redeemed race. 
 
 But a redeemed race was not a saved race. A 
 child redeemed by a Christ promised, or by a 
 present Christ, was not a child saved from the 
 power of sinning and of receiving the wages of 
 sin. The first child, Cain, whom Eve rejoiced 
 over as the possible Christ, proved to be the first 
 murderer. Cain, and every child born since then, 
 was relieved from the penalty of Adam's sin, but 
 like Adam was put on trial for himself and must 
 choose whether he would obey and trust or would 
 prefer sin and its disclosed wages. This is the 
 sweeping truth as to the race condemned in 
 Adam and redeemed in Christ. No child is con- 
 demned for his father's sin ; but every child is 
 liable to sin for himself when he comes to the 
 age of intelligent choice. Thus it has been from 
 the beginning in all lands, and everywhere, and 
 thus it is to-day, as God sees and knows the 
 inner being of each and of all. 
 
Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed ? 171 
 
 Of course, there are sad consequences of for- 
 mer transgressions which increase the weakness 
 and temptability to sin of the children of sinning 
 parents, but all that is not wilful or deliberate 
 transgression, nor does it merit condemnation. 
 God, who knows and judges the real person, un- 
 derstands as to all that. On the other hand, 
 there are privileges and blessings in Christ to 
 those who know Christ in his fulness, and who 
 trust him in his love and his promises beyond 
 those who never knew him and who never 
 trusted him. Parents may, if they will, include 
 their children with themselves in their faith, and 
 may trust God as fully for their children as for 
 themselves. This is the truth as I have come 
 to realize it, and to rejoice in it, and as I now 
 desire to press it upon others. 
 
 MY FORMER VIEWS ON THE SUBJECT 
 
 In 1868, by special request, I read an essay 
 on " Childhood Conversion " before the Massa- 
 chusetts State Convention of Sunday-school 
 teachers at Woburn. That essay was published 
 as a booklet, and in that form it had quite a 
 circulation beyond the number of its original 
 hearers. But later Bible scholarship has rendered 
 some of its phraseology obsolete. Moreover, 
 my own experiences with my children, and in the 
 
172 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 fuller enjoyment of faith in our blessed Saviour 
 for ourselves and for our children, have broad- 
 ened and deepened my convictions of the relation 
 of children to Christ and of Christ to children. 
 Hence I desire to restate the truths treated in 
 that essay, so as to present them in fuller accord 
 with the light of God's teachings. 
 
 Our revised Bible Text shows that the com- 
 mand to " be converted " was an erroneous 
 translation, which misled our fathers, and caused 
 them to mislead their children. In place of the 
 command to be converted or to be born again, 
 the true text tells us and ours to "turn," as a 
 positive active duty, instead of waiting passively 
 for a work to be wrought upon us which only 
 God can compass. Turning trustfully is our 
 duty, whenever we are on the wrong track, or are 
 swerving from the right course. God, who 
 watches us lovingly, will supply whatever help or 
 power is needful. 
 
 Even at the time when I read the essay the 
 phraseology of which was affected by the old 
 Bible translation, I had already learned as a be- 
 liever to trust my Saviour for my children from 
 the beginning as I trusted him for myself as a 
 sinner. A little incident in connection with the 
 reading of the essay made that clear as to my 
 personal belief. As I took my seat on the plat- 
 
Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed? 173 
 
 form, after reading the essay, a hearer in the 
 body of the house called out : 
 
 " Will the speaker inform us how young a child 
 can be Christ's own ? " 
 
 " It is not for me to fix the day or the hour/' 
 I said. " But for my own conviction I can say 
 that my youngest child is not yet twelve hours 
 old; and I have no doubt that he has been 
 Christ's a considerable time." 
 
 A child had been born to me in Hartford about 
 eleven o'clock the night before ; and I had taken 
 the midnight train for Boston just after that. 
 It was after this remark that a prominent Bap- 
 tist pastor of Boston came to me and said : 
 
 " You take the right view of the case, Brother 
 Trumbull. I heard a good Baptist doctor of 
 divinity say years ago, ' John the Baptist 
 preached Christ while still in the womb.' " (See 
 Luke i : 15, 41, 44.) I thought of that remark 
 when later I heard Dr. Horace Bushnell say in 
 an interdenominational meeting of clergymen, in 
 his peculiar phrase : 
 
 " I don't know what right we've got to say 
 that a child can't be born again before he's born 
 the first time." 
 
 Of course even the duty to "be converted," 
 as understood, or as misunderstood by our fath- 
 ers, was not the same as being " born again." 
 
174 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 But the two terms were often confused. Con- 
 version is now seen to be the simple act of turn- 
 ing toward God. Regeneration, or the second 
 birth, is wholly the work of God. A child of 
 man has no more to do with it than he had with 
 his first birth. For the first birth the human 
 father is responsible ; for the second birth the 
 Divine Father is responsible. It is not for the 
 child to feel that he has a personal duty in the 
 matter in either instance. It is for him to recog«» 
 nize his personal duty as growing out of his 
 human father's, or of his Divine Father's, act. 
 Heaven and earth, God and child, seemed differ- 
 ent to me when I realized this great truth. 
 
 LIGHT ON THE SUBJECT FROM THE BIBLE 
 
 In consequence of my early training on the 
 subject, I was long in doubt as to the personal 
 relation of children to Christ before they are old 
 enough to make an intelligent choice of him as 
 their Saviour. I heard it so many times said in 
 the pulpit or prayer-meeting, and I so often read 
 it in religious papers and books, that children 
 are born as lost souls, that I actually came to 
 believe that there was some truth in that horrible 
 dogma. Even after my marriage and the birth 
 of my first two children I had not been wholly 
 released from this unreasonable and unbiblical 
 
Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed? 175 
 
 error. The attempts to evade the sweep of this 
 sentence of death, by theories which would in- 
 clude more or less of the young as exceptions to 
 the general rule, did not give me any real hope. 
 It was obviously too unreasonable and too 
 shadowy to satisfy me. Hence I sat in the dark 
 while I longed for the light. 
 
 Various phases of the idea of regeneration of 
 an unintelligent child by a formal rite of circum- 
 cision or of baptism did not help the case. 
 Passages of Scripture cited and misused in sup- 
 port of this wrong view did not, to my mind, 
 meet the case. I could only pity those who 
 found help through such errors ; but for years I 
 sought vainly anything more satisfactory or con- 
 vincing. 
 
 My first real light on the subject of God's lov- 
 ing plans for children and of his thoughts of them 
 when he was purposing to repair the wrong 
 wrought for them by our first father, Adam, 
 came through the suggestion to me of the mean- 
 ing of inspired words in Malachi. The persons 
 who pointed me to this passage were the Rev. 
 Dr. Leonard Woolsey Bacon and the Rev. Dr. 
 William W. Patton, both of whom had been per- 
 sonally helped through seeing the light from this 
 passage after suffering in the darkness under the 
 shadow of the old popular dogma. 
 
176 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 Malachi (2: 15), speaking of the covenant 
 union by which husband and wife are made one, 
 
 says : " And did he not make one ? 
 
 And wherefore one ? He sought a godly seed." 
 The very purpose of God in marriage among his 
 dear ones is the increase of " godly seed " ; not 
 as children who start life as lost, or condemned, 
 children who when they grow up may be won to 
 Christ as heathen are won through missionaries, 
 but are from the first a " godly seed/' godly chil- 
 dren of covenant parents. The recognition of 
 this truth put the unity of the family in a new 
 light to me; and also the position and privilege 
 of the children of believing parents in God's sight 
 and plan. Malachi is the last writer of the 
 prophets before the coming of Jesus. He it is 
 who tells of the coming of John the Baptist, 
 who " shall turn the heart of the fathers to the 
 children, and the heart of the children to their 
 fathers." (Mai. 4: 6.) 
 
 Then as I recognized this glad truth, I was 
 met with the claim that in consequence of the 
 sin of the first Adam, all children — even of be- 
 lieving parents — are born condemned, and must 
 be lost sinners unless they individually turn from 
 death to life, from Satan to the Saviour. 
 At this I longed to believe that as much for good 
 was wrought to the race by the Second Adam 
 
Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed? 177 
 
 as had been wrought for evil by the first Adam. 
 I had been brought up to believe that Christ was 
 more, not less, than Adam in both his work and 
 his influence. If I had been mistaken as to this 
 I must learn Bible truth all over again. Then I 
 newly turned to the Bible for light on this sub- 
 ject. I saw that the Scriptures left no doubt on 
 this point. The pervasive, cleansing power of 
 Christ for good was every way greater than that 
 of evil wrought to the race by Adam. In con- 
 sequence of this, " where sin abounded 
 [through Adam] grace [through Christ] did 
 abound more exceedingly. " (Rom. 5 : 20.) This 
 gave me new light and love in my better under- 
 standing of the work and grace of Christ. 
 
 From this new starting-point I studied the 
 Scriptures with added profit and gratitude, find- 
 ing them fully consistent with the, to me, freshly- 
 disclosed truth, in preference to the old error, by 
 whomsoever taught or held. It proved to me 
 that there is a new covenant of grace, bringing 
 light and life to such as me and mine. And now 
 I am confident that through God's love in 
 Jesus Christ every child of Adam's descendants 
 comes into being as free from guilt and its con- 
 demnation as Adam was created. Of course 
 there are all the added tendencies toward sin, 
 and all the physical and mental weaknesses which 
 
178 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 grow out of wrong habits indulged by successive 
 generations of human parents; but spiritually 
 every human child starts as free and with as much 
 ground for hope as Adam started. Until, there- 
 fore, a child has deliberately and wilfully chosen 
 to sin he is not a sinner, and does not stand 
 under condemnation. 
 
 As to this precious truth, I am now, and I long 
 have been, as confident as of the truth that Jesus 
 Christ is the Saviour. How much more God's 
 love seems to me since God's word disclosed to 
 me this truth! And how much more is the 
 recognized work of Christ, and how much vaster 
 is the scope of his redemption, than when limited 
 and perverted by the pernicious errors of human 
 illogical and unscriptural dogmas under which I 
 was brought up — or kept down! 
 
 A favorite perversion of Scripture by those 
 who deny or belittle Christ's redemption of 
 Adam's condemned posterity is an ejaculation of 
 the Psalmist in one of the penitential psalms : 
 
 "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity: 
 And in sin did my mother conceive me." (Psa. 
 Si: 5) 
 
 This psalm is supposed to have been written 
 by David when he had been personally guilty of 
 yielding to lust, and of committing adultery and 
 murder, and of showing himself faithless and 
 
Are Children Bom Condemned or Redeemed ? 1 79 
 
 treacherous to a trustful and devoted follower. 
 The expression is a common Oriental one, as 
 indicative of self-abasement, in view of inex- 
 cusable personal transgression. One who has 
 been notoriously guilty of unparalleled treachery 
 will confess that he is of a family that for gen- 
 erations could never be trusted. In this he means 
 to intensify his confession of being different 
 from all his fellow r s. It is evident that whatever 
 else the psalmist intended to say, he did not 
 mean to assert that his neighbors were all of a 
 like sinning stock with himself. It is suggestive 
 of a strange tendency of the human mind to 
 ignore Bible teachings, and common sense, while 
 seeking to uphold at any cost a doctrine that 
 one's fathers believed, but which will not stand 
 the light of truth. The frequency with which 
 this personal penitential psalm is cited in digests 
 of doctrine as if it supported the theory that all 
 children belong to a race which Christ did not 
 redeem, shows how difficult it is to find a Bible 
 passage that even seems to suggest such an idea. 
 Whatever else is taught in the Bible as to the 
 present condition of Adam's posterity, a passage 
 that does not teach or suggest the condemnation 
 of the race is Psalm 51 : 5, 
 
 " Behold / was born in iniquity, 
 And in sin did my mother conceive me." 
 
180 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 It is strange that one who believes that doctrine 
 should consent to cite that ejaculation which 
 tends to throw discredit on the theory. 
 
 The real truth stands out in the pages of the 
 Old Testament and of the New for the cheer of 
 those who would know what God would teach 
 us concerning his love and plans for the young- 
 est children. The " Evangelical Prophet " says 
 as to this (Isa. 28: 9), speaking, by inspiration, 
 of God's messenger to men, " Whom will he 
 teach knowledge ? and whom will he make to 
 understand the message ? Them that are weaned 
 from the milk and drawn from the breast ? " 
 There does not seem to be much doubt about 
 very young children being included there. Isaiah 
 did not appear to want them to wait even until 
 they could recite the catechism before they were 
 tc be counted God's children. 
 
 When Jesus, to whose coming Isaiah had 
 looked forward, came to earth, he made the mat- 
 ter yet more clear. His disciples thought that 
 very young children were less hopeful objects of 
 grace than were their fathers, and they would 
 have pushed back parents who came to Jesus 
 with children in their arms to seek his blessing. 
 But " when Jesus saw it [the action of his dis- 
 ciples] he was moved with indignation, and said 
 unto them, Suffer the little children to come 
 
Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed ? 181 
 
 unto me ; forbid them not ; for to such belongeth 
 the kingdom of God." (Mark 10: 14.) Yet 
 these were little children. It does not appear 
 that they had themselves given any sign of a 
 changed nature or purpose; but their parents 
 brought them in love and faith. And Jesus wel- 
 comed them just as they were. He did not say 
 they might when they grew up become worthy 
 of God's recognition or forgiveness. He said 
 unqualifiedly of such as they : " For to such 
 belongeth [even now just as they are] the king- 
 dom of God." 
 
 Such words as Jesus then spoke would now be 
 rebuked by many a theological professor, or 
 ordained minister. They do seem very broad 
 views, fearlessly expressed; but to those who 
 want to know what Jesus thinks on the subject 
 there his words stand. And all his teachings are 
 in the same line. At one time the disciples of 
 Jesus came and asked him about standards of 
 worth in God's kingdom, saying, " Who then 
 is greatest in the kingdom of heaven ? And he 
 called to him a little child and set him in the midst 
 of them, and said, verily I say unto you, except 
 ye [the chosen disciples] turn, and become as 
 little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the 
 kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 18: 1-4.) Jesus 
 did not say that when a child became as fit 
 
182 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 a subject of grace as a clergyman or a theological 
 professor there was reasonable ground of hope 
 for him. But Jesus did say that unless choice 
 ministers and theological teachers of his time 
 turned and became as the little child — a veritable 
 flesh and blood little child — there was no hope 
 for them. 
 
 On the day of Pentecost, when the long- 
 promised outpouring of God's Spirit came, as 
 foretold by the prophet Joel, Peter, leader of the 
 Apostles, and led by the Holy Spirit, declared 
 specifically to the great multitude gathered under 
 the new dispensation, " To you is the promise, 
 and to your children" (Acts 2: 39). And all 
 the Bible teachings from that day on were in the 
 same line. God be praised, the " Second Adam " 
 did as much of good for every child of man be- 
 fore his birth as the first Adam did of evil ! How 
 unworthy would it be of our conception of Christ 
 if we could not believe this ! 
 
 Paul urges Christian parents to bring up their 
 children in the nurture and admonition of the 
 Lord (Eph. 6:4). He does not urge them to 
 win them from condemnation to redemption, but 
 to bring them up in Christ, wherein they already 
 are. 
 
 The inspired author of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews shows how all the promises to Abraham 
 
Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed? 183 
 
 and his seed are more than made good in Christ 
 to all who are Abraham's seed in faith. As 
 sharers in the parents' flesh and blood by 
 nature, the children can be sharers with the par- 
 ents in the realm of grace in Christ. Unhesitat- 
 ingly confident in this truth the believing parent 
 can bring his children to God, nothing doubting, 
 saying in faith, as he prays with them and for 
 them, saying, " I will put my trust in Him ; and 
 again, Behold, I and the children whom God hath 
 given me." (Heb. 2: 13.) God never refused 
 to accept such a parent or such a child. We can 
 be as sure of that as that God is God. 
 
 CORRECT VILW5 BY MANY OF 
 GOD'S CHILDREN 
 
 It is true that many have been so misled by 
 erroneous man-made dogmas and human systems 
 of doctrine that they hesitate to accept the truth 
 as taught in God's word, and as in accordance 
 with our knowledge of God's love and God's 
 power. But there are many, very many, who 
 accept the truth as God declares it, and as we 
 are justified in receiving it. All who accept the 
 truth as declared in the Bible, and as disclosed 
 in human experience and observation, are ready 
 to admit that when Adam of his own choice and 
 act cut himself off from God, he and his belong 
 
184 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 to a lost and outcast race. Before the first 
 human child was born, however, redemption by a 
 Saviour was promised, and from that hour every 
 child who has been born into the world has been 
 born into a redeemed race. 
 
 Of course every child has had the privilege — if 
 it be deemed a privilege — of being lost by his 
 deliberate choice of evil ; but his being lost is in 
 consequence of his own choice, and not of his 
 parents', or his ancestors' choice or sins. This 
 seems too obviously in accord with Bible teach- 
 ings and sound reason to admit of serious discus- 
 sion, and many of the wise and good have 
 recognized the truth. Happily this is no ques- 
 tion on which denominational differences make a 
 separation. Whatever the verbal basis of belief 
 in this may be, God-led individuals accept the 
 truth, without being misled by verbal mis- 
 teachings. 
 
 Infant baptism is not involved in this belief. 
 Baptism is a human rite. In itself it does not 
 shape the heart or thought of the subject, either 
 young or older. Some believe that baptism is 
 always to accompany the confession or expres- 
 sion of one's personal faith. Others believe that 
 baptism of a child is to accompany or indicate 
 the dedication of the child to God with the hope 
 on the parent's part that the child will later 
 
- Are Children Bom Condemned or Redeemed? 185 
 
 choose for himself the right. Yet others think 
 that baptism belongs only to those who already 
 are the loved and accepted children of God. With 
 these differences of view the right of baptism 
 and its administering are not directly involved 
 in the question of the present relation of the 
 child to Christ, and of Christ to the child. The 
 latter is vastly more than differences of opinion 
 as to the right of baptism, and the persons who 
 are to receive the rite. 
 
 It was a prominent Baptist pastor in Boston, 
 who, as referred to above, told me that I was 
 correct in counting my son of a few hours old 
 already Christ's, and who quoted another Baptist 
 doctor of divinity as saying that John the Baptist 
 preached Christ while he was yet in the womb. 
 Yet neither of those Baptist divines would have 
 deemed either child spoken of as a fit subject for 
 baptism. 
 
 An eminent Baptist clergyman, widely known 
 as a college president, as a theological professor, 
 and as an author, said to the writer that he 
 should never dare to be a father, or to bring a 
 child into the world, until he was confident that 
 he had a right to trust his Saviour for his child 
 as well as for himself. He could say confidently 
 to his Saviour, " Behold, I and the children whom 
 God hath given me." 
 
186 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 I know a number of earnest Baptist pastors 
 who have what they call a dedication service, in 
 the churches of their charge. In this service, 
 little children, infants, are brought by their par- 
 ents, and in the presence of the church and con- 
 gregation are publicly dedicated to God and to 
 his service. And there are Baptist preachers and 
 people who approve of, or who have a part 
 in, such a service, because they count children as 
 loved and redeemed by God in Christ. So it is 
 evident that Baptists believe this truth. 
 
 When I first came by independent Bible study 
 to this view of children as born into a race re- 
 deemed by Christ, I thought it was a novelty, and 
 I feared I should be deemed a heretic. But when 
 I was with a number of Methodist clergymen, 
 including several who afterward became bishops, 
 the most prominent of those said that this view 
 was what was held by them, as the gracious con- 
 dition of childhood, and by many of their 
 soundest theologians. While not all Methodists 
 held to every dogma that their theology or their 
 standards justified, any more than all Presby- 
 terians accept every point included in their 
 articles of faith, all Methodists have a right to 
 believe that children are born into a state of 
 grace, redeemed by Christ. And many, very 
 many, rejoice in that belief as to their own chil- 
 
Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed? 187 
 
 dren, whom they train from the beginning for 
 Christ. 
 
 Methodists are authorized to believe that Jesus 
 Christ secured to the race of man a start as re- 
 deemed from the curse which came through 
 Adam's sin. This their standards show. Yet the 
 attempt to employ human words as covering 
 spiritual conditions, and to reduce to human 
 logic the bounds of the boundless, infinite and 
 eternal, lead many of them, as those of other 
 denominations are led, into confusion or 
 inconsistencies or doubts. In the official Doc- 
 trine and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church it is specifically affirmed : " We hold 
 that all children, by virtue of the unconditional 
 benefits of the atonement, are members of the 
 kingdom of God ;" Binney's, " Theological Com- 
 pend Improved," a standard work in the denom- 
 ination, asserts without qualification : " The guilt 
 of original sin is covered by the atonement and 
 is not imputed to any of the offspring of Adam 
 until its remedy is willfully rejected." 
 
 1 But in all these standard works there are state- 
 ments not easily shown consistent with the truth of 
 the character of the atonement and the full work of 
 the Second Adam as the Redeemer. The work of Dr. 
 Wiley, of Drew Theological Seminary, on "Atone- 
 ment in Christ." in speaking of the salvation of in- 
 fants through Christ, says, "The question is not with- 
 
188 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 Dr. Bushnell's view of childhood in a race re- 
 deemed by Christ, and to be trained for God 
 from the earliest life, is accepted as the correct 
 view of truth by multitudes in the Congrega- 
 tional, and Presbyterian, and Episcopal and other 
 churches. And this view has been steadily mak- 
 ing progress in later years. It is a view that no 
 denominational lines confine or exclude. And 
 for this there is cause for gratitude among all. 
 
