ページの画像
PDF
ePub

Verses 20