 Dr. Bushnell's earliest statements of this truth 
 had been condemned by many as heretical and 
 were out of print before I became personally 
 interested in the truth as a subject of thought. 
 Hence, I first came to the light without the ad- 
 out its difficulty. . . . We must confess that the 
 usual Arminian treatment of this question is not very 
 satisfactory. It often hesitates, vacillates. There is 
 
 a native guilt, but not a guilt as of actual sin 
 
 This indecision is an attempt to hold Calvinism 
 and Arminianism beyond the point of real diverg- 
 ence, or from a failure to give scientific complete- 
 ness to the latter." Convinced as I am that no 
 system of man-made doctrine concerning spiritual 
 and infinite truth can be definitely correct I make 
 no attempt to conform my conviction of God's dis- 
 closed truth to any one or any more than one de- 
 nominational system of belief. Yet I will not count 
 in question the great truth that Jesus Christ does 
 more of good to the human race than Adam did or 
 could have done of evil. 
 
Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed ? 1 89 
 
 vantage of his help in that sphere. Yet I was 
 indeed grateful to find that he was so far in 
 advance on this matter, as in so many others, 
 when God led me out of darkness into light, and 
 his statements confirmed my best views of God's 
 teachings on the subject, where so many had 
 been misled and were misleading others. 
 
 WRONG TO CHILDREN WRONGLD BY FALSE. 
 VIEWS OF PARENTS 
 
 While there are still many who cling to tradi- 
 tional false views as to the state of childhood in 
 Christ, or to whom such false views cling, it was 
 formerly far worse. It seems strange that even 
 within my own memory there were Bible readers 
 and Bible teachers who could accept such views 
 as were even then held as to the relation of 
 babes to Christ, and of Christ to children. Yet 
 there had been steady gain and growth in the 
 matter for years and for generations. In view 
 of this fact we should have hope and courage 
 when we see in how many things progress against 
 error is yet to be made by Christian believers. 
 Bad as things now are, they used to be much 
 worse. 
 
 Even in modern times it has been thought that 
 a child was to be saved, or was to become a child 
 of God, by understanding God's way of salva- 
 
190 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 tion, or by understanding some approved system 
 of doctrine. It has taken centuries to bring men 
 to realize that it is Christ who saves, and that 
 salvation is not compassed by intellectual belief. 
 Yet that error was held and pressed by men of 
 God until within two centuries or so. As illus- 
 tration of the prevalence of the error among 
 those forward in their day, the expressed view 
 of so good a man as Dr. Philip Doddridge may 
 be cited. He was prominent among clergymen 
 more than a century and a half ago who thought 
 of children, taught children, and was supposed to 
 understand the nature and possibilities of chil- 
 dren. 
 
 In a sermon preached in 1736, Dr. Doddridge 
 said coolly of children, say, five years old: 
 " Without a miracle it cannot be expected that 
 much of the Christian scheme should be under- 
 stood by these little creatures, in the first dawn- 
 ings of reason, though a few evangelical phrases 
 may be taught [to them] and sometimes by a 
 happy kind may be rightly appliecl [by them]." 
 Yet Jesus said of the children in arms that, "to 
 such belongeth the kingdom of God," and to such 
 he lovingly gave a blessing. Dr. Doddridge was 
 a successor of the original disciples. 
 
 More than a century and a quarter after these 
 words of Dr. Doddridge, I heard yet stronger 
 
Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed? 191 
 
 and more erroneous words on children spoken by 
 an eminent American divine. He was a 
 clergyman prominent from Philadelphia to 
 Boston. He was addressing an audience 
 of parents and Sunday-school teachers in a 
 Massachusetts city. He explicitly affirmed 
 that it was wrong to teach or encourage 
 a child who had given no evidence of a new birth, 
 and of having been converted, to use the Lord's 
 Prayer. No unconverted, unregenerate child had 
 a right to call God Father. Every child was 
 born under condemnation, and could never be 
 anything else except by a conscious, intelligent 
 change of relation to God. This eminent divine 
 thought it his duty to press that view as truth. 
 
 It is a known historical fact that one of the 
 prominent objections to Sunday-schools in the 
 earlier years of that institution was the fear that 
 in them children might be led to believe that they 
 could call God Father, while yet under condem- 
 nation as children of Satan. Even in my day I 
 found some parents opposed to having a Sunday- 
 school started in their vicinity because they 
 deemed it better to have a child grow up a 
 conscious enemy of God, obviously needing to 
 be wrested from the devil and brought a new 
 convert to Christ. 
 
 No wonder that Dr. Bushnell was grieved as 
 
192 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 to the common opinion concerning a child whom 
 many would deem safe if he died in infancy, but 
 not surely Christ's as he grew up. "If he [as 
 child] dies in infancy," says Dr. Bushnell, " God 
 may, it is true, find some way, possibly, to save 
 him; but if he stays among the living [until 
 years of conscious intelligence] he cannot be a 
 Christian till he is older." It was this view of 
 childhood that Dr. Doddridge seemed to have in 
 mind. " The necessity of a great spiritual change 
 is upon him, and yet he is wholly incapable of 
 the change! What other being has the good 
 Lord and Father of the world left in a condition 
 so pitiful as this of a human child ? " 
 
 It was one of my own dear children, brought 
 up as Christ's from earliest consciousness, who 
 came to me grieved because of appeals to her in 
 Sunday-school to come to Christ, as though she 
 was away from him. 
 
 " Father," she said, " my teacher says she 
 wishes I'd come to Jesus. What does she mean ? 
 I love Jesus now with all my heart." She was 
 accustomed to commune with him daily as lov- 
 ingly as with her mother. " How will it be any 
 different with me when I've come to Jesus ? " 
 
 Yet that Sunday-school teacher simply was as 
 blind as to the truth concerning Christ as many 
 have been since Dr. Doddridge's day, and before. 
 
Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed? 193 
 
 Would that the days of darkness had already 
 wholly passed away ! 
 
 Children of Christian parents, even in my day, 
 were not always permitted to pray by themselves 
 as if they had a right to address God as their 
 Father, before they were old enough to make a 
 confession of renewed life in Christ, and as hav- 
 ing left Satan and his work. A lovely Christian 
 woman, wife of a clergyman in Connecticut, in 
 whose house I was visiting, told me of her ex- 
 perience in this line. When she was but a child 
 there was a season of special religious interest in 
 the community where she was. While older per- 
 sons felt the influence of this, she and a little 
 girl friend were desirous of having a share in it. 
 "But our parents told us we were too young to 
 understand it. Accordingly/' she said : 
 
 " With my little girl friend, I went up into an 
 upper chamber, one afternoon. We shut the 
 door, knowing that if our parents discovered us 
 we should be rebuked for trifling with sacred 
 matters. And there we prayed to God, lovingly 
 and tearfully, and we rejoiced in the privilege. 
 Our parents couldn't understand us, but I believe 
 God did. And now, looking back on that hour," 
 she said, " I believe if ever I have had full com- 
 munion with God I had it then." 
 
 Whose view of children is the more correct ? 
 
194 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 Was it Jesus' in his time ? Or was it his disciples' 
 of that day, or in the day of Dr. Doddridge, or 
 in those of later days up to the last half-century ? 
 
 Even young children themselves often evi- 
 dence a better comprehension than their parents 
 of the rights to which they are entitled by their 
 needs and longings and by Christ's love and 
 promises. A little boy in the mission field of 
 Amoy, in China, who desired to be counted in 
 Christ's fold, was told by some successor of 
 those disciples whom Jesus rebuked that he was 
 too small to be counted one of Christ's flock, for 
 he might fall back, and he replied, with better 
 sense than the doubter showed : 
 
 "Jesus has promised to carry the lambs in 
 his bosom. As I am only a little boy, it will be 
 easier for Jesus to carry me." 
 
 Can it be doubted that Christ welcomes such 
 love and trust ? What if all the older ones in 
 the fold evidenced as much ? 
 
 In a Christian land a farmer's boy who desired 
 to enter the church fold was told that he was 
 too young. At this, when his father told him on 
 a cold night to fold the farm sheep for the night, 
 the boy brought in the sheep, but left a weak 
 little lamb out in the cold. On being rebuked 
 for this, he said shrewdly : 
 
 " Why, father, I thought the little lamb wasn't 
 
Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed? 195 
 
 old enough to go into the fold with the old 
 sheep ; so I left it outside in the cold until it gets 
 older/' 
 
 Another little boy, when told he must wait 
 until he was older before being taken in, said, 
 with a touch of wisdom worthy to be considered 
 by older persons : 
 
 " You'd better take me in now; for if I'm left 
 outside too long I may not want to come in by 
 and by, when you want me to." 
 
 A CHILD-CHRISTIAN NOT ENTITLED TO 
 PRIVILEGES OF ADULT BELIEVERS 
 
 A child is born as Christ's, and should be 
 counted and trained as such. But a child while 
 a child is not a grown adult. A young child is 
 not necessarily to have the same food or dress 
 or chair or table as a grown person. This is for 
 the child's true welfare ; and a child can be 
 enabled to see this, and the reasons for it. Even 
 a lamb, which is entitled to the shelter of the 
 fold, may have a special corner and shelter and 
 food as better suited to its needs than among the 
 sturdier sheep. Thus with human lambs. Milk 
 must be given to babes before they can be fed 
 with meat. 
 
 Even the child Jesus could not have the privi- 
 lege of the earthly temple until he had reached 
 
196 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 his twelfth year; yet he was counted as wholly 
 God's child from birth. Any intelligent child can 
 be enabled to understand that he is as truly 
 Christ's as are his parents, while he is not old 
 enough to share all his parents' privileges. To 
 show him the truth is a parent's duty. Yet the 
 Christian parent should count his child as truly 
 Christ's as is the parent. And here is where is 
 the more common and the greater lack. 
 
 HAVING FAITH FOR CHILD A5 FOR SELF 
 
 Marriage was ordained of God in order that 
 husband and wife, being made one, might bring 
 children into the world as godly seed, born as 
 God's and to be trained for God. Until a child 
 deliberately deserts God, and chooses to sin, as 
 Adam chose to disobey God, the parent is respon- 
 sible for the God-given child, to be counted and 
 trained as God's. 
 
 Many, very many parents have recognized this 
 duty and privilege, and they and their children 
 have had reason to rejoice in consequence. An 
 illustration of this truth in a godly Scotch mother 
 in Massachusetts impressed me years ago. Her 
 excellent pastor told me the fact while she was 
 still in his parish. Her loved boy, while still in 
 her care, and while she still felt responsible for 
 him, showed evil traits, and seemed inclined to 
 
Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed? 197 
 
 go astray. But she trusted God for her child as 
 ior herself, and she needed and sought God's 
 help in the wayward child's training. And this 
 was her faith-filled prayer for the boy, as she 
 stated it to her pastor: 
 
 " Lord, I am thine, and Johnnie's mine, and we 
 are thine; Lord, thy Johnnie's going astray. 
 Bring him back, Lord ; bring him back, Lord. 
 If Johnnie's lost, in the Great Day his blood will 
 I require at thine hand." 
 
 Such sturdy faith and holy boldness in a trust- 
 ing parent God loves to find. And God will heed 
 and honor the spirit by which it is prompted. 
 
 Training is well in child-care, but faith is bet- 
 ter. Earnest prayer, even with the wisest train- 
 ing, is no substitute for firm faith, nor can it be 
 a sure means of keeping the child in the right 
 way. The lack of such confident faith is a lack 
 by which the child may suffer, as, on the other 
 hand, such faith may be a great blessing to the 
 child. This truth is illustrated by a conversation 
 on the subject which I had with a valued friend 
 in New Jersey. He was the son of an eminent 
 clergyman. By his marriage he was in close family 
 relation with several clergymen of prominence. 
 His home was a choice Christian home, in which 
 was the first little child, still very young. As I 
 was passing a night there, we talked together of 
 
198 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 this great truth. He spoke of his hope that his 
 child might become Christ's loved one. 
 
 " You hope that he may become Christ's. 
 Don't you think he is already so ? " I asked. 
 
 " Why, of course I can't think he's already 
 Christ's. He's too young for me to think that 
 about him." 
 
 " Who does he belong to just now ? " I asked. 
 " As I understand it, there are only two forces 
 and leaders in the universe, each striving to con- 
 trol humanity — God and the Devil. Which do 
 you think just now claims your child ? " 
 
 " Well, I know that my child was born 
 under sin, as every child is ; but I hope and pray 
 that he may be brought to Christ. I pray for 
 that." 
 
 " So you do pray for him, even now, while he is 
 a child under condemnation ? " 
 
 " Of course I pray for him ; I pray constantly 
 and earnestly that he may be brought to Christ. 
 I've consecrated him to the Saviour, and I wait 
 and hope." 
 
 " But about him, as he was born and as he 
 still is, you do not have firm faith that he is, and 
 is to be, Christ's ? " 
 
 " Of course I can't be sure of that." 
 
 " Then, as I understand it, my dear friend, if 
 you speak out frankly in your prayers, you have 
 
Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed? 199 
 
 to pray in substance somewhat in this way. Ex- 
 cuse me for the blunt phrasing, for I speak earn- 
 estly and in reverence, but as I understand you 
 to state the case, you have to pray this way : 
 
 " ' Dear Lord, I have no right to hope that 
 my child, born in sin, is yet your child. But I 
 pray that you'll keep your eye on him, and when 
 the time comes that he's old enough to become 
 yours, you'll take him from the Devil and make 
 him your child ; for I don't want that boy to be 
 lost' " 
 
 " No, that's not the way I pray now ; but how 
 would you have me pray ? " said my friend, the 
 young father. 
 
 " As you are God's, and God has given you 
 that child, you have a full and unmistakable right 
 to go to God with his gift, that child, and to say, 
 * Here am I and this child whom thou hast given 
 me,' trusting God for your child as you trust him 
 for yourself. Going in any other way is not con- 
 sistent with your privilege in Christ." 
 
 With this beginning of conversation on the 
 subject, we talked until far into the night. Then 
 we kneeled together, and that father committed 
 himself and his loved child afresh to God, ask- 
 ing help to be faithful to that little child of God. 
 And from that hour, as he often afterwards said, 
 he had new faith and joy as he sought to honor 
 
200 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 God in being faithful to God and to God's dear 
 one. God never fails a parent who thus trusts 
 him. 
 
 Many a father has thus trusted God for him- 
 self and for his children. Even within my own 
 sphere of observation I have known parents to 
 joy in such trust for their children and their 
 grandchildren without any room for doubt and 
 wavering. If faith holds firm, God, who has 
 promised, never fails the trusting one. But with 
 the best training, faith is necessary to make it 
 effective for good. God, not good training, is 
 our hope for our children. 
 
 A troubled Christian mother sent for me in 
 great distress. Her only son had been for a time 
 wayward and dissipated. She had prayed for 
 him earnestly and constantly. After a while he 
 had been brought into the church and had be- 
 come an active Christian worker. This gave her 
 joy unspeakable. But now he had fallen back 
 again. He had seemingly abandoned his faith, 
 and had become a reprobate. He had left his 
 home, had enlisted in the navy, and had sailed for 
 the Far East. The poor mother was almost 
 broken-hearted and was well-nigh in despair. 
 
 I asked that mother if she had less reason to 
 trust God now than before, as she prayed for the 
 boy of her love. She replied that, of course, she 
 
Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed? 201 
 
 Hadn't as much ground for faith now that her son 
 seemed a reprobate as while he was an active 
 Christian worker. 
 
 " Is the difference in God, or in your boy ? " I 
 asked. 
 
 " The difference is in my boy," she said, " and 
 that's what's troubling me." 
 
 " On whom did your faith rest, when your 
 boy was doing best ? " 
 
 " On God, of course." 
 
 " And has God changed ? " 
 
 " Of course not." 
 
 " Then why is your faith lessened ? " 
 
 " Because of my poor boy's failures." 
 
 "Then you are looking at your boy as the 
 ground of your faith, instead of at God." 
 
 " Do you mean to suggest," said the anxious 
 mother, " that even now, while my poor boy is in 
 his present state, I can look up to God and pray 
 for my boy as trustfully as I prayed for him 
 while he was active in Christian work ? Do you 
 mean to suggest that ? " 
 
 " If your faith rests on God for your God- 
 given boy, you can pray to God for your boy just 
 as confidently now as before for all that he can 
 do for you or your boy. But you must look to 
 God and not at your boy for hope while you 
 pray." 
 
202 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 " Then I'll do that/' said the anxious mother. 
 And she turned again to .God in need and in 
 trust. 
 
 Two months or so after that, that mother sent 
 for me again. She had received a letter from 
 her son that gladdened her heart. It was from 
 the vessel he was on in the Chinese seas. It 
 was a letter full of penitence and of good pur- 
 poses, and of hope and trust. It told a touching 
 story. 
 
 About the time when the mother turned anew 
 to God, anxiously but in trust, in her New Eng- 
 land home — before, of course, he could have had 
 any word from her about it — as he was on the 
 deck one sunny afternoon in those far-off Chi- 
 nese waters, a call seemed to come to him from 
 God summoning him to turn from his evil courses 
 to his better self, and to God and to his old faith 
 in God. 
 
 Overpowered by his feelings, that prodigal son 
 went down into the forecastle and prostrated 
 himself before God, confessing his sin, and ask- 
 ing for pardon and help to do differently. And 
 then he wrote as a penitent child to his mother, 
 asking her to pray for him, telling of his sorrow 
 and of his new purpose of living a new life by 
 God's help. That mother gained, in consequence, 
 new reason for having faith in God for her son 
 
Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed? 203 
 
 as for herself. Would that every parent had 
 learned that lesson as thoroughly as she learned 
 it ! That returning prodigal became again active 
 in Christ's work; and in that work he was en- 
 gaged when God called him away from earth 
 with its temptations. Such faith as that 
 mother's for child as well as for self God always 
 enjoins and honors. 
 
 When a troubled father came to Jesus with a 
 demon-possessed child and asked earnestly for 
 help, if it were, indeed, possible for Jesus to give 
 help, Jesus suggested that the question was not 
 whether Jesus had power, but whether the father 
 could believe for his child as well as for himself. 
 " All things are possible to him that [thus] be- 
 lieveth." Then that anxious father cried out 
 earnestly, " I believe [for my child and for my- 
 self] : help thou mine unbelief/' And the needed 
 help was given. (Mark 9: 17-25.) That is God's 
 way with parents who trust him for themselves 
 and for his children. 
 
 LEARNING FROM CHILDREN AS WELL AS 
 TEACHING THEM 
 
 It is the duty of a devoted Christian believer 
 to teach little children in Christ's service. But 
 it is still more positively a believer's duty to learn 
 from little children. Few of us are competent 
 
204 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 to be teachers of children, but all of us, even the 
 wisest and most experienced, can learn important 
 lessons from little children. On this point we 
 are assured by the wisest Teacher who ever 
 lived, who understood little children, and who 
 knew what was in man and all that men knew. 
 Jesus set the little children as an example and 
 pattern before his grown-up disciples ; not his 
 grown-up disciples as the example and pattern of 
 little children. Jesus, pointing to a veritable 
 flesh and blood child, said to the wisest of his 
 selected and trained disciples, " Verily I say unto 
 you, except ye turn, and become as little children, 
 ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of 
 heaven." (Matt. 18: 3.) "Verily I say unto 
 you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of 
 God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter 
 therein. ,, (Mark 10: 15.) And this was spoken 
 of children in arms. Not much doubt as to what 
 was pointed to as the pattern, to be learned a 
 lesson from, there. Some of the wisest men of 
 God since that day have learned that lesson over 
 again, and retaught it to others. 
 
 Dr. Horace Bushnell, who was one of the 
 profoundest religious thinkers, while he was one 
 of the simplest-hearted and most childlike men of 
 God in modern times, said of this truth, and it is 
 good to remember having heard him say it: 
 
Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed? 205 
 
 " The true knowledge of God, as in friendship, is 
 [assumed by many to be] possible to adults, but 
 not to children ; whereas, the real fact is, that 
 children are a great deal more capable of it. The 
 boy-child Samuel could hear the call [of God] 
 when Eli could not. Children may not think the 
 gospel experiences as well, but they can have 
 them a great deal more easily. Tell the children 
 how present God is, how loving he is, how close 
 by he is in all good thought, and they will take 
 the sense in a great deal better than the adult 
 soul, that is gone a-doubting so far and specu- 
 lated his mind half away in the false intellectuali- 
 ties miscalled reason. Ah ! my friends, of these, 
 1 of such as these is the kingdom of heaven ;' so 
 Christ says and we make almost nothing of it. 
 
 " These children can make room for more 
 gospel than we, and take in all most precious 
 thoughts of God more easily. The very highest 
 and most spiritual things are a great deal closer 
 to them than to us. Let us not wonder, and not 
 be offended, if they break out in hosannas on 
 just looking into the face of Jesus, when the 
 great multitude of priests and apostles are dumb 
 along the road, as the ass on w T hich he rides." 
 
 Dr. Charles Wadsworth, of Philadelphia and 
 San Francisco, who was a native of the same 
 town in Litchfield County, in Connecticut, as 
 
206 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 Horace Bushnell and Henry Ward Beecher, says 
 with like forcefulness : " The intellectual opin- 
 ions, or judgments, little children form of high 
 theological mysteries are nearer to the realities, 
 and so truer, than the metaphysical elaborations 
 of the ambitious rabbis of theology. 
 
 " For example, I come to one of these men of 
 academic condition, and I ask, ' What is God ? ' 
 and he answers, ' God is a self-existent, inde- 
 pendent, absolute, infinite spirit; without emo- 
 tions for emotion implies succession; without 
 dwelling-place, for pure spirit has no relations to 
 position ; without, indeed, any resemblances or 
 analogies by which we can figure or conceive of 
 him. ' Now, this may be all very profound and 
 philosophic, but, alas, not very comforting. 
 
 " God is what ? An absolute and infinite 
 Spirit ! Ah, me ! That mysterious and awful 
 word spirit ! No marvel that the disciples on 
 Tiberias were troubled, as through the wild night 
 comes a wondrous form walking on the billows, 
 and they thought it was a spirit. And so when 
 I look forth on the immensities of the universe, 
 struggling to behold the invisible and to com- 
 pass the incomprehensible, and catching glimpses, 
 as it were, of an absolute, infinite spirit, and am 
 told that it is God, then I startle and stand back 
 in the wild night as the mighty seas roar around 
 
Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed? 207 
 
 me, as from the forthcoming of some awful and 
 incomprehensible phantom. 
 
 " But sick of this vain searching to find out 
 God unto perfection, I turn from the school of 
 the rabbis and find me a little child in its unam- 
 bitious and earnest instincts, and I say again, 
 ' What is God ? ' and the child answers, ' God 
 is my Heavenly Father.' And I know better 
 now, for I know as much as I can know now. 
 God the Spirit is my Father in Heaven. " 
 
 Dr. J. C. Ryle, of England, who was the first 
 Bishop of Liverpool, says in the same line : 
 " I suspect we have no idea how much a little 
 child can take in of the length and breadth of 
 the glorious gospel. . . . There are wonderful 
 examples of what a child can attain to even at 
 three years old." 
 
 And Charles H. Spurgeon, the famous London 
 preacher, adds : " In fact, children are capable 
 of understanding some things in early life which 
 we hardly understand afterward. Children have 
 eminently a simplicity of faith. Simplicity is akin 
 to the highest knowledge ; indeed, we know not 
 that there is much distinction between the sim- 
 plicity of a child and the genius of the profound- 
 est mind." 
 
 Who of us, who has had much to do with little 
 children, has not had light thrown on the great- 
 
208 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 est truths of revelation and of spiritual knowl- 
 edge by the keen insight and the simple faith of 
 the little ones ! A learned divine told an 
 acquaintance of mine that when he, as a theolo- 
 gian and a preacher, was puzzled as to the mean- 
 ing of a Bible passage, and confused with its 
 various renderings by learned commentators, he 
 was accustomed to read that Bible passage over 
 to his little grandchild, and ask her what it meant, 
 or how she understood it. Her direct and faith- 
 filled answer would, in many a case, open up to 
 him the glorious truth, as he had not perceived 
 it before. Was Jesus mistaken about children 
 as the best teachers for his disciples ? 
 
 A little boy whom I knew, while he was scarce 
 three years old, was invited into a neighbor's to 
 the mid-day meal. As he sat down with his hosts 
 at their table, he observed that they did not ask 
 a blessing on the meal. When they pressed him 
 to take food, he said quietly, " I always ask a 
 blessing before I eat." Then, seeing that no one 
 seemed ready to perform that office, he said, 
 "I'll do it myself." And bowing his head, he 
 reverently and simply thanked God for the food 
 and asked his blessing on it. He used no set 
 form of words, but as if in full appreciation 
 of the meaning of his act, he spoke as a 
 grateful child to his Father. He thought this no 
 
Are Children Born Condemned or Redeemed ? 209 
 
 unusual act, but his host felt the lesson and told 
 his neighbors of the lesson the little child had 
 taught. How often in some such way a little 
 child shall lead those who should be led ! 
 
 A TRUTH TO BE RLMLMBLRLD 
 
 Every child of man, from the first child, 
 whether of heathen or of Christian parents, has 
 been born into a redeemed race through the sec- 
 ond Adam, as the race came under condemna- 
 tion in the first Adam. (Rom. 5 : 15 ; 1 Cor, 15 : 
 22, 45.) With the weakness and evil bent of the 
 outer man by inheritance, a child uncared for is 
 likely to sin of himself as Adam sinned. But if 
 trustful redeemed parents include their God-given 
 children v:ith themselves in their prayers and 
 service and their faith, God will never desert 
 or fail either parent or child. And the nexus of 
 such grace is the parent's faith. Therefore, let 
 parents thank God and trust. God will never 
 desert or fail them so long as God is God. 
 
XXII 
 BIBLE REST NOT INACTION 
 
 A favorite idea of rest is that of quitting work, 
 and of having nothing to do but to rest. But a 
 better idea of rest is that of having strength and 
 ability to work, and to keep on working without 
 breaking down or having a hard time of it. The 
 popular view of rest from work is very different 
 from the Bible view of rest in work; but these 
 two views of rest are commonly and lamentably 
 confounded. 
 
 For example, the invitation of Jesus, " Come 
 unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, 
 and I will give you rest, " is frequently quoted as 
 though it read, " Come unto me, all ye that are 
 weary, and I will give you rest" (Matt, n: 
 28-30). Tired souls and tired bodies are tak- 
 ing comfort in the thought that they have done 
 quite as much work as they ought to, and that 
 it is time for them to have a vacation or an out- 
 ing. Therefore they sing languidly, but in hope : 
 
 " There is rest for the weary, 
 There is rest for me." 
 
 But while vacations and outings have their 
 place in life, the rest to which Jesus invites hard 
 210 
 
Bible Rest Not Inaction 211 
 
 workers is not rest from work, but rest in work. 
 " Take my yoke upon you, " he says, " and learn 
 of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart : and ye 
 shall find rest unto your souls." (Matt, n: 
 29.) Putting your neck into a yoke is not an 
 outing, but an inning. Pulling away more vigor- 
 ously at a heavy load is not a vacation, but it is 
 the sort of rest that Jesus summons to in his 
 service. 
 
 The more popular idea of this invitation of 
 Jesus is indicated in the familiar words : 
 
 " I heard the voice of Jesus say, 
 'Come unto me and rest; 
 Lay down, thou weary one, lay down 
 Thy head upon my breast/ " 
 
 But the Gospel invitation says nothing about 
 laying down the head on the Saviour's breast ; on 
 the contrary, it invites to the putting of the head 
 through the Saviour's yoke. The invitation is 
 not to lazy swinging in a spiritual hammock, or 
 to tired lounging in a spiritual easy-chair, it is 
 to a vigorous tugging under a spiritual yoke- 
 beam ; and there is all the difference in the world 
 between these two. If, indeed, there be any 
 invitation in the Gospel pages to these more 
 attractive indulgences it is not found here. Over 
 the very entrance to this house of refreshing 
 
212 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 there is inscribed a warning, like that which we 
 see at the doorway of many a busy shop or 
 factory, " No Admittance except for Workmen. " 
 
 Yet even so exact a thinker and so careful a 
 writer as Professor Henry Drummond, in his de- 
 lightful and widely popular treatise entitled "Pax 
 Vobiscum," seriously makes the mistake of sup- 
 posing that the invitation of Jesus is to the tired 
 and weary instead of to the overburdened yet 
 vigorous and determined hard worker. He even 
 says that it is a " direct appeal for all to come to 
 Him who had not made much of life, who 
 were weary and heavy laden. " And many a 
 layman and minister has made the same mistake 
 as Professor Drummond. 
 
 There are two Greek words alike translated 
 " rest " in the New Testament, one of which 
 means a " let up " of toil, and the other a " let 
 down " from toil. The word here translated 
 " rest " signifies a let up of labor, or an uplift of 
 it, in order to its better prosecution. The other 
 word indicates a let down or cessation of labor. 
 Here, therefore, the idea would seem to be of a 
 rest that is a refreshing, or of a relief in labor, 
 rather than of a rest that is a relief from labor. 
 Indeed, the Douay version of the Bible, in use 
 by Roman Catholics, better translates this invita- 
 tion, " Come unto me, all ye that labor and are 
 
Bible Rest Not Inaction 213 
 
 burdened, and I will refresh you ; " and the Eng- 
 lish Church, as well as the American, Prayer- 
 Book, also gives " refresh " for " rest/' 
 
 It is a refreshing of the soul through a 
 change in the spirit and methods of work, and 
 not through a cessation and an abandonment of 
 toil, that our Lord indicates as the rest which he 
 proffers to the hard worker in his service. When 
 Jesus found a helpless cripple by the Pool of 
 Bethesda (John 5: 1-17) bowed down under 
 the weight of his burden of disease, he called him 
 to rest by saying, " Arise, and take up thy bed, 
 and walk" (John 5: 8), — as if he would say, 
 " You have worked long enough doing nothing ; 
 now find refreshing in pleasurable labor. Up, 
 and carry the bed on which you have been car- 
 ried all these years." And that was better for 
 that poor cripple than a whole summer of 
 hammock-swinging in the mountains or by the 
 seashore would have been. This act of healing 
 was performed on the sabbath day, and the Jews 
 complained of Jesus because he told the man to 
 rest working instead of to rest doing nothing. 
 But Jesus said that his Father w r orks on while 
 resting, and that the truest pattern of rest, for 
 God or for man, is in fitting and timely work. 
 
 Our Lord says to those who are well-nigh 
 worked to death in the field of their daily labor, 
 
214 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 and who are staggering under an inevitable bur- 
 den that threatens to crush them to the earth : 
 " Come unto me, and I will refresh you. Cease 
 to count that burden yours. Let it be mine. Put 
 your neck through the bow of my yoke. Fit 
 your shoulders to my yokebeam. Fasten your 
 burden to that. I will share it with you. Look 
 at me, and see how I pull a load, uncomplainingly 
 and in submissive determination. Follow my 
 example ; imitate my spirit as a worker ; and you 
 shall have such refreshing as will give you new 
 life and new strength ; for to be in my service, 
 wearing my yoke, is to find hard work easy and 
 a heavy load light. " 
 
 In proportion as a yoke fits and suits the 
 wearer, the burden drawn by it seems light ; and 
 the spirit in which one wears the yoke determines 
 the ease with which it sets on him. Many a 
 bright lad who would think his a hard yoke if 
 he were called to sit at the front window of his 
 father's house for three hours of a summer's day, 
 to keep tally of the loads of coal being put into 
 the home cellar, would count it an easy yoke 
 that fastened him for the same length of time to 
 the " bleaching boards " of the athletic grounds, 
 under a scorching sun in June, or in a cold rain 
 in November, checking the score in a sharply, 
 contested game between rival universities. 
 
Bible Rest Not Inaction 215 
 
 Young people and older ones seem to find re- 
 freshing, hour after hour, in golf links and on 
 bicycles, at billiards or bowling, in whist or 
 progressive eucher, at theaters or dances, when 
 they would grow weary and exhausted in one- 
 quarter of the time in hospital visiting, in Sun- 
 day-school teaching, in prayer-meeting attend- 
 ance, or even in study or reading. Hard work' 
 that is called pleasure is easy work. Easy work 
 that is counted dry duty is hard work. 
 
 Love gives rest in work, as better than rest 
 from work. When Jacob found that he could 
 win his loved Rachel by seven years of added toil 
 for her hard-dealing father, " Jacob served seven 
 years for Rachel ; and they seemed unto him but 
 a few days, for the love he had to her." (Gen. 
 29: 20.) Love for his country gives a soldier 
 rest in his most toilsome service for that coun- 
 try. Abounding love for any person or object 
 gives rest in needed toil for that object or person. 
 Love for Christ gives refreshing continually to 
 those who labor and are heavy laden in his serv- 
 ice. In the pursuit of pleasure, of wealth, or of 
 fame, " even the youths shall faint and be weary, 
 and the young men shall utterly fall : but they 
 that wait on Jehovah shall renew their 
 strength ; they shall mount up with wings as 
 eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; they 
 
216 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 shall walk, and not faint " (Isaiah 40: 30, 31) ; 
 they shall rest in labor, rather than rest from 
 labor. 
 
XXIII 
 
 BUSY MARTHAS NEVER GOOD 
 HOUSEKEEPERS 
 
 Worry is never a help in any proper occupation 
 of man or woman. It is a hindrance in any and 
 every line of practical service. Peculiarly is it 
 true that in housekeeping, where woman is at her 
 best, and where her power is greatest for good to 
 all those who are within the sacred circle of home 
 influence as permanent members or occasional 
 visitors, worry and fretting and trouble of mind 
 are only disturbing elements, tending to the 
 lessening of the matron's power, and to the dis- 
 comfort of all who are in any way dependent on 
 her for comfort or supply. On the contrary, 
 quietness of mind, restfulness of spirit, and com- 
 posure of manner, are elements of power in a 
 housekeeper, and of good to all who are affected 
 by her efforts or labors. 
 
 This would seem to be an indisputable truth, 
 yet it is not universally accepted, nor is it even 
 believed by all who seriously consider the ques- 
 tion as a question. A proof of this assertion is 
 found in the Bible narrative of the two kinds of 
 
 217 
 
218 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 women, — the restless, worrying one, and the 
 placid, trustful one : Martha and Mary in the 
 home in Bethany, — and in the ordinary comments 
 on those two by the average reader, and even by 
 many a preacher or commentator. This makes 
 the whole subject one worthy of careful con- 
 sideration by all who would know God's will 
 for good women as the best part of God's crea- 
 tion, and also for men, who are lower down on 
 the scale. Many a Bible reader actually seems to 
 be of the opinion that the worrying woman was 
 the better housekeeper of these two. 
 
 That Bethany home was one of the homes of 
 Jesus, — a home of sacred friendship, a home 
 where Jesus was always welcome, a home in con- 
 nection with which we know more of the tenderer 
 side of his human and social nature than we learn 
 from any other portion of his life story. On one 
 occasion, when Jesus came to that home needing 
 human sympathy, both sisters wanted to do him 
 honor. Mary recognized him as Master and 
 Teacher, as something more than an ordinary 
 guest, and she promptly took her place at his 
 feet, — the Oriental position of an appreciative 
 pupil, — ready to hear and heed his words. 
 Martha, like the ordinary Oriental hostess, set 
 herself to prepare food for her guest. Without 
 stopping to inquire what was his special need, 
 
Busy Marthas Never Good Housekeepers 219 
 
 she began to work and to worry over her plans 
 of accustomed hospitable provision. 
 
 It was at this point that the unlovely and un- 
 helpful side of Martha showed itself, and called 
 out a rebuke from Jesus. Because of that cen- 
 sure of Jesus it is our duty to recognize the reason 
 for it. To Martha, the restful inaction of Mary 
 at the feet of Jesus was inexcusable. In the free- 
 dom and familiarity of friendship, but none the 
 less inexcusable on that account, Martha bustled 
 into the presence of Jesus, and rudely rebuked 
 him, as it were, for seeming to aid and approve 
 her sister's lack of helpfulness. 
 
 " Lord, dost thou not care that my sister did 
 leave me to serve alone? bid her therefore that 
 she help me " (Luke 10: 40). 
 
 Now, apart from any question of the relative 
 qualities of the two sisters, will any one say that 
 this act of Martha's was courteous and consider- 
 ate toward her guest? Would it be polite or 
 kindly or proper toward a guest in your house, 
 whom you were entertaining, or preparing to en- 
 tertain, to burst in upon him when he was talking 
 with another member of the family, and to sug- 
 gest to him bluntly that he ought to know better 
 than to keep away from her proper work in the 
 household a needed member of the family with 
 whom he was conversing? Can a woman be 
 
220 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 called a good housekeeper who would conduct 
 herself in this way as a hostess ? How did Jesus 
 seem to look at this ? He never made a mistake 
 on such a point or on any other. What did he 
 say? 
 
 " The Lord answered [Martha] and said unto 
 her, Martha, Martha, thou art anxious and 
 troubled about many things; but one thing is 
 needful: for Mary hath chosen the good part, 
 which shall not be taken away from her" (Luke 
 10: 41, 42). 
 
 In these words Jesus evidently reproved Mar- 
 tha and approved Mary for their relative courses 
 of action in this matter. However we may won- 
 der that he did so, we shall have to admit that 
 this was his course. And if we examine yet 
 more closely, we shall see that his words were 
 eminently consistent with his other teachings. 
 To be " cumbered," as Jesus said Martha was, 
 is, as the Greek word means, to " be distracted," 
 to be drawn this way and that, instead of being 
 intent on the one thing to be done. Even in 
 getting a dinner, or in doing anything else, Mar- 
 tha, in the exercise of this trait, could not give 
 her whole attention to the one thing she had to 
 do. In this Martha lacked the main essential 
 of a good housekeeper — the ability to give her 
 undivided attention to the one thing she had to 
 
Busy Marthas Never Good Housekeepers 221 
 
 do for the time being. This is clearly implied 
 or included in the rebuke of Jesus. Again, to be 
 " anxious," as the Revision reads, or to be " care- 
 ful," as the old version gave it, and " troubled " 
 about many things, is to be perplexed and in a 
 tumult as to pressing duty. That, surely, was 
 not right in Martha, as Jesus plainly pointed out 
 her error. We are distinctly told not to be anx- 
 ious or to be troubled at any time, and the house- 
 keeper or the business man who fails at this point 
 fails in a vital matter. 
 
 In the question brought before Jesus by Mar- 
 tha, as to her course in comparison with Mary, 
 he does not hesitate to render an explicit de- 
 cision. He rebukes Martha's course in every 
 particular that he touches on without saying a 
 word of approval of her. He unqualifiedly com- 
 mends Mary's course without a word of censure 
 for her. Is not this finally conclusive as to the 
 point at issue? One would think so. 
 
 But elsewhere it is also said that " Jesus loved 
 Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus " (John 
 ii : 5). So he did, but that does not in itself 
 imply that he commends in all things the course 
 of any one of the three. It is also said that 
 Jesus loved the young man who lacked the one 
 thing needful according to the testimony of Jesus. 
 Jesus loved Martha, not because she was a good 
 
222 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 housekeeper, nor yet because she failed of being 
 so, but because he is so loving that he loves even 
 those who lack much. 
 
 The specific faults of worrying and being drawn 
 away from the one duty of the hour, and of being 
 over anxious, that Jesus pointed out in Martha, 
 are as clearly reprehended and warned against 
 in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere as 
 are theft and murder; yet, strange to say, Mar- 
 tha is often commended by confessing Christians, 
 not in spite of her faults, but as if those very 
 faults were admirable. Comfort-loving husbands 
 sometimes think of Mary as a pious do-nothing, 
 who might be fitted for a high place in the future 
 life, but who was not fitted for this life. Martha, 
 on the other hand, is considered by them as the 
 sort of practical housekeeper who would have 
 the dinner ready on time, and the rooms swept, 
 and the beds made. In their opinion, she is the 
 kind of housekeeper for the average home. Some 
 active and efficient wives and housekeepers are 
 even willing to speak of themselves frankly as 
 " busy Marthas," when they would never want to 
 be called " lively Sapphiras." This they do, not 
 by way of admitting their unworthiness and in- 
 competence, but in the thought that they are 
 claiming a share of real merit. 
 
 Even scholarly Christian commentators, who 
 
Busy Marthas Never Good Housekeepers 223 
 
 are supposed to have examined the original text, 
 incline to suggest that there is something to be 
 said on both sides of the question, although Jesus 
 seems to have considered but one side as worthy 
 of his approval. Thus one of these commenta- 
 tors says: " The one [sister] represents the con- 
 templative, the other the active, style of the 
 Christian character. A church full of Marys 
 would be as great an evil as a church full of Mar- 
 thas. Both are wanted, each to be the comple- 
 ment of the other." 
 
 Only think of it ! A church full of the sort of 
 persons whose ways Jesus commended would be 
 as great an evil as a church full of those persons 
 who possess the characteristics which Jesus dis- 
 approved ! Away with such misconceptions and 
 perversions of the texts as these ! Away with all 
 such comments on the plain teachings of Scrip- 
 ture even by the most distinguished of mis- 
 guided commentators ! 
 
 Martha was wrong in being anxiously worried 
 over many things that might be done, instead of 
 attending faithfully to her single duty of the hour. 
 This Jesus recognized, and therefore he reproved 
 her. Mary was right in doing the one thing that 
 was to be done, when her divine Master and 
 guest wanted just that duty done, and for this 
 Jesus commended her. 
 
224 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 Mary had the qualities that would make a bet- 
 ter housekeeper than was Martha. She could do 
 more work and do it better, in an hour or in a 
 day, than could Martha; and she would make 
 less fuss over it, and this would be less annoying 
 to herself, to her family, and to her guests. We 
 have every reason to suppose that this was evi- 
 denced in her everyday practice. 
 
 We have no authority for supposing that Mar- 
 tha was the only one of the sisters to attend to 
 the housekeeping in the Bethany home, and that 
 Mary left it all to her to do. The very fact that 
 Martha came to Jesus with her complaint that 
 Mary was failing to help on that particular occa- 
 sion indicates that Martha was accustomed to 
 expect Mary's help at ordinary times. Jesus, as 
 a loving guest, had certainly a right to the pres- 
 ence and listening ear of at least one of the sis- 
 ters. Martha, when it was her turn in the 
 kitchen, evidently wanted both Jesus and Mary 
 to be at her service; for that is the way with 
 fidgety and fussy women when they have their 
 work to attend to. 
 
 If it had been Mary's turn in the kitchen, that 
 day, she would have attended to her one duty 
 there, and have been glad to have Martha, mean- 
 time, filling her place, as a good listener, at the 
 feet of Jesus. Mary would not then have left 
 
Busy Marthas Never Good Housekeepers 225 
 
 the kitchen in order to complain of Martha, and 
 to make her guest uncomfortable. True hospi- 
 tality shows itself in other ways toward a guest 
 than in getting a dinner at the cost of discomfort 
 to all in the house, guests included. 
 
 The story of the sisters in Bethany shows us 
 how a true woman is to do a true woman's work, 
 whatever that work may be, by attending to it at 
 the proper time, and not seeming to be worried 
 over it, or about anything else. It shows us ? 
 moreover, how not to be efficient as a house- 
 keeper through worrying and fretting. 
 
 Here is also a lesson for men in their sphere, 
 as well as for women in theirs. " A double- 
 minded man [or a man cumbered with a divided 
 purpose] unstable [and therefore ineffective] 
 in all his ways " (Jas. 1 : 8). Man or woman is 
 really efficient in choosing and in attending to 
 the one thing needful for the hour. The Bible 
 record is clear on that point, whatever preachers 
 or commentators, or thoughtless business men, 
 or inefficient housewives, may think or say on 
 the subject. 
 
XXIV 
 
 CLERGYMEN NOT THE CHIEF 
 PREACHERS * 
 
 It is a very common idea that only an ordained 
 or regularly commissioned preacher should 
 preach ; that preachers are necessarily a class by 
 themselves; that ordinary laymen, or private 
 church members, would be infringing on the 
 duties of a special and privileged class or order 
 of men if they presumed to preach. Yet this 
 idea is not found expressed in the Bible, and it 
 gains no countenance from the teachings of that 
 book. 
 
 Our English word " preach " is used as the 
 equivalent of at least two Hebrew words and five 
 Greek words, with their varying meanings. It 
 includes the call, or warning, of a herald; the 
 telling of good tidings ; and the discoursing fully 
 and at length concerning a special theme. In 
 its first two meanings, of heralding and evangel- 
 izing, it obviously is a duty for all who know of 
 a danger or of a means of good to make it known 
 to others. In the third meaning, of extended 
 and thorough discourse, it is rather teaching than 
 
 226 
 
Clergymen Not the Chief Preachers 227 
 
 preaching that is meant ; it is a means of instruct- 
 ing, instead of meie inviting or warning. In no 
 one of the three senses is preaching limited by 
 the Bible to ordained or appointed ministers or 
 clergymen ; yet here is where a misunderstanding 
 of Bible teachings is common and widespread. 
 
 What would be thought of a man who dis- 
 covered a fire breaking out in a neighbor's house 
 at midnight, and who refused to give an alarm 
 because he was not a regular policeman or an 
 authorized watchman? That would be acting 
 on the idea that prompts a man to refrain from 
 heralding the good news of salvation to sinners 
 because he is not an ordained clergyman. 
 
 The question of the importance of an ordained 
 and educated ministry is quite by itself. A cler- 
 gyman's work includes duties of administration, 
 officiating at services of various kinds, leading in 
 public worship, the administering of sacraments, 
 instructing those who are under his care, and 
 speaking words of invitation and warning to all 
 whom he can reach. But this last duty he shares 
 with all the followers of his Master; it is in no 
 sense an exclusive prerogative of his office or 
 class. 
 
 An old clergyman of the stricter Covenanters, 
 rigid though he was in all ecclesiastical matters, 
 said on this point, " Every man has a natural right 
 
228 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 to preach." Then he proceeded to show that 
 the public setting apart of a man as a clergyman 
 includes a great deal more than telling him that 
 he has the right to preach, as all men have. Of 
 course, a minister has as good a right to preach 
 as any other man, even though preaching is not a 
 distinctively ministerial act. As Dr. Richard S. 
 Storrs said, " It is the first duty of a minister to 
 be a good layman ; " but that does not deprive 
 the layman of his duty to do the same as a min- 
 ister in this particular. 
 
 A minister's chief duty is not that of preach- 
 ing the gospel in his pulpit to the unevangelized, 
 and urging them to come into the church fold. 
 That work his people ought to be doing at all 
 times, although he can have his part with them 
 in this also. When newcomers are brought 
 under his pastoral care, it is for him to instruct 
 and train them faithfully. There is the great 
 need of a wise and careful master workman. 
 
 As Mr. Moody says, " It is better to set ten 
 men at work than to do the work of ten men." 
 A minister's sphere would be enlarged, and his 
 power increased, if all his people were preachers, 
 at work in season and out of season, warning 
 and entreating souls, and bringing new disciples 
 under the pastor's care for instruction and train- 
 ing. This would not be doing the pastor's work 
 
Clergymen Not the Chief Preachers 229 
 
 for him, but it would be giving him more work 
 to do, and better work, continually. 
 
 Whatever preaching the minister can do in the 
 line of heralding invitations and warnings, and 
 proclaiming the good news of salvation, at spe- 
 cial services in his church or outside of it, is 
 indeed important as his part of a disciple's mis- 
 sion. "As ye go, preach" (Matt. 10: 7) is a 
 command to the ministers as to all other disci- 
 ples ; and, whatever is their distinctive ministerial 
 work, they should not neglect this important 
 duty. Nevertheless, this is not an exclusive 
 ministerial function. A minister shares the 
 right to it with all the believers. 
 
 Preaching is no more the principal mission or 
 right of a clergyman than is fighting the pre- 
 rogative of a colonel of a regiment in war time. 
 A colonel's chief duty is to oversee and direct 
 his soldiers, and to secure their action most ad- 
 vantageously, whether he takes part personally 
 in the fighting or not. Urging others to enlist, 
 and bringing recruits to the commander for 
 training and leading, is a duty that every private 
 soldier can have a part in. And when recruits 
 are fairly mustered in, they are to take their 
 full share, in recruiting and fighting, instead of 
 merely watching the officers do it all. As it is 
 in the army of a temporal government, so it 
 
230 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 ought to be in the Lord's army. It was said 
 of the Waldenses, five centuries ago, "He who 
 has been a disciple for seven days looks out 
 some one whom he may teach in his turn, so that 
 there is a continual increase [of them]." Seven 
 days is quite long enough for any disciple of 
 Christ to be in his fold, before he begins to 
 preach about Christ. 
 
 So general, however, is the popular error that 
 preaching from a pulpit by an ordained or spe- 
 cially appointed minister is alone proper preach- 
 ing, that the Great Commission which is our 
 Lord's command to his disciples for evangeliz- 
 ing, " Go ye into all the world, and preach the 
 gospel to the whole creation" (Mark 16: 15), 
 seems to be generally understood as though it 
 read, " Come ye from all the world, and hear 
 the gospel preached." In this view of the Great 
 Commission, the responsibility is practically sup- 
 posed to rest on the unevangelized to come to 
 the church in order to be preached to, instead 
 of on the preacher to look up the unevangelized, 
 wherever they are, and preach to them. Indeed, 
 Bishop Huntington has suggested that by their 
 system of pew-rents many churches seem to say 
 to the unevangelized, " Come to our church 
 regularly, and pay twenty-five cents a week for 
 your seat, and our preacher will try to convert 
 
Clergymen Not the Chief Preachers 231 
 
 you." Outsiders are certainly liable to think 
 that this is the way that the churches look at 
 the matter. 
 
 It would seem, indeed, as if many were so de- 
 sirous of conforming strictly to the inspired 
 declaration that it is God's plan and " good 
 pleasure through the foolishness of the preach- 
 ing [or the simple heralding of the truth] to 
 save them that believe" (i Cor. i: 21) it, that 
 they are possessed with the idea that there 
 ought to be something essentially foolish in the 
 manner of preaching, or in the limitation of 
 warnings and invitations to a special class in a 
 particular place. But the Bible does not justify 
 this idea, or say anything of this nature. 
 
 Of course, all who would join in the public 
 worship of God ought to be church attendants. 
 Of course, all who would have the public minis- 
 trations of the church and its clergymen should 
 seek them there. Of course, all who are desir- 
 ous to know the truth, and are inquirers con- 
 cerning the way to God, ought to go to the min- 
 ister, if the minister does not come to them. Of 
 course, all who wish to be instructed and trained 
 in spiritual knowledge have their place in the 
 church where such knowledge is imparted. But 
 the having a building where all this can be found 
 by those who desire it, is not by any means the 
 
232 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 first duty, or the chief one, of a church and its 
 minister; nor is the man who leads the services 
 there the one to do the most of the gospel 
 preaching that ought to be done by that church. 
 The beginning of the Christian Church shows 
 who preached effectively at the start, and how 
 the preaching was done. John the Baptist told 
 Andrew and John about Jesus. Andrew went 
 and told Peter. John went and told James. 
 Philip told Nathanael. This was not public 
 preaching by an ordained clergyman in an audi- 
 torium. It was man-to-man preaching by the 
 simple telling of good news, and the inviting to 
 share in its benefits. The early believers went 
 everywhere preaching, or proclaiming the good 
 news. Philip left a crowd of listeners at Samaria 
 to find one man in a chariot and tell him about 
 Jesus (Acts 8: 26-40), and in that way the gos- 
 pel was carried into the " Dark Continent." Thus 
 the gospel has been preached most effectively 
 all the way along to the present day. Mr. 
 Beecher expressed a great truth when he said, 
 as the result of his personal experience and ob- 
 servation : " The longer I live, the more I realize 
 that the best sermons are those where one man 
 is the minister and one man is the congregation ; 
 where the preaching is face to face and eye to 
 eye ; where there is no doubt as to who is meant 
 
Clergymen Not the Chief Preachers 233 
 
 by the words, ' Thou art the man.' " Whoever 
 can preach thus ought to preach. 
 
 Whoever knows of danger to his fellows, and 
 warns them of it, is a preacher. Whoever is 
 possessed of good news, and lets it be known, 
 is a preacher. He does not need to be a clergy- 
 man, or to stand in a pulpit. Wherever he is 
 face to face with a needy soul he ought to 
 preach; he fails of his duty if he then neglects 
 his opportunity to heed the Great Commission. 
 Whether it be a teacher with his pupil, a mer- 
 chant with his clerk, a mistress with her servant^ 
 a neighbor with a neighbor, whoever it be who 
 gives a warning or an invitation from God which 
 is explicit, direct, and personal, or who puts a 
 straight question to another as to an interest in 
 Christ's salvation, there is a preacher, and there 
 is preaching. As Richard Baxter says, so may 
 any one of us say, " I hope there is none so silly 
 as to think this conference is not preaching. 
 What, doth the number we speak to make it 
 preaching? Or doth interlocution make it none? 
 Surely a man may as truly preach to one as to a 
 thousand." 
 
 Every one of us has a mission to be a preacher. 
 Every one of us ought to preach. If all of us 
 were preaching as we have opportunity, how 
 greatly the power of the church would be in- 
 
234 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 creased, and how much of good might come to 
 the needy! The misunderstanding of the scope 
 and duty of preaching, and of the call to every 
 believer to preach, is one of the chief causes of 
 neglected duty and of barren results in this 
 sphere. 
 
XXV 
 CHASTISEMENT NOT PUNISHMENT* 
 
 Many seem to think that chastisement and 
 punishment are practically identical. A picture, 
 or reading book wood-cut, familiar to many now 
 living, represented an irate farmer driving out 
 of his orchard, or punishing in it, a bad boy, who 
 had been caught stealing apples. The expression 
 on the old man's face was anything but a loving 
 or benevolent one, as he was swinging in his 
 uplifted hand a switch, or bunch of rods, while 
 the frightened boy was held in his firm grasp, 
 and was caused to feel the old man's vengeance. 
 Underneath this picture was the legend that told 
 of " an angry farmer chastising a rude boy who 
 was purloining apples from his orchard. " That 
 picture represented the ordinary view of chas- 
 tisement as a punitive or retributive measure in 
 the interests of stern justice. 
 
 Most readers would have the same idea of 
 chastisement as they read in the Bible of young 
 Rehoboam — the son and successor of Solomon — 
 
 *An incidental reference has been made to this truth 
 in an earlier chapter; but it deserves fuller and sep- 
 arate treatment. 
 
 235 
 
236 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 saying to the representatives of the people over 
 whom he was to rule, " My father chastised you 
 with whips, but I will chastise you with scor- 
 pions " (i Kings 12 : 14). Those certainly do not 
 seem to be words of love, prompted by a desire 
 for the subjects' good. Hence chastisement, in 
 both the Bible and other books, seems to convey 
 the idea of vindictiveness and retribution, rather 
 than a method of promoting the welfare of the 
 persons under treatment. 
 
 Yet again we read words in the Bible that 
 seem to convey a very different idea. Thus : 
 
 "My son, regard not lightly the chastening of the 
 
 Lord, 
 Nor faint when thou art reproved of him; 
 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, 
 And scourgeth every son whom he receiveth " (Heb. 
 12: 5, 6). 
 
 "What son is there whom his father chasten- 
 eth not?" (Heb. 12: 7). "If ye are without 
 chastening, whereof all have been made partak- 
 ers, then are ye bastards, and not sons " (Heb. 
 12: 8). And thus in many another place in the 
 Old Testament and the New. It is true that the 
 English word " chasten," as used in the Bible 
 and outside of it, has a gentler and a softer 
 sound than " chastise," and we are not accus- 
 tomed to connect the idea of harshness, or retri- 
 
Chastisement Not Punishment 237 
 
 bution, or vindictiveness, with chastening, as we 
 ordinarily do with chastising. Yet in the orig- 
 inal Hebrew and Greek the words " chasten " 
 and " chastise " are practically the same, and the 
 difference in our way of looking at them grows 
 out of our way of thinking about them. It is 
 what Professor Riddle calls a matter of eisen- 
 gesis, rather than exegesis, — what we read into 
 the words, rather than what we read out of 
 them. 
 
 "Blessed is the man whom thou chasteneth, O 
 Jehovah, 
 And teachest out of thy law/' 
 
 and where, in i Kings 12: 14, Rehoboam said 
 to the people, " My father chastised you with 
 whips, but I will chasten you with scorpions/' 
 the Hebrew verb is the same in every respect 
 that is translated in one case " chasten " and in 
 the other " chastise." So it is not easy to show 
 that chastise is of itself a harsher word than 
 chasten. 
 
 To " chasten " and to " chastise " a child by 
 a parent, or a person by a ruler, is primarily to 
 train, to teach, to discipline, to instruct; the 
 meaning to " punish " seems to be, in the opinion 
 of eminent etymologists and lexicographers, a 
 secondary meaning, growing out of human cus- 
 
238 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 toms and practices. The primary meaning of 
 the word looks to the future ; the secondary and 
 acquired meaning of it looks to the past. To 
 train or to teach has in mind the future good 
 of the person ; to punish has in mind the per- 
 son's past. The one is anticipatory in its pur- 
 pose; the other is retributory, and in a sense 
 vindictive. 
 
 Whether human authority, parental or judi- 
 cial, has any right, at any time, to be retaliatory 
 or vindictive, is a question in many minds. The 
 idea conveyed in the words of God, " Vengeance 
 belongeth unto me ; I will recompense, saith the 
 Lord" (Heb. 12: 19) means more in the minds 
 of some than of others. It is noteworthy, in 
 this connection, that in the few instances in the 
 Bible where chastise seems to mean retributive 
 or in any sense vindictive, the reference is to 
 God's action, not to man's. When Rehoboam 
 (1 Kings 12: 14) tells the people of Israel, "I 
 will chastise you with scorpions," he obviously 
 is not threatening to punish them for acts which 
 they had committed, for they have not been 
 under him until now. He is speaking of the 
 future and of his purpose of instructing or train- 
 ing them in the way, or course, in which he 
 would have them go. But when it is said (Lev. 
 26: 28) "I will chastise you seven times for 
 
Chastisement Not Punishment 239 
 
 your sins," it is God, not man, who claims the 
 right of retaliatory punishment. 
 
 How many misguided and wrong-doing par- 
 ents have perverted the words of sacred writ, 
 and have severely, or inhumanly, punished their 
 children because of some misdeed, or failure, 
 of theirs, without a thought or purpose of love 
 to the child, or of his right training for the fu- 
 ture ! The bitter chastisement has been in view 
 of what has been, rather than in view of what 
 should be. It is, indeed, often well to look at a 
 child's failures or misdeeds in the past in order 
 to know what is the child's danger or need in 
 the future. But in this case, as in every other, 
 an act of wise and kind chastening or chastising 
 is to be performed as a loving help to the train- 
 ing and future good of the child, not as a recom- 
 pensing punishment of what has been done. 
 
 A much misunderstood, and therefore often 
 misquoted, proverb (Prov. 13: 24) reads: 
 
 "He that spareth his rod hateth his son; 
 But he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes. " 
 
 This proverb has been misused as a supposed 
 justification of using a switch or strap for the 
 thrashing or flogging a child because of his 
 misdeeds. Yet a careful examination of the 
 words as they stand should show the ordinary 
 reader how far from the truth is such an idea. 
 
240 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 The "rod" as here used is a sceptre, or sign and 
 symbol of authority and rule, and govern- 
 ment. When it was prophesied (Gen. 49: 10) 
 that " the sceptre shall not depart from Judah ;" 
 and again (Zech. 10: 11) " The sceptre of Egypt 
 shall depart," and in other references to 
 royal dominion, the same Hebrew word is used 
 that is here rendered " rod," as the symbol of 
 parental authority. A parent has a duty to gov- 
 ern wisely and lovingly his child, so as to guide 
 and direct and instruct his child to its well-doing 
 and God-serving in maturer years. A parent 
 ought always to have a rod, or a sceptre, of 
 authority. But many a child has been trained 
 without a single flogging, or anything like it. 
 Neither chastening nor chastising is necessarily 
 punishing or flogging. 
 
 How many parents and teachers use chasten- 
 ing or chastising as if it were a form of 
 retaliatory punishment, simply because they 
 themselves are wholly ignorant of their duty ! If 
 those parents or teachers had been properly 
 trained, their children would be differently, and 
 more hopefully, cared for. 
 
XXVI 
 
 MIZPAH : A BARRIER, NOT A BOND 
 
 A favorite symbol of union, or synonym of 
 a loving covenant, is the Hebrew word " Miz- 
 pah." It is engraved on rings of betrothal or 
 marriage, or on brooches and bracelets and 
 other gifts, as a pledge of undying affection. 
 There seems to be no doubt in the popular mind, 
 or even in the mind of scholars generally, as to 
 the significance of this word in its appropriate- 
 ness to such use ; yet, as a matter of fact, there 
 is no foundation for the idea, other than in the 
 misunderstanding of an English sentence ac- 
 companying its mention in a single place in the 
 Bible story. By that misunderstanding a barrier 
 separating two persons is supposed to be a bond 
 uniting them : a limitation of the rights of each 
 is counted a loving link between both. 
 
 Laban and Jacob seemed to be fairly well 
 matched in their craftiness and cunning, yet, in 
 a long series of years Jacob had the advantage 
 of his father-in-law in the struggle (Gen. 29-31). 
 When Jacob took his wives and children and 
 flocks, with a portion of Laban's sacred belong- 
 
 241 
 
242 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 ings, and secretly left Padan Aram for his pa- 
 ternal home in lower Canaan, Laban angrily pur- 
 sued him, and overtook him at Mt. Gilead. There 
 the two reproached each other, each for seeking 
 to overreach and defraud the other. Finally 
 they agreed to disagree, and to enter into a 
 covenant of peaceful disagreement. They set 
 up a stone pillar, and a stone-heap of testimony, 
 on the territorial boundary line agreed on be- 
 tween the two. Each was to keep himself on his 
 side of the line, and not to pass over it to harm 
 the other. The Lord, the God of their fathers, 
 was to be witness of this covenant, and he was 
 to see that it was faithfully observed (Gen. 31 : 
 
 44-53). 
 
 They called the heap of stones " the witness 
 heap :" in Laban's dialect, " Jegar-sahadutha ; " 
 in Jacob's, " Galeed." The pillar, or tower, they 
 called "Mizpah," " the watch tower ;" for 
 Laban said, " Jehovah watch between me and 
 thee, when we are absent one from another." 
 This has commonly been considered as meaning 
 that the Lord would keep the two in loving 
 union or accord while they were temporarily 
 apart. But a close examination of the facts, in 
 the light of primitive customs, shows that its 
 import is rather that the Lord would see to it 
 that they kept apart in a sacred regard for each 
 
Mizpah: A Barrier, Not a Bond 243 
 
 other's rights, and that he would visit judgment 
 on them if they did not recognize the established 
 boundary line of division. 
 
 In the earliest records we have of Oriental civ- 
 ilization, the stone pillar, or obelisk, as a bound- 
 ary landmark stands prominent for the division 
 of the territory of tribes and peoples and king- 
 doms. This custom prevailed long before the 
 day of Laban and Jacob. An accompanying 
 stone-heap as an altar, for sacrifice or for a 
 sacramental meal, was commonly near the pillar. 
 Each conventional boundary stone pillar was 
 under the guardianship and protection of a local 
 divinity, or of the god worshiped by its setter- 
 up. The curse of that divinity was invoked 
 against whoever should remove or destroy the 
 boundary mark. The invoked divinity would 
 be always on watch and guard for the defense 
 of the boundary, even though the land owner 
 was at the time far away, and ignorant of an 
 efifort to violate the covenanted dividing line. 
 
 In this instance, Laban and Jacob invoked the 
 Lord God of their fathers to watch the agreed 
 boundary, and to protect it from violation by 
 either of the covenanting parties. In view of 
 the clearly established purpose of such a border 
 watch-tower, it is somewhat singular that " Miz- 
 pah " has come to be regarded as a sacred bond 
 
244 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 of union, instead of as an assurance of perma- 
 nent division. 
 
 To give a ring, or a bracelet, or a brooch, with 
 " Mizpah " engraved on it, at the time of be- 
 trothal or marriage, might be properly under- 
 stood as suggesting, "A line is drawn between 
 us that must be sacredly observed. You have 
 your rights on one side of it, and I have my 
 right on the other side. Let the rights of each 
 be sacredly guarded by the other. There is to 
 be no common life between us. The Lord watch 
 between us all the time, so that the rights of 
 either be not harmed." 
 
 But that is not the idea of those who inscribe 
 " Mizpah " on a betrothal or wedding ring ; or 
 of those who use it as a covenant watchword 
 or motto. And this is because of the very cpm- 
 mon misunderstanding of a Bible term. 
 
XXVII 
 THE INFERIORITY OF ANGELS 
 
 What is an angel? What is an angel at his 
 best? There are certain well-defined ideas as 
 to this order of beings, ideas that are prevalent 
 among children and artists, and even among 
 prominent theologians ; but the question is, are 
 these ideas intelligently based, and is there any 
 ground, in the Bible teachings, for supposing 
 that they are reasonably accurate. 
 
 The children sing heartily — as heartily as if 
 there were sense in the words — about angels : 
 
 " I want to be an angel, 
 
 And with the angels stand. 
 A crown upon my forehead, 
 And a harp within my hand." 
 
 Dante and Milton and Raphael and Murillo 
 and Dore and other artists, modern or ancient, 
 have pictured angels with wings and harps and 
 other instruments, thus giving some reason for 
 the children's song. But as to authoritative 
 statements concerning angels the Bible text is 
 more trustworthy than either children or artists, 
 and this it is that makes confusion when the 
 Bible text is examined, even with the aid of 
 eminent commentators. 
 
 245 
 
246 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 Many of our ideas concerning angels have 
 come from Jewish Talmudic writings and from 
 the writings of Muhammadans, yet we would 
 hardly claim that these were to be held, as an 
 authority, in comparison with the Bible record, 
 for a Christian's guidance. Yet we quote, as if 
 authoritatively, some of these non-Christian 
 writings about angels as freely as we do Milton 
 and Dante. 
 
 Among learned commentators, Hooker — 
 " the judicious Hooker " — a divine of whom 
 Hallam the historian and critic says that he is 
 the finest, as well as the most philosophical 
 writer of the Elizabethan period, declares, as if 
 authoritatively, that angels " are spirits, imma- 
 terial and intellectual, the glorious inhabitants 
 of those sacred palaces, where nothing but light 
 and blessed immortality, ... all joy, tran- 
 quillity and peace, even forever, doth dwell. As, 
 in numbers, they are huge, mighty, and royal 
 armies, so likewise [are they] in perfection of 
 obedience unto that law which the Highest, 
 whom they adore, love, and imitate, hath im- 
 posed upon them. . . . Beholding the face 
 of God, they adore him ; being rapt with love of 
 his beauty, they cleave unto him; desiring to 
 resemble him, they try to do good unto all crea- 
 tures, and especially unto the children of men." 
 
The Inferiority of Angels 247 
 
 And one of the standard modern dictionaries 
 of the Bible says : " By the word ' angels ' . . . 
 we ordinarily understand a race of spiritual 
 beings of a nature exalted far above that of 
 man, although infinitely removed from that of 
 God, whose office is to do him service in heaven, 
 and by his appointment to succor and defend 
 men on earth." 
 
 Yet if we stop to examine closely the Bible 
 record, we are likely to be surprised at finding 
 how small a proportion of these popularly be- 
 lieved statements concerning angels have a sub- 
 stantial basis for their existence. 
 
 To turn to the record of man's creation, who 
 would ever be led to suppose that man was lower 
 than the crowning work of God's handiwork? 
 Does God seem to say, " We have creatures ap- 
 proaching our own image, but we will now form 
 some w T ho are lower than the highest of these, 
 and see what can be done with such ? " That is 
 not the record. The record is " God said, Let 
 us make man in our image, after our likeness " 
 (Gen. i : 26) — not of a lower order than angels, 
 but after the very likeness of God, and in God's 
 very image. 
 
 There were good angels and fallen angels at 
 that time, but there is no record of any such in- 
 terest on God's part in the fallen angels as there 
 
248 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 was in fallen man, when Jesus Christ came 
 among men to save them. God's crowning work 
 of creation was man. Angels were below that 
 standard, and they have always remained there. 
 
 The gospel and its messages are gifts of God 
 in which we rejoice, and for which we 
 are grateful, "which things," as Peter says, 
 "angels desire to look into" (i Pet. i: 12). 
 Does that seem to point to angels as if they were 
 man's superiors in either capability or possibili- 
 ties ? Is there anything in the Bible that would 
 cause us to believe that angels are superior to 
 the race created in God's own image, and in 
 the form which God's own Son took upon him- 
 self in working out salvation? " Know ye not," 
 said Paul, "that we shall judge angels?" at the 
 end of this age, "how much more, things that 
 pertain to this life?" (1 Cor. 6: 3). Does that 
 look as if angels were our superiors ? "Are they 
 not all ministering spirits, sent forth to do serv- 
 ice for the sake of them that shall inherit salva- 
 tion?" (Heb. 1: 14). What reason have any 
 to think angels superior to, or the equals of, 
 redeemed saints? 
 
 In the first place, we are liable to be misled 
 by the word " angel," which does not mean what 
 it seems to mean. We commonly think of an 
 " angel " as the painter, or sculptor, or poet, has 
 
The Inferiority of Angels 249 
 
 represented it; and we take it for granted that 
 the artist had some basis for his representation. 
 At all events, we think of an " angel " as being 
 a well-defined form, when we have no reason 
 to think so. While we do not know exactly 
 the form of an angel, we can be sure that an 
 angel is not in any sense as the painter, or the 
 sculptor, or the poet, or the ordinary commenta- 
 tor, has represented him. 
 
 The word translated " angel," or as trans- 
 ferred from the original, in the Bible text, means 
 simply " messenger n or " agent." If it had 
 been uniformly translated thus, as it sometimes 
 is, with no indication of its being a peculiar class 
 of beings, as in i Samuel 19: 20, Job 1 : 14, Luke 
 7 : 24 ; 9 : 51, and in scores of other places in the 
 Old Testament and in the New, there would 
 have been less confusion as to its meaning. 
 Moreover, the word " messenger," or " agent," 
 or " representative," would hardly have excited 
 the imagination of artists to their present repre- 
 sentation of angels. An angel, as the Bible rep- 
 resents or speaks of an angel, is not only gener- 
 ally a man, or being inferior to man who is 
 the crowding work of creation, but it is some- 
 times not an intelligent being, although some- 
 times it is such. An angel, or a messenger, or 
 an agent, of God, may be a pestilence, or a hur- 
 
250 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 ricane, or a flame, or other agency of destruc- 
 tion. Thus, as in Psalm 104, where God's angels 
 are spirits, and his ministers are a flaming fire. 
 As the term " angel " is always a figure of 
 speech, and never a closely defining term, there 
 is some reason for our misunderstanding it. Of 
 course, if God would send a message from the 
 spirit world to man, God would select what 
 seemed like man, as man could not perceive a 
 spirit. But that would not show what was the 
 ordinary form or personality of an angel. 
 
 Perhaps the figurative language of the closing 
 book of the New Testament is responsible for 
 much of the popular misrepresentations of angels 
 as they are. Yet no intelligent reader supposes 
 that the figures of speech in Revelation are to 
 be taken literally. And the Jewish Talmudic lit- 
 erature has undoubtedly largely influenced our 
 Christian thought, and often for harm. 
 
 Of one thing we may be sure, neither the Old 
 Testament nor the New gives us to understand 
 that angels are the equals of human beings 
 formed in the image and likeness of God, or 
 that they will ever have the spiritual privileges 
 and power of those who are redeemed in Christ. 
 
 It is true that the word " angel " is sometimes 
 employed in the Bible tohen the context would 
 indicate that it refers to the Christ. In such 
 
The Inferiority of Angels 251 
 
 cases, of course, the angel is of an order vastly 
 superior to man, but that superiority is in the One 
 who is the messenger, not in his being a mes- 
 senger, or an angel. 
 
XXVIII 
 CHERUBIM UTTERLY UNLIKE ANGELS 
 
 Pictures and poems have, perhaps, done as 
 much to mislead both young and old as to the 
 true meaning of Bible texts and Bible teachings 
 as any other human agency. In some cases the 
 painter, or the poet, has himself misread Bible 
 words, and thus been a pioneer misleader as to 
 the truth taught. In other cases the picture, or 
 the poem, simply represents, or reproduces, the 
 erroneous popular view of what is exhibited, or 
 suggested in the Bible. Thus Michelangelo 
 having misunderstood the word, in the Latin ver- 
 sion of the Bible, for "rays" or "horns" of light 
 on the encircled head of Moses, perpetuated his 
 mistake to the misleading of future generations, 
 by carving in stone his magnificent Moses, with 
 two matter-of-fact horns growing out of his 
 great skull. And Dante and Milton have prob- 
 ably shaped more of the generally accepted ideas, 
 even as expressed by prominent preachers in 
 the pulpit, concerning angels and demons, and 
 their doings in heaven and in hell, than all the 
 pages of the Bible put together. 
 
 But perhaps of all the persons, places and 
 
 252 
 
Cherubim Utterly Unlike Angels 253 
 
 things spoken of in the Bible none have been 
 more generally, or more completely, misunder- 
 stood and misrepresented than angels and cheru T 
 bim. In the first place, angels and cherubim are 
 often spoken of as if they were of the same order 
 of beings, or having something in common, 
 when in fact there seems to be no justification 
 of, or excuse for, this remarkable blunder in any 
 text or teaching of the Bible. Poets and paint- 
 ers generally seem disposed to represent an 
 angel as a delicate young woman in a dress, or 
 gown, with a long train. Yet the Bible gen- 
 erally represents an angel, or a celestial mes- 
 senger, or servitor, as an able-bodied man set 
 to doing the Lord's work. It is to the honor of 
 women that, in the holiest teachings, the hew- 
 ing of wood and the drawing of water, and the 
 doing of guard duty, and even the running of 
 errands, and all such work, are supposed to be 
 in man's line, rather than woman's in the celes- 
 tial sphere. But the painters and poets, at all 
 events the more popular poets, take quite the 
 opposite view of this from that given by the in- 
 spired writers. 
 
 It would certainly seem a bad enough blunder 
 to represent an angel as a delicate young woman, 
 but even this is outdone by the more baseless 
 and more absurd blunder of representing a 
 
254 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 cherub (the singular of the plural, or dual, term 
 cherubim) as similarly a delicate young woman 
 in evening dress. Yet this blunder of blunders 
 has been made by many persons, who have ac- 
 tually read their Bible even if they have not 
 studied it. How the Bible text is misused and 
 perverted ! 
 
 Raphael, in his Sistine Madonna, conforms to, 
 or suggests, the popular idea of a " cherub " 
 when he paints two bright little boys, as if at- 
 tending spirits, or angels, delightfully impressed 
 by the Divine Child in his Virgin Mother's arms. 
 Milton tells how 
 
 "The cherubic host in thousand choirs 
 Touch their immortal harps of golden wires." 
 
 And, even in our comparatively enlightened 
 time, our Lowell says, out of memories of a 
 lamented child, 
 
 "He seemed a cherub who had lost his way, 
 And wandered hither." 
 
 Now, while none of us can say with positive- 
 ness just what was the precise shape or form 
 of the Bible cherub, all of us can say positively 
 that the Bible describes the cherubim as some- 
 thing very unlike little boys, or young women, or 
 even like the popular conception, or the Bible 
 description, of God's " angels," or spiritual mes- 
 sengers. 
 
Cherubim Utterly Unlike Angels 255 
 
 The Bible speaks of a cherub, or of the dual 
 cherubim, as part ox, and part lion, and part 
 eagle, and part man (Ezek. 10: 14). That 
 does not answer to the description of any known 
 being in this world, so that we can be confident 
 that in it we have a truer suggestion of the Bible 
 cherub than is found in a little boy, a young 
 woman, or an active man. Yet in view of well- 
 known Oriental imagery, we can see that the ox 
 represents service, the lion represents strength, 
 the eagle represents aspiration, or power of 
 flight, and the man represents intelligence and 
 human God-likeness. All these symbols are in 
 God's creation, and all conjoin for the doing of 
 God's will at his command or appointment. 
 
 The first Bible mention of cherubim is when 
 they were placed at the entrance to Eden, to 
 guard it from outside approach, after the expul- 
 sion of our first parents. That certainly does 
 not suggest the idea of a little boy, or a young 
 woman, put on guard, even if armed with a re- 
 volving and flaming sword. Again, there were 
 cherubim above the Ark of the covenant, inside 
 of which there was an explicit agreement that 
 there should be no likeness, or image, of any- 
 thing in earth or heaven tolerated by God's chil- 
 dren. That forbids the thought of figures of 
 little boys, of young women, or man-like angels, 
 
256 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 but it does not forbid the idea of symbols of 
 truth which were and are not images of existing 
 creatures. 
 
 In more than one place in the Bible (2 Sam. 
 22\ 11; Psa. 18: 10) it is said of the Almighty, 
 when he would respond to an appeal from his 
 earthly children, that 
 
 "He rode upon a cherub and did fly." 
 
 Who, in view of that, would entertain, or coun- 
 tenance, the thought of a little boy, or a young 
 woman, or of a man-shaped angel, as being the 
 upbearer of the Almighty from place to place? 
 Yet the symbolic forces of creation, as repre- 
 sented in the Bible references to the cherubim, 
 may well be thought of as accompanying the Al- 
 mighty in his movements in the universe. 
 
 We, not unnaturally, want to think of any- 
 thing that we read of, or hear of, as measurably 
 like something that we have actually seen or 
 known of. Each of our ideals has its basis or 
 promptings in some real in our sphere of ex- 
 perience or thought. But an Oriental prefers to 
 think of spiritual things, or religious truths, as 
 suggested, rather than described in the things 
 of nature. Thus, while we might think of a 
 cherub or an angel as a boy, or a young woman, 
 or a man, because we are acquainted with those 
 objects in nature, an Oriental would feel sure 
 
Cherubim Utterly Unlike Angels 257 
 
 that any human pattern could not represent the 
 spiritual and supernatural to which his thoughts 
 were directed. He prefers to think of some- 
 thing beyond all that he has seen or known. 
 Thus in the symbolic and suggestive cherubim, 
 with its combination of all that is best in nature, 
 and with yet more above and beyond; for we 
 must ever bear in mind that the Bible was writ- 
 ten by Orientals, and primarily for Orientals. 
 
 The idea of teaching and impressing religious 
 truth by symbolism through a combination of 
 representative ideas in the form of various cre- 
 ated beings is not peculiar to the Hebrews, nor 
 did it originate with them. Long before Moses 
 was born, or before the Bible writings as we have 
 them were begun, the idea was a common one 
 in the world. This symbolism was very different 
 from idolatry, or from image worship, even 
 though evil man might in any case pervert the 
 suggestive symbols into an object of wrong wor- 
 ship. Thus with the Egyptian Sphinx, with the 
 head of a man and the body of a lion. These 
 figures surmounted a temple, or bordered an 
 avenue to a temple, not as idols, but as typical 
 of strength and wisdom. In Greece the Sphinx 
 combined the form of the lion, the woman, and 
 the eagle; for in Greece they gave more promi- 
 nence than in Egypt to grace, beauty and imag- 
 
258 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 ination, in addition to their high estimate of 
 strength. 
 
 Again, in Babylon and Assyria there were the 
 human-headed and winged bulls at the threshold 
 of the palaces and temples of rulers and priests. 
 These perhaps more nearly resembled the cheru- 
 bim at the threshold of Eden, and at other points 
 in Hebrew history. We need not suppose 
 that the Hebrews imitated any of the Egyptian 
 or Assyrian symbolic forms when they made 
 the cherubim, nor even that the Hebrews re- 
 ceived a suggestion from them, but we can per- 
 ceive that the use in imagery of a combination 
 of created forms as suggestive of important 
 spiritual truths was a well-known mode of teach- 
 ing long before the days of Moses, or Jacob, 
 or Abraham. 
 
 It has, indeed, been suggested by eminent 
 Bible scholars, that this known truth, combined 
 with the very words of the Hebrew text, give 
 occasion for thinking that the " golden calf " 
 worshiped before Mt. Sinai was a cherubic 
 form, rather than the form of Apis or another 
 Egyptian divinity. It is also thought by many 
 that the " calves " set up by Jeroboam at Dan 
 and Bethel were cherubim, to suggest that the 
 mercy seat was the whole land of Israel between 
 the cherubim, now that the Temple at Jerusalem 
 
Cherubim Utterly Unlike Angels 259 
 
 was no longer the place for worship by Israel- 
 ites. However this may be, we know enough to 
 be sure that we are not justified in supposing 
 that cherubim and angels are of the same class 
 or order or appearance of beings. It would be 
 no more unreasonable for us to claim that a well- 
 made kaleidoscope, with its varying suggestions, 
 is identical with a recognized postman and letter- 
 carrier bringing a precious letter from his loved 
 home to a longing son separated from his dear- 
 est ones of the home and the heart. 
 
XXIX 
 SPIRIT, NOT SOUL, MAN'S PRE-EMINENCE 
 
 It seems to be commonly believed, among the 
 poorly informed, that the soul of man is the 
 spirit of man, and that therefore man's soul is 
 his pre-eminent possession, which distinguishes 
 him from the lower animals and the brute cre- 
 ation. But this opinion is not in accordance 
 with Bible teachings, or with sound reasoning. 
 
 The lower animals have bodies and souls. Man 
 alone has body, and soul, and spirit. It is the 
 spirit, therefore, and not the soul, that marks 
 man's pre-eminence. A failure to recognize this 
 truth is a failure to appreciate the superiority of 
 man, even the lowest of the human race, to the 
 lower animals, even the highest and best trained 
 of the brute creation. 
 
 But man and the lower animals have a mate- 
 rial body, and a life, an animal life, within the 
 body, which is common to, or alike in, the two 
 orders of being. That which is the life of the 
 body, which vivifies the body and enables it to 
 perform its functions, is much the same in man 
 and brutes. In the Hebrew and in the Greek 
 
 260 
 
Spirit, Not Soul, Man's Pre-eminence 261 
 
 the word designating this animal life is ordi- 
 narily the same for both man and the lower ani- 
 mals. Both in the Old Testament and in the 
 New this word is translated " soul." The word 
 " soul " therefore applies to that animal life 
 which man has in common with the brutes. If 
 this be immortal in man, it would seem to be 
 immortal in brutes; but there is nothing in the 
 Bible which seems to justify the belief that im- 
 mortality attaches to the soul or the mere animal 
 life in brutes, or in man. 
 
 Man has, however, that which distinguishes 
 him from the brute, that which is his highest 
 possession, or nature, and which marks him as 
 above all others who dwell in mortal bodies. 
 That possession, or nature, is not the " soul," 
 but the " spirit." " God is a spirit," and man, 
 in having a spirit, is so far God-like, capable of 
 knowing God and of aspiring to God. Immor- 
 tality attaches to God's spirit, and, because man 
 is like God in having a spirit, it is fair to conclude 
 that man's spirit, not man's soul, is immortal. 
 While it is quite proper to say, in view of these 
 well-known facts, that not only gorillas and 
 chimpanzees, but dogs and cats and birds, as 
 well as men, have souls, have animal life dis- 
 tinct from their bodies, it cannot be said with 
 any show of reason that any being but man has 
 
262 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 an immortal spirit; that is only man's high pos- 
 session or nature. 
 
 Both in the Old Testament and in the New 
 the word translated " soul " means " life," and 
 is frequently so rendered. In many instances it 
 would not make sense unless it were translated 
 by such a term. Thus, " As to the life of all 
 flesh, the blood thereof is all one with the life 
 thereof. . . . For the life of all flesh is the 
 blood thereof " (Lev. 17: 14). The Hebrew 
 word here rendered " life " is the same as that 
 rendered " soul " where it is said of the Israel- 
 ites, " Then shall they give every man a ransom 
 for his soul unto Jehovah" (Exod. 30: 12); 
 and again, where offerings are spoken of as 
 brought to the Lord " to make atonement for our 
 souls " (Num. 31 : 50). But no translator would 
 think of saying, " The [animal] blood . . . 
 is all one with the [immortal] soul." So, again, 
 where Satan is represented as saying of Job, 
 " Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he 
 give for his life " (Job 2 : 4), it would be absurd 
 to suppose that Satan deemed every man ready 
 always to count his immortal portion as above 
 every earthly interest. Yet it is the same He- 
 brew word here rendered " life," as that given as 
 " soul " in the declaration, " Jehovah redeemeth 
 the soul of his servants ; and none of them that 
 
Spirit, Not Soul, Man's Pre-eminence 263 
 
 take refuge in him shall be condemned " (Psa. 
 34: 22). It is the corresponding Greek word 
 employed in the New Testament, where Jesus 
 asks, " What shall a man be profited if he shall 
 gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" 
 (or, as the Revision renders it, " and forfeit his 
 life" Matt. 16: 26). 
 
 This term, it is true, sometimes stands for the 
 individual as a living being, as where, in cases of 
 disobedience, " that soul [which hath disobeyed] 
 shall be cut off from his people " (Gen. 17: 14) ; 
 and again where in an estimate of the spoils of 
 war, it is said that " one soul of five hundred, 
 both of the persons, and of the oxen, and of the 
 asses, and of the flocks" (Num. 31: 28) is to 
 be taken. In other instances it has a broader 
 application as applying to, or as representing, the 
 whole self. Thus, " My soul shall be joyful in 
 Jehovah: it shall rejoice in his salvation" (Psa. 
 35 : 9) ; and " Hear, and your soul shall live " 
 (Isa. 55: 3). It is in this broader sense that 
 Jesus seems to employ it, w r here, in the instance 
 above cited, he asks, " What shall a man be 
 profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and 
 forfeit his life [or self] ? or what shall a man 
 give in exchange for his life [or self] ? " (Matt. 
 16: 26). Thus, again, in Matthew, it is said that 
 we are to " fear him who is able to destroy 
 
264 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 both soul and body [the entire self] in hell." 
 In this sense, " soul " may be used to include 
 the immortal spirit, the entire being or person- 
 ality ; but nowhere is the word " soul " in either 
 Testament specifically given for the immortal 
 part of man, living after the death of the body 
 and the soul. It is indeed, however, used as 
 distinct from the spirit in various instances. 
 " With my soul have I desired thee in the night ; 
 yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee 
 earnestly" (Isa. 26: 9); " The God of peace 
 himself sanctify you wholly ; and may your spirit 
 and soul and body be preserved entire, without 
 blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ " 
 (1 Thess. 5: 23). 
 
 It is the " spirit " of man, not the " soul," 
 which is spoken of in the Bible as the higher 
 portion or nature of man, as over against, and 
 frequently as in conflict with, the " body " as his 
 lower portion or nature. Elihu says to Job, 
 concerning man's capacity to receive wisdom: 
 
 " There is a spirit in man, 
 And the breath of the Almighty [or "the inspiration 
 of the Almighty," as the Auth. Ver. has it] giveth 
 them understanding" (Job 32: 8). 
 Says the Psalmist : 
 Into thy hand I commend my spirit: 
 Thou hast redeemed me, O Jehovah, thou God of 
 truth (Psa. 31: 5). 
 
Spirit, Not Soul, Man's Pre-eminence 265 
 
 It is said in the Proverbs : 
 
 All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes : 
 But Jehovah weigheth the spirits (Prov. 16: 2). 
 
 The call of God to Israel is : 
 
 Cast away from you all your transgressions, where- 
 in ye have transgressed; and make you a new 
 heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O 
 house of Israel? (Ezek. 18: 31). 
 
 It is in the New Testament as in the Old. 
 " Who among men knoweth the things of a man, 
 save the spirit of the man which is in him ? " 
 (1 Cor. 2: 11). Our life in the body is so to be 
 lived "that the spirit [not the soul] may be 
 saved in the day of the Lord Jesus " (1 Cor. 
 5: 5). The standard to strive for is of one 
 " holy both in body and in spirit " (1 Cor. 7 : 34). 
 We are to " cleanse ourselves from all defile- 
 ment of flesh and spirit " (2 Cor. 7:1); and we 
 are not to " walk after the flesh in the lust of 
 defilement " (2 Pet. 2 : 10). That which is pop- 
 ularly supposed to be the soul, as the higher and 
 the immortal nature of man, is throughout the 
 Bible spoken of as the spirit which man has from 
 God, which can aspire after God, and can come 
 to be joined to God (1 Cor. 6: 17). 
 
 Of course, there are particular texts in the 
 Bible which might at first glance seem not recon- 
 cilable with the view that it is the spirit, and not 
 
266 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 the soul, which is man's highest nature, and 
 which gives to him the possibility of immortality 
 as distinguished from the brutes. Yet a little 
 examination shows that these texts are all con- 
 sistent with that view, or are specially confirma- 
 tory of it. 
 
 " Who knoweth the spirit of man whether it 
 goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast 
 whether it goeth downward to the earth ? " 
 (Eccl. 3: 21). That would seem to put man 
 and the beast on a level as to the possession of a 
 spirit. But that is given in Ecclesiastes — or 
 Koheleth — as a skeptic's question, as the ques- 
 tion of one who doubts whether man has a su- 
 perior nature and destiny to the brutes. It is 
 answered in the closing words of Koheleth's 
 declaration concerning man's final state. Then 
 " the dust [of man, not of the beast] returneth 
 to the earth as it was, and the spirit [of man, 
 not of the beast] returneth unto God who gave 
 it" (Eccl. 12: 7). 
 
 It is said that when " Jehovah God formed 
 man of the dust of the ground, and breathed 
 into his nostrils the breath of life," that " man 
 became a living soul" (Gen. 2: 7). Here it is 
 soul, not spirit, that is spoken of as given to man 
 by God. But it was then that man's body first 
 received its animal life, or its soul, and it was 
 
Spirit, Not Soul, Man's Pre-eminence 267 
 
 then also that man was created in the image of 
 God (Gen. i: 26, 27), with a spirit given him 
 from God capable of knowing God, and of aspir- 
 ing to be like God. This distinction between 
 man's soul or his animal life, and man's spirit 
 or his nature after God's likeness, is borne out 
 all through the Scriptures. 
 
 While the " spirit " is often employed as desig- 
 nating man's personality or self, it is not spoken 
 of as distinct from the " spirit " which survives 
 the body. Even God himself uses the term soul 
 as applicable to his entire nature or self, as when 
 he says of his Messiah, " Behold, my servant, 
 whom I uphold ; my chosen, in whom my soul 
 delighteth" (Isa. 42: 1; Matt. 12: 18). 
 
 Because the term " soul " is never given in 
 the Bible as designating the higher nature of 
 man, that portion of his nature which survives 
 the perishing body with its animal life, we are 
 liable to be confused ourselves, and to mislead 
 and confuse our fellows, when we so employ the 
 term " soul " in our ordinary speech. The cor- 
 rect way is the best way, and the incorrect way 
 is a poor way, whether we are intentionally in 
 error or are simply careless in the employing of 
 the wrong term. 
 
XXX 
 
 WHAT WILL SATISFY US WHEN 
 WE AWAKE? 
 
 As a well-known text is ordinarily understood, 
 we are encouraged to believe that we shall finally 
 awake in the likeness of God, and that, being 
 in that likeness, we shall be satisfied. The text 
 is in the Psalms, and it reads, in both the King 
 James version and the Anglo-American Re- 
 vision, " I shall be satisfied when I awake, with 
 thy likeness." But the ordinary understanding 
 of this text is wholly wrong. The text as it 
 stands in the original would be convincing as 
 to this; and so, indeed, would be the text with 
 its indicated meaning in the context in our Eng- 
 lish version. The American Standard Revision 
 makes the meaning clear by this translation : " I 
 shall be satisfied, when I awake, with beholding 
 thy form." 
 
 The text reads, " I shall be satisfied, when I 
 awake, with thy likeness." As it is ordinarily 
 understood, it would read, " I shall be satisfied 
 when I awake in thy likeness." Indeed, a volume 
 of published sermons by a distinguished clergy- 
 man gave this text in the erroneous and popular 
 
 268 
 
What Will Satisfy Us When We Awake 269 
 
 form, instead of the correct one. The words 
 might more properly or more intelligently be 
 rendered, " I shall be satisfied with thy likeness, 
 when I awake." As ordinarily misread, it might 
 be, " When I awake in thy likeness I shall be 
 satisfied " — with my looks. 
 
 The common understanding of this text is that 
 it refers to the final awakening after the sleep 
 of death. In this way it is spoken of in the 
 hymns which we hear : 
 
 "I shall be satisfied, 
 I shall be satisfied, 
 When I awake in thy likeness." 
 
 Dr. J. Addison Alexander has suggested that 
 this psalm was written as an evening psalm, with 
 the outlook toward a better and a brighter com- 
 ing day. The context would seem to justify 
 this: 
 
 "Deliver my soul from the wicked by thy sword ; 
 From men, by thy hand, O Lord, 
 
 From men of the world, whose portion is in this life, 
 And whose belly thou fillest with thy treasure: 
 They are satisfied with children, 
 And leave the rest of their substance to their babes. 
 As for me, I shall behold thy face in righteousness: 
 I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness." 
 
 Men of the world, suggests the Psalmist, may 
 be satisfied with the things of the world, secured 
 
270 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 to them or to their children. But these are not 
 enough for me. Only God is sufficient to meet 
 my longings. Only when I am fully awake to 
 the sight of him as he is shall I, or should I, be 
 satisfied. 
 
 It is a great mistake to suppose that God's 
 promises for the future are to be realized only 
 in another life. In the Bible, from Genesis to 
 Revelation, there are ten promises for this life 
 where there is one for the life to come. God's 
 promises of good are for the life that now is, 
 even if we are to have still better things here- 
 after. This may not be the ordinary way of 
 looking at God's promises, but it is the right 
 way — the Bible way. 
 
 Whether this be a psalm written for evening 
 or for any other occasion, it is manifest that the 
 psalmist wants it understood that whenever he 
 awakes, whenever he sees things as they really 
 are, he will be satisfied with the likeness of God, 
 with the appearance of God, with God himself, 
 and that nothing short of this will ever satisfy 
 him. How much better is that thought than the 
 ordinary one in connection with this psalm, that 
 we shall be satisfied with our own appearance 
 when we look like God! 
 
XXXI 
 
 THE RESURRECTION NOT A MERE 
 RISING AGAIN 
 
 A " resurrection " is literally a " rising again/' 
 In that sense we speak of nature's resurrection 
 in the spring, and in the same sense we may 
 speak of our resurrection every morning, as we 
 awake from sleep and insensibility, and arise for 
 a new day's life. But as applied to man's exist- 
 ence, we use the word " resurrection " as mean- 
 ing a man's awakening from the sleep of death, 
 his rising again to life, after he has been for a 
 time in the state of death. As a Bible phrase, 
 and as a term used in theological writings, the 
 resurrection means the rising to life of Jesus 
 after his crucifixion and burial; and again it 
 refers to the event when all that are dead shall 
 rise from the grave, and come anew to life at the 
 end of the age. 
 
 But while the word " resurrection," as used in 
 the Bible or outside of it, means, as a word, no 
 more than a rising again or an awakening, the 
 idea of a resurrection or of the resurrection im- 
 plies in its signification more than a mere awak- 
 ening, or a rising up, from the dead. The resur- 
 
 271 
 
272 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 rection of our bodies after death is in connection 
 with a change, so that the new body shall be in 
 accordance with the conditions and needs of the 
 new life as distinct from the old life. On this 
 point the text and the narrative of the Bible are 
 explicit and positive, and the failure to realize 
 this is a failure to comprehend the importance 
 and magnitude of the central fact of Christianity 
 — the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 
 
 "We all shall not sleep [the sleep of death], 
 but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the 
 twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the 
 trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised 
 incorruptible [already incorruptible when they 
 are raised], and we [still in our corruptible 
 bodies] shall be changed. For this corruptible 
 [body] must put on incorruption, and this mor- 
 tal [body] must put on immortality " (i Cor. 
 15: 51-54). "For since by man came death, 
 by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 
 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall 
 all be made alive. But each in his own order: 
 Christ the first-fruits [of the resurrection har- 
 vest] ; then they that are Christ's, at his coming " 
 (1 Cor. 15: 21-23). 
 
 " But some one will say, How are the dead 
 raised? and with what manner of body do they 
 come? Thou foolish one, that which thou thy- 
 
The Resurrection Not a Mere Rising Again 273 
 
 self sowest is not quickened [made alive] except 
 it die : and that which thou sowest, thou sowest 
 not the body that shall be, but a bare grain, it 
 may chance [to be] of wheat, or of some other 
 kind ; but God giveth it a body even as it pleased 
 him, and to each seed a body of its own. . . . 
 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is 
 sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption 
 [not raised to become afterward incorruptible, 
 but raised in incorruption] ; it is sown in dis- 
 honor, it is raised in glory ; it is sown in weak- 
 ness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural 
 body, it is raised a spiritual body" (i Cor. 15: 
 
 35-44). 
 
 This is the order and the manner of the resur- 
 rection, according to the assurances of the in- 
 spired writer. Jesus was the " first-fruits " of the 
 resurrection ; but he was not the first person who 
 had been raised to life from the dead. Hence 
 his resurrection could not have been his mere 
 rising up in his unchanged natural body. Jesus 
 had himself raised up Lazarus, calling him out 
 of the grave where he had been dead four days. 
 Jesus had called to life the dead son of the widow 
 of Nain, as he was being carried to the grave. 
 Long before this, Elisha had raised to life the 
 dead son of the Shunammite woman. But no one 
 of these risings from the dead was a " resurrec- 
 
274 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 tion," as was that of Jesus, and as will be that of 
 every follower of Jesus in the time of resurrec- 
 tion. A change from a corruptible body to an 
 incorruptible one, a change from a natural body 
 to a spiritual body, there must have been in Jesus 
 when he became the " first-fruits " of the resur- 
 rection harvest. Was this so? The question is 
 not, What have men, even creed and catechism 
 writers, said about it? But, What is the Bible 
 showing on the subject? 
 
 When the " natural " body of Jesus was laid 
 in the tomb, it had been reverently prepared for 
 burial by godly Jews. It is important to have in 
 mind the manner of Oriental burial. This was 
 not like our Occidental method of arraying the 
 corpse in fitting and seemly garments, but it was 
 by enwrapping the body from feet to head in a 
 clean cloth, or band, somewhat after the manner 
 of a surgeon's bandaging. The arms, laid close 
 to the side, were included in the wrapping. A 
 napkin was about the head and face. Indeed, 
 there seems to be a survival of this idea in our 
 popular term of the " winding-sheet " as a gar- 
 ment for the grave. The cerements of an Egyp- 
 tian mummy better illustrate this than anything 
 shown in the work of a modern undertaker. A 
 reference is made to such burial cloths when the 
 dead Lazarus came from his grave at Bethany 
 
The Resurrection Not a Mere Rising Again 275 
 
 at the call of Jesus : " He that was dead came 
 forth, bound hand and foot with grave-clothes 
 [as our English translation gives it, but it is 
 more properly given in the margin grave-bands] ; 
 and his face was bound about with a napkin. 
 Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him 
 go" (John ii : 44). When the body of Jesus 
 was granted to Joseph of Arimathea, " he bought 
 a linen cloth [a burial cloth], and, taking him 
 [Jesus] down, wound him [rolled; the Greek 
 word is "entulitto" : to roll or wrap] in the linen 
 [burial] cloth, and laid him in a tomb which 
 had been hewn out of a rock ; and he [Joseph] 
 rolled a stone against the door of the tomb " 
 (Mark 15: 46). 
 
 Thus as to the death and burial of Jesus, or 
 as to his giving up his natural life and his being 
 rolled in the burial cloth and entombed. The 
 stone was sealed by Pilate's order. Now as to 
 the resurrection of Jesus on the third day. Did 
 he simply rise from the dead, as did Lazarus at 
 his call? Was his revivification merely like that 
 of Lazarus and of the son of the widow of Nain? 
 Or was he really in his rising the first-fruits of 
 the resurrection, in his passing through that 
 change from the natural to the spiritual body, 
 which all the redeemed shall pass through, " in 
 a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last 
 
276 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 trump ? " What are the Bible indications as to 
 this? No human eye saw the rising of Jesus 
 from the dead. No hand, not even an angel's 
 hand, rolled away the entrance stone, before 
 Jesus passed out from the tomb. When, indeed, 
 an angel of the Lord rolled away the stone and 
 sat upon it, it was said that Jesus had already 
 risen. What, then, was his rising from the dead ? 
 Note the inspired record. 
 
 Matthew says that the angel said to the women 
 at the tomb, " Come, see the place where the 
 Lord lay" (Matt. 28: 6), as if that sight itself 
 would be proof of his resurrection. Mark re- 
 peats this fact, that the young man angel said 
 to the women at the empty tomb, " Behold, the 
 place where they laid him!" (Mark 16: 6). 
 Luke, in telling the story, says that Peter, look- 
 ing into the empty tomb, saw " the linen cloths 
 by themselves, " and went away wondering 
 (Luke 24: 12). John further adds that Peter 
 saw " the linen cloths lying, and the napkin, that 
 was upon his head, not lying with the linen 
 cloths, but rolled up in a place [in its place] by 
 itself." And John also, who was with Peter, 
 " saw [this], and believed " (John 20: 6-8). It 
 is evident from this fourfold specific record that 
 there was something in the sight itself that was 
 a testimony to the resurrection. This sight was 
 
The Resurrection Not a Mere Rising Again 277 
 
 not merely a blank, an absence of a body. What 
 was it? 
 
 Jesus' natural body had been changed to a spir- 
 itual body ; his mortal body had put on immor- 
 tality; that which was sown in humiliation had 
 been raised in glory. Therefore the changed 
 body had come out from the linen enwrappings 
 of the body taken down from the cross, leaving 
 those cerements as the transfigured butterfly 
 leaves the chrysalis. Thus those linen enwrap- 
 pings were of themselves irresistible evidence 
 and proof of the resurrection of Jesus. As no 
 human power could arrange them, there they 
 lay, no fold disturbed, those of the body in their 
 place, that of the face and head, the napkin by 
 itself. What wonder that the angel called at- 
 tention to this great proof of the resurrection! 
 What wonder that Peter and others saw and 
 believed! And, as from the Scriptures we 
 understand, Jesus did not merely rise up from the 
 dead, as others before had risen up from the 
 dead, but was " the first-fruits of the resurrec- 
 tion " harvest, and " in a moment, in the twink- 
 ling of an eye," he was changed, so his loved 
 ones are to be changed in the resurrection. 
 
 Had Jesus risen up in his natural body, he 
 could at once have been recognized by his loved 
 ones who had known him in the years gone by. 
 
278 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 But from Mary Magdalene, who thought he was 
 the gardener, to the disciples with whom he 
 walked on the way to Emmaus, those who so 
 well knew his natural form and face seemed to 
 have doubts as to his identity. His spiritual 
 body was no longer subject to the conditions of 
 his natural body. He passed out from the stone- 
 enlocked tomb. He entered the room where 
 were his disciples behind closed doors. His 
 every move gave added proof of his changed 
 body in his resurrection. 
 
 Of course, when Jesus would prove his iden- 
 tity to his disciples who doubted, he would be 
 ready to show his nail-pierced hands and feet, or 
 his spear-pierced side, as evidence to their human 
 senses, but this was a purposeful departure from 
 his now normal state. He thus adapted himself 
 to the limitations and questionings of those still 
 in the flesh. He thus convinced them that he 
 was not a mere apparition, a " ghost." If one 
 of our dear ones in the spirit life were permitted 
 to-day to come again to us here on earth, that 
 spirit would have to be known to us by some 
 sign or appearance familiar to our human 
 senses; but we should not suppose from that 
 that therefore the loved one's normal or ordi- 
 nary spiritual presence was the same as the for- 
 mer physical presence. 
 
The Resurrection Not a Mere Rising Again 279 
 
 When Jesus, on the third day after his cruci- 
 fixion, rose from the dead, his was not a mere 
 awakening to, and an uprising in, his former nat- 
 ural body. If it were so, the resurrection of 
 Jesus could not be to us the assurance, the life, 
 and the hope, that it now is. But Jesus came 
 out of his linen cloth enwrappings, and out of 
 his sealed stone tomb, in his changed resurrec- 
 tion body. Of that the disciples had evidence 
 in the very chrysalis cloths themselves, and the 
 whole narrative is in keeping with this assur- 
 ance. How many have erred in the reading of 
 the Bible record as to this! Let us not come 
 short of our hope and faith, as we are entitled 
 to have them confirmed by this record. 
 
XXXII 
 
 "AMEN, AND AMEN" 
 
 No other Bible term, or word, is used so fre- 
 quently, or by so many persons, or so unmean- 
 ingly, as the word " Amen " — a Hebrew word. 
 Jews, Christians, and Muhammadans are as one 
 in using this term at the close of every prayer, 
 as a response to any important covenant or 
 agreement, and as a declaration or ejaculation 
 in the announcement of many an important truth. 
 Yet Jews, Christians, and Muhammadans fail 
 of agreement as to the precise or definite 
 meaning of this term. Their lexicons and their 
 critical commentators are at variance as to its 
 signification, and, when they attempt to give its 
 supposed equivalent in well-known words, they 
 admit that it does not always mean that, or 
 anything like it. 
 
 In translating the Hebrew Scriptures into any 
 other language, it is customary to transfer this 
 word in its Hebrew form, instead of translating 
 it ; and then when the ordinary religious teacher 
 attempts its explanation, he gives a mistaken 
 rendering. When the average man uses the 
 word " Amen " most earnestly and with greatest 
 
 280 
 
"Amen, and Amen" 281 
 
 emphasis, he knows least about its meaning. He 
 seems, in fact, to be devout and hearty in his 
 cry of " Amen " in proportion to his lack of any 
 clear idea of its signification. 
 
 A good Christian mother overheard her little 
 daughter explaining to a younger brother the 
 meaning of " Amen " at the close of his evening 
 prayer : 
 
 " ' Amen ' means ' You mustn't touch it/ " 
 And that boy was satisfied. He accepted the 
 explanation as if it were inspired. But his 
 mother was shocked. It seemed as if her daugh- 
 ter were irreverently leading her brother astray, 
 and she called her in order to rebuke her. 
 
 " What did you mean by telling your brother 
 that ' Amen ' means ' You mustn't touch it ' ? " 
 " Why you told me so, mamma/' 
 " I told you so, my dear? When? " 
 " I asked you what ' Amen ' meant, and you 
 said, ' Let it be.' That's what I told Willie." 
 
 Then the mother remembered that she had 
 given her daughter the conventional explanation 
 of " Amen " as "So let it be," which the daugh- 
 ter had interpreted colloquially as " Let it be," 
 or " Let it alone." Both mother and daughter 
 had their conventional understanding of that 
 mysterious term, but neither daughter nor 
 mother was correct in the case. They simply 
 
282 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 represented, in their vagueness of view, the aver- 
 age user of the word " Amen." 
 
 Another little girl, on being asked what she 
 understood by " Amen," said artlessly : 
 
 " I used to think it meant ' stop/ when we came 
 to the end of a prayer. But when I went to the 
 Methodist church I found they said ' Amen ' 
 when they didn't stop, and weren't agoing to. 
 Now, I don't know what it does mean." 
 
 Her state of mind is a common one as to the 
 meaning of the word 
 
 It is useless to go to an English dictionary to 
 find the meaning of a Hebrew word like this. 
 Nor does a Hebrew dictionary assume to settle 
 the question. The more common English idea 
 is that " Amen " is a sort of supplementary 
 prayer, at the close of a formal or specific prayer ; 
 that it is a request for God to grant the petitions 
 already asked, to let it be as has been desired 
 of him. With this view of the word many use 
 it entreatingly or doubtingly, as if saying, " I 
 wish you would do, O Lord, as you are asked to 
 do; but, of course, I cannot be sure that you 
 will." Yet " Amen " is not a prayer. The idea 
 of prayer or of request is not in it. It has more 
 of the thought of positive affirmation, or of trust- 
 ful acquiescence, or of confident response, than 
 it has of petition, even in those places where it 
 
"Amen, and Amen" 283 
 
 might seem to mean " Let it be thus. " The 
 word has a sense of restful assurance in it, of un- 
 wavering confidence, hardly to be found in any- 
 other word in any language. Doubt or ques- 
 tion or request has properly no place in connec- 
 tion with the term. 
 
 The root idea of the Hebrew word " Amen " 
 is " to be firm," " to be stedfast," " to be strong/' 
 " to be immovable. " The same idea is in the 
 earlier Babylonian and in the later Arabic. A 
 similar thought is in its use in the Greek. Hence, 
 wherever the word is found, there must be the 
 idea of stability and resultant confidence, not of 
 question or doubt. The Assyrian term for 
 " army," the strong support of the ruler, is from 
 the same root. In the Arabic, " Al-Ameen," 
 " The Faithful One," or " The Trusty One," is 
 one of the names given to Muhammad. In the 
 Apocalypse Jesus is spoken of as " the Amen :" 
 " These things saith the Amen, the faithful and 
 true witness, the beginning of the creation of 
 God" (Rev. 3: 14). 
 
 In all the derivatives of this word the idea of 
 unwavering confidence, usually of restful trust 
 in a person, is to be found as the main thought 
 and factor. When, at the beginning of the his- 
 tory of God's chosen people, the Lord called 
 Abraham to leave his home, his people, his coun- 
 
284 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 try, and to have no other purpose than to do and 
 to be as the Lord would have him, and no spe- 
 cific plans in life, it is said (Gen. 15: 6) that 
 Abraham " heemeened the Lord " (" Amen-ed 
 the Lord "), giving himself wholly and unreserv- 
 edly to the Lord, and went out, not knowing 
 whither he went, but restful in his unwavering 
 trust in the Sure One. 
 
 Our English version of the Bible renders this 
 story of Abraham's act, or state, " He believed 
 in Jehovah ; and he reckoned it to him for right- 
 eousness. " But this fails to give to the ordinary 
 reader the idea of the original ; for we, with our 
 cold Occidental ways, are inclined to think of 
 " belief " as in some way connected with the 
 idea of an intellectual assent to abstract proposi- 
 tions or fundamental truths, while an Ori- 
 ental has no conception of this in such a 
 case. Abraham heard the call of the Lord, and 
 at once he gave himself up in unhesitating trust 
 to the Lord, nothing doubting. He so trusted 
 the Lord, so trusted himself to the Lord, so gave 
 himself up to the Lord's very self, that the Lord 
 counted him as a part of himself. This was the 
 essence of an " Amen," of being an amen to the 
 Lord's call. 
 
 In Luther's Catechism the true idea of 
 " Amen " is brought out in its definition ; but the 
 
"Amen, and Amen" 285 
 
 suggestion of petition rather than of unwaver- 
 ing assurance is added, as if that were one of 
 its meanings, so that the average learner is still 
 in doubt as to its real significance. Thus : " Amen 
 meaneth namely, assuredly, that I am sure that 
 petitions of this kind are accepted by my heav- 
 enly Father, and heard by him ; because he hath 
 commanded us that we should pray after this 
 manner, and hath promised that he will hear us. 
 Amen, Amen ! That is, truly, certainly, so be it." 
 This final explanation tends to throw the whole 
 meaning of the word in doubt, as it is in so 
 many minds. The Church of England Cate- 
 chism gives the definition of " Amen " simply as 
 " So be it." 
 
 In the Westminster Catechism it is said that at 
 " the conclusion of the Lord's Prayer," " in tes- 
 timony to our desire and assurance to be heard, 
 we say ' Amen.' " But it will be admitted by 
 users of that Catechism generally that the idea 
 of " Amen " as expressing a " desire to be 
 heard " is far more prominent than an " assur- 
 ance " that we are heard. Yet it is this latter 
 thought that is dominant in the word itself. In 
 the Catechism of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church it is said, somewhat vaguely, that " Amen 
 signifies verily, truly, or ' so let it be/ and at the 
 end of our prayer expresses a hearty wish that 
 
286 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 what we have asked for may be granted or ac- 
 complished." 
 
 The Heidelberg Catechism gives the true defi- 
 nition of "Amen," without any doubtful note: 
 " Amen signifies : It shall truly and certainly be. 
 for my prayer is more assuredly heard of God 
 than I feel in my heart that I desire these things 
 of him." If all who have been brought up under 
 this teaching use the word Amen in their prayers 
 with this view of its meaning, they at least em- 
 ploy it in faith, nothing doubting. 
 
 As the word " Amen," with its derivatives, is 
 much the same in the Arabic as in the Hebrew, 
 an interest attaches to its use in Arabic. The 
 first chapter, or sura, of the Quran, called the 
 Fatihah, is employed among " the faithful " as 
 an agreement, or covenant, or pledge of fidelity, 
 in entering upon any common undertaking 01 
 important movement. At the conclusion of that 
 recitation " Amen " is always uttered devoutly, 
 not as a prayer, but as a pledge of sincerity and 
 faith. In the cities, as in the desert, of the East, 
 two men, at the conclusion of a vital contract, 
 recite together that sura, with their open palms 
 as a book before them, and at its close they 
 reverently repeat together the " Amen," as if 
 that bound the whole beyond recall. 
 
 The word " Amen " does not seem to be in the 
 
"Amen, and Amen" 287 
 
 original record of that sura, yet it always accom- 
 panies its recitation. Arabic commentators 
 seem to be not quite sure as to the meaning of 
 this word " Amen, " but they recognize its im- 
 portance, and in all their suggested meanings 
 the idea of stability and certitude prevails. 
 
 In the Arabic, as in the Hebrew, the verb form 
 of " Amen " carries the idea of trusting and of 
 being trustworthy, and it is employed as indi- 
 cating the unqualified committal of self to an- 
 other. The writer once asked a learned Arabic 
 scholar, who was a native of the East, what he 
 understood by this term amana. He replied 
 earnestly: "Amana means that a man gets out 
 of himself and gets into another; he gives him- 
 self up wholly to another, and trusts him utterly. 
 It means that, and a great deal more. Amana 
 means so much that I can't tell you all it means. " 
 
 Dr. Edkins, the Chinese scholar, suggests 
 ("The Religions of China, " p. 118) that a 
 correspondent word in the Chinese " for faith- 
 fulness means both to be trustworthy and also 
 to trust. " It is employed of devoted friendship. 
 
 In the Greek, the word " Amen, " transferred 
 in that form from the Hebrew, is variously trans- 
 lated, but in every instance the idea seems to be 
 that of "verily, " "truly," "certainly," or of 
 " fidelity " and " confidence. " The idea is never 
 
288 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 of petition or question, but always of assurance 
 and restful trust. Jesus frequently opens his 
 more important teachings with the wprds 
 " Amen, " or " Amen, amen, " in affirmation of 
 their certainty and importance. Our English 
 Bible renders this term " verily/' or " verily, 
 verily" (Matt. 5 : 18; 8: 10; 10: 15; Mark 3: 28; 
 8: 12; Luke 4: 24; 12: 37; John 1: 51; 5: 19; 
 6: 26, etc.). There can be no thought of peti- 
 tion or of doubt in such an emphatic asseveration 
 on the part of Jesus. 
 
 The promises of God are said to be, in Christ, 
 " Amen, unto the glory of God through us " 
 (2 Cor. 1 : 20). They are all sure and true. At 
 the giving of thanks, when praise, not petition, 
 was in order, a believer was to respond, grate- 
 fully, "Amen" (1 Cor. 14: 16). 
 
 As in the Greek, so in the Hebrew, all the 
 uses of " Amen, " in the Old Testament, are 
 consistent with its meaning as an expression of 
 unwavering confidence. The idea of petition or 
 request never has a place there. When a woman 
 charged with marital unfaithfulness was brought 
 before the priest, under the ancient law of Israel, 
 the priest invoked the judgment of God on her 
 if she was guilty. At this invocation, it is re- 
 corded : " And the woman shall say, Amen, 
 amen" (Num. 5: 22). It is evident here that 
 
"Amen, and Amen" 289 
 
 the woman, claiming to be innocent, confidently 
 appeals to God as faithful and true, and there- 
 fore sure to make clear her innocence. " Cer- 
 tainly, certainly, " she says, " Truly, truly, " and 
 she leaves herself and her case with God. It is 
 not a prayer on her part, but an expression of 
 her confidence in the fidelity of God. In con- 
 sistency with its meaning elsewhere, " Amen " 
 might indeed here mean " Let it be so. I am 
 glad to rest the issue with God. ,, But that is 
 trustful acquiescence, not petition. 
 
 It would seem, however, that this illustration 
 of the use of " Amen " is the one passage in the 
 Bible which has been understood as a petition, 
 and has led to the rendering of it as " So let it 
 be, " or " So be it. " From this instance alone 
 many have come to suppose that " Amen " is a 
 request for God's favor; until, indeed, a great 
 majority of its users employ it only as a call for 
 a blessing that is by no means assured. 
 
 The Talmudists, discussing the meaning of 
 " Amen," suggest the threefold meaning of 
 (i) an oath, (2) an acceptance of spoken words, 
 and (3) a confirmation of words uttered. They 
 cite in proof of these meanings the response of 
 the accused woman (Num. 5: 22) ; the response 
 of the people to the blessings and cursings at 
 Ebal and Gerizim (Deut. 2j: 11-26); and the 
 
290 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 utterance of the prophet in confident affirmation 
 of his commanded message (Jer. 28: 6). These 
 meanings are all consistent with the idea of 
 unwavering trust in the fidelity and immovable- 
 ness of the Lord. 
 
 In recognition of the fact that even of old 
 there was a lack of apprehension of the true 
 meaning of " Amen " on the part of many who 
 employed it, the Talmudists pointed out popular 
 forms of this response or assurance that could 
 not have God's approval. Thus there was the 
 " hasty Amen, " or the " Amen cut short " 
 through inattention ; and the " orphan Amen, " 
 when its user had not heard the prayer or bene- 
 diction to which it referred. 1 The " hasty " and 
 " orphan " Amens are not unknown in Chris- 
 tian congregations nowadays. 
 
 " Islam, " or " submission, " is the expression 
 of the Muhammadan's recognition of the inevi- 
 table. He accepts the decrees of fate, because 
 there is nothing else for him to do. " Amen, " 
 on the other hand, is the trustful believer's con- 
 fident committal of himself, his petitions, and 
 his cause, to his loving Father and Friend, be- 
 cause he is glad to do it, and because it is the 
 best thing that could be done. 
 
 1 These facts as to the Talmud I have on the authority of the em- 
 inent Talmudist, the Rev. Dr. Marcus Jastrow. 
 
"Amen, and Amen" 291 
 
 In all the Bible uses of the word " Amen," 
 and in the meanings of that word as found in the 
 Babylonian, the Hebrew, the Arabic, the Greek, 
 and the English, it is evident that the prevailing 
 idea is that of strength and confidence, resulting 
 from unwavering trust in one who will not fail. 
 Doubt, question, or anxiety, has no place in its 
 use. It is thus in connection with a prayer, as in 
 connection with a declaration of truth. Whether 
 it be a blessing that is spoken, a series of peti- 
 tions that is offered, or an invoking of God's 
 intervention and decision that is made, what- 
 ever doubt there may be at any point up to its 
 close, the use of the final " Amen " is a confident 
 cry without hesitation or fear. To say " Amen " 
 is not to say "Oh that it might be so ! " but 
 rather " Certainly, " "Truly," "Surely," "It 
 will be right because God is God, and his will is 
 to be done. " 
 
 " Amen " was not a term used in the temple 
 at Jerusalem. It seemed to be taken for granted 
 there that God would be faithful, and be ever 
 true to his promises. It is said that in the great 
 synagogue in Alexandria an attendant stood on 
 a platform in the center, and when the time 
 came for all to respond he waved a flag, and all 
 then answered " Amen." 
 
 It is said by the rabbins that he who joined 
 
292 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 sincerely in the " Amen, " in the synagogue 
 service, had a share in the whole prayer, although 
 he took no other part. 
 
 " Amen " is never a minor portion of a prayer. 
 It is the strongest and best part of it. It is not 
 to be spoken in a minor key, or in a low tone and 
 hesitatingly. That cry at least ought to be a 
 glad and triumphant one, spoken from the heart 
 and aloud with the lips, in confident assurance 
 and in restful truth. " Amen and amen. " 
 Whatever is our prayer, we should be able to 
 leave it with God in faith. In this committal, 
 at least, " whatever is not of faith is sin. " 
 
XXXIII 
 CAN MAN DEFINE INFINITE TRUTH ? 
 
 We should say it reverently, but we can say 
 it positively, that, as to the disclosure to us of 
 things infinite and spiritual, God is limited by 
 our limitations. It is impossible that, while we 
 are in the limitations of the natural and the 
 finite, we should be able to comprehend in its 
 incomprehensibleness, and to conceive in its in- 
 conceivableness, the measures of the immeasur- 
 able and the bounds of the boundless, in spheres 
 and realms above and beyond all that we know 
 or can comprehend. This is not because God is 
 not willing to impart, but because we in our 
 present state are unable to receive, the truth as 
 it is concerning matters utterly beyond our 
 sphere and scope of knowledge. 
 
 It is so, in a sense, with a child and its parent, 
 even while both are in the same human sphere. If 
 a father who has had trials and experiences in 
 life from which he would have his loved child 
 spared, has a little babe for which he is respon- 
 sible, can that father make all this clear to that 
 babe while it is a babe ? Suppose the father 
 takes the child when six weeks old, or six 
 
 293 
 
294 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 months, or even six years, and tells it what are 
 life's severest trials and perils, pointing out 
 every danger to be shunned and every duty to 
 be performed ; will the child know it all ? If that 
 effort be not successful, why is the failure ? 
 Is the cause in the father's unwillingness to give 
 needed knowledge, or in the child's incapacity to 
 receive it ? This is in the human sphere, where 
 father and child are on the same plane of exist- 
 ence and being. But where one is finite and the 
 other infinite, how much vaster the difference ! 
 Who would say or think that the difference be- 
 tween the wisest human father and his little babe 
 is as wide and real as is that between the wisest 
 human being and his Infinite and Almighty 
 Father ? Yet the case being as we know it to 
 be, what folly it is to think that man in the 
 physical and finite sphere can, while he is in those 
 limitations, comprehend or define what is in the 
 sphere of the spiritual and the infinite. 
 
 Even within the range of our ordinary human 
 senses, we can perceive that the lack of but a 
 single sense limits and restricts, not only in 
 power of performance, but in capacity of com- 
 prehension, one who lacks that sense, in com- 
 parison with one who possesses it. What does 
 one born blind know about the beauty of varied 
 colors ? How useless to him is any description 
 
Can Man Define Infinite Truth 295 
 
 of the hidden beauties of sight, when never so 
 eloquently described by an enthusiastic artist ! 
 The permanent limitation is in the one blind, 
 not in the one who sees and tries to enlighten 
 by words. So of one born deaf, in comparison 
 with a lover of music and of sweet sounds. How 
 can one describe the soft tones of an iEolian harp 
 to an ever-closed ear ? And so of each one of 
 our physical senses. How can it be less diffi- 
 cult for one in the realm of the spiritual and the 
 infinite to communicate the truth as to that realm 
 to one who has no experience or knowledge or 
 powers of conception beyond the material and 
 finite ? 
 
 Even when an inspired writer who has been 
 given a message to ordinary man seeks to con- 
 vey in that message some knowledge or idea of 
 a realm and sphere beyond and above the human 
 and finite, he is necessitated to employ terms 
 that suggest, but do not define, the truth. Thus 
 the Apostle Paul, who declares that he has had 
 disclosed to him by God's power some of the 
 wonders and beauties of the spiritual realm and 
 sphere, is unable to define in human words any 
 one feature of his wonderful knowledge. He 
 says that God's way are " past tracing out " 
 (Rom. ii : 33). Even what he has seen and 
 heard of the spiritual life and sphere he refers 
 
296 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 to as " unspeakable [or, unutterable in] words " 
 (2 Cor. 12 : 4). If Paul had known less he might 
 have felt differently, or have had freer and more 
 confident utterance about such things. 
 
 Paul, referring to these things, uses words that 
 are at the best not explicit or exact, and that are 
 evidently contradictory and obviously insufficient 
 for their purpose. Thus he says that at the close 
 of our earthly life our personality shall be, in 
 God's great field, " sown a natural body " and 
 " raised a spiritual body. " But that is an obvious 
 contradiction of terms, and it is clearly employed 
 as such because of our human limitations. That 
 which is a spirit is not a body. But Paul uses 
 these words as suggestive, not as definitive. Thus 
 he writes of " spiritual meat " and " spiritual 
 drink, " and of a " spiritual rock. " If we take 
 those words as suggestive of what cannot be de- 
 fined in words, we do well. But if we take them 
 as descriptive and definitive, we are childish, but 
 not child-like, in dealing with the incomprehen- 
 sible and the undefinable. 
 
 Again the Apostle John, out of spiritual visions 
 and through revelations to him by inspiration, 
 suggests, in the Apocalypse, the beauties of the 
 New Jerusalem, or of the spiritual city in the 
 realm of the infinite. He speaks of the streets 
 of " pure gold, as it were transparent glass, " 
 
Can Man Define Infinite Truth 297 
 
 and of the " wall of jasper/' and of the twelve 
 gates of pearl, " each one of the several gates 
 was of one pearl" (Rev. 21). And the dimen- 
 sions and measurements of this heavenly city, 
 the New Jerusalem, are specifically given in the 
 record. 
 
 Now this description has its value as sug- 
 gestive to mankind, but not as an exact and pre- 
 cise defining of the things spoken of. Yet even 
 Christian scholars and valued biblical exegetes 
 in modern times have insisted that, because the 
 Bible is given to instruct man in his present 
 sphere and limitations, its words must be taken 
 as the literal truth, and believed accordingly. 
 There stands out in my memory a sermon on 
 this subject by a clergyman who was widely 
 loved and honored. He said with reference to 
 the description of the New Jerusalem in the 
 Apocalypse that these words must be taken lit- 
 erally, and not supposed to be merely figurative, 
 or only as a suggestion of the truth. He said : 
 " If God had wanted to give us an exact descrip- 
 tion of the New Jerusalem as it is, and as it is to 
 be, what words could he have employed that 
 would be more specific than those chosen by him 
 in this description of it as it is ? " As he read 
 over again the text, he warned his hearers against 
 seeking to find some other meaning for Bible 
 
298 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 words than their obvious and plain meaning. And 
 that was a common way of looking at Bible 
 teachings a generation and more ago. 
 
 I once heard an eminent divine in the Pres- 
 byterian Church, — one of a family of distin- 
 guished clergymen in this country, — express simi- 
 lar views of Bible truth. All would recognize his 
 honored name if it were mentioned. He took 
 the measurements of the Holy City as given in 
 its four-square form in the Apocalypse (Rev. 21 : 
 16), and showed mathematically that there was 
 actually space there for housing all the sons of 
 men that have ever existed in the six thousand 
 years since Adam (that was the period of man's 
 existence on earth as claimed in those days). He 
 allowed three generations to a century, and he 
 estimated the world's population at the numbers 
 now existing, and the same from the days of 
 Adam to the end of the six thousand years. In 
 this estimate or calculation he had one series of 
 tenements above another after the manner of 
 the sky-scraper buildings of to-day ; as " the 
 length and the breadth and the height thereof are 
 equal. " His calculation allowed a residence for 
 every soul equal to the dimensions of the average 
 city house lot of to-day. Was not that a liberal 
 allowance for the average soul ? It would cer- 
 tainly seem to be fully enough for some souls. 
 
Can Man Define Infinite Truth 299 
 
 It was under the influence of such teaching as 
 to Bible literature that I and others were brought 
 up. But as I have elsewhere shown, Dr. Horace 
 Bushnell threw new light on the Bible in his 
 epoch-making essay, " Our Gospel a Gift to the 
 Imagination. " I was thus led out of thick dark- 
 ness toward the light. But even good Dr. Bush- 
 nell did not follow to its legitimate and necessary 
 conclusion the great truth concerning Bible teach- 
 ings and phraseology that he enunciated. I even 
 ventured to say to him that this was so when the 
 good Doctor first read to his ministerial brethren 
 his new volume on " Forgiveness and Law, " giv- 
 ing his later ideas of the profoundest theology, 
 as preferable to that then prevalent. 
 
 Walking away from that gathering with Dr. 
 Bushnell, I said to him in daring frankness, 
 " Doctor, you know how I look up to your 
 greatness, and what hard work you had to teach 
 me some of your great lessons. But the one 
 that was most to me was that our gospel is a 
 gift to the imagination, because God has to use 
 terms that suggest rather than define theological 
 truths. Yet now, having taught me that, you at- 
 tempt to show the outlines of a new theology. 
 When I get to heaven I may find that your new 
 view is a correct one. But I can't take it in this 
 being. ,, At this the Doctor laughed good- 
 
300 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 naturedly. I have never stopped thinking in the 
 line in which he first started me. And the pres- 
 ent chapter is one of the results. 
 
 Many persons, even eminent theologians and 
 profound thinkers, to this day seem to lose sight 
 of the truth that there is no time or measure of 
 time in eternity, and that to speak of past or 
 future with God is to lose sight of the truth that 
 in eternity there is only the ever-present. Thus 
 it always has been ; thus it always must be. God 
 who was, and is, and is to be, is co-existent with 
 eternity. To speak of the past or the future with 
 God is to employ human phrases with reference 
 to the infinite and eternal ; as when we speak of 
 a " spiritual body, " or " spiritual meat, " or 
 " spiritual drink, " or of the self-contradictory 
 term " spirit-matter. " 
 
 " But forget not this one thing, beloved, that 
 one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, 
 and a thousand years as one day. " That is no 
 rash saying, but is the statement of an inspired 
 writer; and even that is not to be taken literally, 
 but obviously as a mere suggestion. In former 
 days it was the custom to take that passage lit- 
 erally, and to explain it by saying that six days 
 of labor were to be followed by a day of rest. 
 Thus it was in the creation, and thus it must be 
 in the final culmination ; that was a common way 
 
Can Man Define Infinite Truth 301 
 
 of looking at it. As with God a thousand years 
 are as one day, so six thousand years of the 
 earth's continuance are as six days; and those 
 six thousand years or days are to be followed by 
 a day or period of rest, in the millennium of sab- 
 bath repose. How many times I have heard it 
 said that the millennium is to begin at the period 
 of six thousand years from creation ! But thai 
 Bible statement, as we now perceive, does not 
 mean that. It indicates, on the contrary, that 
 the measures of time do not apply to eternity. 
 Eternity has no periods or stages like time, such 
 as days or years or ages. It has neither past nor 
 future ; it is always the ever-present. 
 
 We have to employ human phrases and figures 
 of time in order to suggest the infinite and eter- 
 nal. In this sense we can say that with God, 
 who was, and is, and is to be, the eternal I AM, 
 the creation and the fall of Adam, and the birth 
 and the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus, 
 and Christ's second coming, and the day of the 
 final judgment, and the end of the world and of 
 the age, are all in God's sight as in the same 
 instant. How meaningless in view of this truth 
 are any words that seem to involve the thought 
 of future ! There can be no such thing as plan- 
 ning or deciding as to the future with One who 
 is always the Ever-Present. Such a phrase can 
 
302 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 seem to have an explicit meaning, and thus can 
 be a means of confusion and worry to one who 
 is finite and human; and in the sense that it is 
 used, or misused, by ordinary, or even by extra- 
 ordinary, minds, it is utterly unreal and untrue. 
 
 We know that in our ordinary sleep we may 
 live years in a few minutes of dream or thought, 
 and that in our waking thoughts we may go to 
 the ends of the earth and to the bounds of the 
 remotest fixed star in a second's time; for 
 thought is not limited like matter. In view of 
 this truth, what folly it is for one who is in time 
 and in the flesh to attempt to limit and define in 
 human words the spiritual and the infinite and 
 the eternal ! As God's children on earth come in 
 the progress of ages to know more they will as- 
 sume to know less. They will see that the spir- 
 itual and the eternal and the infinite cannot be 
 stated or defined in human words. What folly 
 must our present wisdom seem in God's sight ! 
 
 Bible statements concerning God's planning, or 
 acting, or changing his plans or actions, as to 
 particular men's conduct or destiny, are sugges- 
 tions to men as to their duty and dependence. 
 But to use such statements as if they literally 
 applied to or included God, who is the Ever 
 Eternal, not subject to the conditions of time, 
 is utterly and always incorrect and improper. 
 
Can Man Define Infinite Truth 303 
 
 How the best of men have been misled by such 
 sad misreadings and perversions of Bible teach- 
 ings! 
 
 . We recognize the folly and falsity of Mormon 
 excesses in the application of anthropological 
 views as applied to God in his relations to hu- 
 manity. Thus they claim that God is spoken 
 of in the Bible as having a " face " and a " back " 
 and " arms " and " fingers M and " feet ;" there- 
 fore he must have a form like man's. We admit 
 the absurdity of this ; but we have not sufficiently 
 recognized the error of every religious writer 
 who speaks of or deals with God's planning or 
 acting as if there were, or had been, any pos- 
 sibility of human measures, as of time, in eter- 
 nity. The moment we depart from the truth 
 that eternity is ever and always and only the 
 present, and not the past or the future, we depart 
 from the proper way of thinking of God, whose 
 being is suggested but not defined to man in 
 human language, whether used in the Bible or 
 elsewhere. The other is the Mormon method. 
 
 Man having before him the thought of systems 
 of human doctrine and the requirements and lim- 
 itations of human ideas, is careful to declare and 
 affirm explicitly and definitely that God is not the 
 author of sin ; that God ordains only good, but 
 permits evil. But God, being bound or ham- 
 
304 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 pered by no such human limitations, does not 
 hesitate to declare and affirm explicitly : " I am 
 Jehovah, and there is none else. I form the light 
 and create darkness; I make peace, and create 
 evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things " 
 (Isa. 45: 6, 7). And again it is said by the in- 
 spired writer that " an evil spirit from God came 
 mightily upon Saul" (1 Sam. 18: 10), and simi- 
 larly again and again. These obviously are not 
 definitive statements ; for God's nature or meth- 
 ods cannot be stated in human words ; but they 
 are suggestions of the truth that God is over all 
 that we know or know of. 
 
 "His greatness is unsearchable" (Psa. 145: 
 3). So of every Bible statement as to God's 
 foreknowing or predestinating: they are sug- 
 gestions of a truth that can cheer and inspire 
 man ; they are not a declaration or a definition of 
 God's power or plans in the inconceivable eter- 
 nity. 
 
 Human writers are careful to insist that God 
 never causes man to sin. But God in his Word, 
 as if not careful to consider the bounds of human 
 beliefs, records as to a particular individual such 
 distinct and seemingly inconsistent statements of 
 fact as these : " I [the Lord] will harden Pha- 
 raoh's heart" (Exod. 7: 3). "And Jehovah 
 hardened the heart of Pharaoh" (Exod. 9: 12). 
 
Can Man Define Infinite Truth 305 
 
 And again, " Pharaoh hardened his [own] 
 heart" (Exod. 8: 32). And yet again, without 
 saying who was the cause of the evil doing, 
 " Pharaoh's heart was hardened " (Exod. 7: 22). 
 These and other seeming contradictions in 
 God's Word, and these hopeless inconsistencies 
 in man's methods of thought and statement, are 
 but added illustrations of the different aims and 
 purposes of the two documents. God's Word 
 suggests to man truths about God that cannot 
 be expressed or denned in human language. 
 Man's systems ^of theology are at the best 
 attempts to show that man understands and can 
 explicitly and accurately explain God's plan and 
 purposes with reference to creation and to cre- 
 ated beings. They are vain human efforts to 
 comprehend the incomprehensible, to explain 
 the inexplicable, to fix limits to the illimitable, 
 and to define in human words the indefinable 
 characteristics of the spiritual, the infinite, 
 the ineffable, and the eternal. Of course, 
 the attempt is a hopeless one. God, on 
 the other hand, suggests to man in human 
 words in the Bible what will inform and guide 
 him in his duties and dangers, his privileges and 
 possibilities, and the enabling power and assist- 
 ance he can have from God in God's service and 
 in aiding those whom God loves and whom God 
 
306 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 privileges man to aid. But God does not attempt 
 to define to man in the Bible pages explicit char- 
 acteristics and specific methods of God. For 
 these cannot be made clear to man, even by God, 
 while man is finite and God is ever infinite, and 
 while man is in time, which changes and passes 
 away, and God is in eternity, which is ever the 
 same, and which is incomprehensible to finite man 
 while he is in time. 
 
 God is more and vaster and better than any 
 definition or description of him as given to man 
 in any human system of doctrine. With the pass- 
 ing ages we grow beyond some conceptions of 
 God and of his ways which our fathers held to 
 and prized, but we have not given up enough of 
 these errors so long as we cling to the thought 
 that there is or has been Time, or its measures 
 or uses, in Eternity, or with God. , 
 
 After the above was written, and was read by 
 the Rev. Professor Dr. E. T. Bartlett, of the 
 Episcopal Divinity School, of Philadelphia, he 
 called the writer's attention to St. Augustine on 
 this very subject. In his De Doctrina Christiana 
 (Bk. I, ch. VI), written A. D. 397, St. Augustine, 
 after speaking of the Trinity in metaphysical 
 terms and definitions, as compared to the Atha- 
 nasian creed, says: 
 
 " Have we said anything or given utterance to 
 
Can Man Define Infinite Truth 307 
 
 anything worthy of God? On the contrary, I 
 feel only that I have wished to speak. But if I 
 have spoken, it is not that which I wished to say. 
 Whence do I know this, except because God is 
 ineffable? But that which has been said by me, 
 if it were ineffable, could not have been said. 
 And also for this reason God may not be said 
 even to be ineffable, viz., because when even that 
 is said, something is said. And then an inde- 
 scribable conflict of words follows, because if 
 that is ineffable which cannot be said, then it is 
 not ineffable because it can be at least said to be 
 ineffable. This conflict of words is avoided by 
 silence rather than reconciled by speech. And 
 yet when nothing worthy of God can be said, 
 nevertheless he allows the human voice to render 
 its service, and wishes us to rejoice in his praise 
 with our words. For thence it is that he is even 
 called God (Deus). For it is not really in the 
 sound of those two syllables that he himself be- 
 comes known; but nevertheless all who know 
 the Latin language are moved by the sound of 
 those syllables to think of a nature that is most 
 excellent and immortal. " 
 Again St. Augustine says : 
 " God is known better by not knowing." 
 " Of him the soul has no knowledge, except 
 knowing that it does not know him." 
 
308 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 " And what shall we do ? Shall we be silent ? 
 Would that that were permitted ! For peradven- 
 ture by being silent some thought might be 
 framed worthy of a subject ineffable." 
 
 St. Augustine might indeed seem almost as 
 careless, even if not unsound, in precise theolog- 
 ical statements, as the Bible. 
 
SCRIPTURE INDEX 
 
 GENESIS 
 
 TEXT PAGE 
 I : 26 247 
 
 i : 26, 27 267 
 
 2:3 Ill 
 
 2:7 266 
 
 3 : iS 53 
 
 12 : 1-4 53 
 
 15 : 1-6 53 
 
 15 : 6 283 
 
 17 : 14 263 
 
 18 : 17-19 53 
 
 29-31 241 
 
 29 : 20 215 
 
 31 : 44-53 2 42 
 
 3 1 '• 49 ai i 2 4 2 
 
 49 : 10 240 
 
 EXODUS 
 
 7:3 304 
 
 8 : 32 305 
 
 9 '• I2 3°4 
 
 12 : 49 51 
 
 13 : 2 no 
 
 19 : 10, 11 no 
 
 19 : 14 no 
 
 19 : 23 in 
 
 20 : 6 63 
 
 23 : 4, 5 5i 
 
 28 : 41 no 
 
 29 : 27 in 
 
 29 • 43, 44 " J 
 
 30 : 12 262 
 
 40 : 11 in 
 
 LEVITICUS 
 
 8 : 30 no 
 
 17 : 14 262 
 
 19 : 17, 18 51 
 
 19 : 18 31 
 
 *9 : 34 51 
 
 20 : 7 no 
 
 26 : 28 239 
 
 27 : 14-22 112 
 
 NUMBERS 
 
 TEXT PAGE 
 
 5 : 22 288, 289 
 
 7:1 in 
 
 11 : 18 in 
 
 20 : 13 112 
 
 31 : 28 263 
 
 31 : 50 262 
 
 DEUTERONOMY 
 
 5 : 12 in 
 
 6:4-9 50 
 
 6^5 3 1 
 
 7 : 7> 8,13 53 
 
 25 : 15 126 
 
 27 : 1 1-26 289 
 
 32 : 51 112 
 
 JOSHUA 
 
 3:5 i" 
 
 7 : 13 no 
 
 1 SAMUEL 
 
 16 : 5 in 
 
 17 : 45 66 
 
 18 : 10 304 
 
 19 : 20 ...... 249 
 
 2 SAMUEL 
 
 12 ; 7 233 
 
 22 : 11 256 
 
 1 KINGS 
 12 : 14 . . 236, 237, 238 
 
 1 CHRONICLES 
 
 12 : 38 126 
 
 15 : 12, 14 in 
 
 2 CHRONICLES 
 
 20 : 7 53 
 
 29 : 5 in 
 
 NEHEMIAH 
 3:1 .. # .... in 
 
 13 : 22 in 
 
 JOB 
 
 TEXT PAGE 
 
 1 : J 4 249 
 
 2:4 26, 262 
 
 32 : 8 264 
 
 PSALMS 
 
 4:5 153 
 
 J 7 : 13-15 269 
 
 17 : 15 268 
 
 18 : 10 256 
 
 27 : 6 153 
 
 27 : 10 54 
 
 3* : 5 264 
 
 3 1 : 19 54 
 
 34 : 22 263 
 
 35 : 9 263 
 
 5 1 : 5 178, 179 
 
 5 1 : *7 ^53 
 
 63 : 1, 3 54 
 
 94 : 12 237 
 
 103 : 8, 10, 12, 13 . . 54 
 
 107 : x 5 54 
 
 118 : 1 54 
 
 119 : 126-128 ... 63 
 145 > 3 3°4 
 
 PROVERBS 
 
 6:6 34 
 
 13 : 24 14, 239 
 
 16 : 2 265 
 
 18 : 10 ...... 66 
 
 23 : 20 13 
 
 23 : 31 34 
 
 25 : 21, 22 51 
 
 z6 : 4 12 
 
 26 : 5 12 
 
 ECCLESIASTES 
 
 3 : 21 266 
 
 12 ; 7 266 
 
 ISAIAH 
 
 1 : "-*7 x 53 
 
 26 : 9 264 
 
 28 : 9 180 
 
 309 
 
310 
 
 Our Misunderstood Bible 
 
 TEXT PAGE 
 
 40 : 30, 31 215 
 
 42 : 1 267 
 
 43 : i-3 55 
 
 45 : 6, 7 304 
 
 49 : J 5 ...... 55 
 
 55 : 3 263 
 
 63 •• 16 55 
 
 64 : 6 21 
 
 66 : J 3 55 
 
 JEREMIAH 
 
 3:4^ 55 
 
 28 : 6 290 
 
 3i : 3 56 
 
 EZEKIEL 
 
 10 : 14 255 
 
 18 : 31 265 
 
 20 : 41 112 
 
 28 : 15 126 
 
 34 : 31 56 
 
 36 : 23 112 
 
 HOSEA 
 2 : 23 56 
 
 JOEL 
 
 2 : 15, 16 no 
 
 MICAH 
 6 : 7> 8 63 
 
 ZEPHANIAH 
 
 3 : 17 • • .... 56 
 
 ZECHARIAH 
 
 2:8 56 
 
 10 : n 240 
 
 MALACHI 
 
 1:2 56 
 
 2 : 10 56 
 
 2 : 15 176 
 
 3 : 16, 17 ..... 56 
 4:6 176 
 
 MATTHEW 
 
 5:8 119 
 
 5 : " 69 
 
 5 = T 7"2o 57 
 
 5 : 18 288 
 
 5 : 38 25 
 
 5 : 43-48 128 
 
 5 : 48 125 
 
 6 : 22 123 
 
 TEXT 
 
 6 : 24 . 
 
 7 : 21 . 
 
 8 : 10 . 
 
 9 : x 3 • 
 7 • 
 
 x 5 
 17 
 
 28 
 
 39 
 
 28-30 
 
 29 
 
 18 
 
 15 
 
 41, 42 
 
 24 
 
 26 
 1-4 
 
 3 
 
 21 
 
 22 
 
 40 
 
 *9 
 
 23 
 
 31-46 
 
 32 
 
 6 
 
 PAGE 
 123 
 
 58 
 288 
 
 95 
 229 
 288 
 
 69 
 
 264 
 
 69 
 210 
 211 
 267 
 82 
 58 
 130 
 263 
 181 
 204 
 127 
 
 x 39 
 
 31 
 
 "3 
 
 58 
 
 58 
 
 138 
 
 276 
 
 MARK 
 
 3 : 28 288 
 
 8 : 12 288 
 
 4 : 12 82 
 
 8 : 34 x 3° 
 
 8 : 35 *4° 
 
 9 : 17-25 203 
 
 10 : 14 180 
 
 10 : 15 204 
 
 10 : 38 139 
 
 12 : 32, 33 52 
 
 12 : 33 63 
 
 14 : 21 25 
 
 15 : 21 138 
 
 15 : 46 275 
 
 16 : 6 276 
 
 16 : 15 ...... 230 
 
 LUKE 
 
 4 : 24 288 
 
 5 : 3i 95 
 
 9 • 2 3 J 3Q 
 
 7 : 2 4 249 
 
 9 : 23, 24 140 
 
 9 : 5i 249 
 
 10 : 27 52 
 
 10 : 28 52 
 
 10 : 40 219 
 
 10 : 41, 42 220 
 
 TEXT PAGE 
 
 12 : 37 288 
 
 12 : 47 59 
 
 14 : 26, 27 139 
 
 16 : 15 37 
 
 18 ; 17 124 
 
 19 : 1Q 95 
 
 22 : 32 81, 82 
 
 23 : 26 138 
 
 24 : 12 276 
 
 24 : 27 30 
 
 JOHN 
 
 1 : 51 288 
 
 3^3 9 2 
 
 3:7 9 2 
 
 3 : 16 6 4 
 
 5:8 213 
 
 5 •* *-*7 2 *3 
 
 5 : 19 288 
 
 6 : 26 288 
 
 6 : 60 125 
 
 6 : 63 25 
 
 7 : 37 44 
 
 7 : 39 7 2 
 
 8 : 12 -45 
 
 8 : 56 62 
 
 8 : 58 62 
 
 11 : 5 221 
 
 11 : 44 275 
 
 12 : 40 82 
 
 14 : 13 6 5> 67 
 
 14 : 14 66 
 
 14 : 15, 21, 23, 24 . . 59 
 14 : 16, 17 73 
 
 14 : 20 66 
 
 15 : 10, 14 59 
 
 16 : 23, 24 65 
 
 17 = ii- x 3 6 7 
 
 17 : i7- J 9 "4 
 
 19 : 17, 18 138 
 
 20 : 6-8 276 
 
 ACTS 
 
 1:8 73 
 
 2:4 74 
 
 2 : 38 74 
 
 2 : 39 . 182 
 
 3 : 19 82 
 
 4^8 74 
 
 4 : 12 68 
 
 5 : 32 74 
 
 6:5 74 
 
 8 : 26-40 232 
 
 8 : 30, 31 ... . 24, 29 
 
 9 : 31 ........ • 74 
 
 10 : 44 75 
 
Scripture Index 
 
 311 
 
 TEXT PAGE 
 
 " : 24 74 
 
 J 3 : 9 74 
 
 13 : 52 73 
 
 19 : 2, 6 75 
 
 28 : 27 82 
 
 ROMANS 
 
 2 ; 5-11 60 
 
 3 : 3 1 60 
 
 5 : 20 98, 177 
 
 8 : 26, 27 76 
 
 " : 33 295 
 
 13 : 8, 10 63 
 
 1 CORINTHIANS 
 
 1 : 21 231 
 
 2:11 265 
 
 3 : J 6, 17 115 
 
 4 : 10 69 
 
 5:5 265 
 
 6:3 248 
 
 6 : 17 265 
 
 7 : *4 "3 
 
 7 : 34 265 
 
 8 : 13 21 
 
 13 : 2, 3 102 
 
 14 : 16 288 
 
 14 : 33 48 
 
 15 : 21-23 2 7 2 
 
 15 : 22 169 
 
 15 : 35-44 273 
 
 *5 : 51-54 27 2 
 
 15 : 52 276 
 
 2 CORINTHIANS 
 
 1 : 20 288 
 
 5 : 10, 11 60 
 
 7:1 • 265 
 
 9-7 146 
 
 12 : 4 296 
 
 GALATIANS 
 
 TEXT PAGE 
 4:6 76 
 
 5 : 22, 23 76 
 
 5 : 25 76 
 
 6 : 2, 5 . . .... 13 
 
 6 : 7 97 
 
 EPHESIANS 
 
 4 : 15 "7 
 
 5 : 25-27 116 
 
 PHILIPPIANS 
 
 2:5 106 
 
 2 : 12 103 
 
 2 : 12, 13 106 
 
 4 : "-13 *3 6 
 
 COLOSSIANS 
 
 2 : 21, 22 21 
 
 3 : 22 34 
 
 1 THESSALONIANS 
 
 5 : 23 115,264 
 
 5:6-8 10 
 
 2 THESSALONIANS 
 
 1 : 7-10 61 
 
 1 TIMOTHY 
 
 4 : 4, 5 "3 
 
 2 TIMOTHY 
 
 2 : 15 18 
 
 3 : l6 > *7 20 
 
 HEBREWS 
 
 1 : 14 248 
 
 2 : 11 113 
 
 2 : 13 183, 185 
 
 4 : 12 17 
 
 TEXT PAGE 
 5 : II, 12 18 
 
 11 : 27 122 
 
 12 : 5, 6 236 
 
 12 : 7 236 
 
 12 : 8 236 
 
 12 : 14 114 
 
 12 : 19 238 
 
 JAMES 
 
 1:8 123, 225 
 
 2 : 20, 24, 26 ... . 61 
 3:2 127 
 
 1 PETER 
 
 1 : 12 248 
 
 2 PETER 
 
 2:9 61 
 
 2 : 10 265 
 
 3:8 300 
 
 3 : 15, 16 18 
 
 3 : 18 117 
 
 1 JOHN 
 
 2 : 3, 4 61 
 
 3 : 7, 8 61 
 
 4 : 10, 11 64 
 
 4 : 16 62 
 
 5:3 62 
 
 2 JOHN 
 
 6 62 
 
 REVELATION 
 
 3 : 14 283 
 
 14 : 9, 10 62 
 
 19 : 20 62 
 
 21 297 
 
 21 : 8 62 
 
 21 : 16 298 
 
APR 27 1907 
 
 Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
 Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
 Treatment Date: May 2005 
 
 PreservationTechnologies 
 
 A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
 
 1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
 Cranberry Township. PA 1606H 
 (724)779-2111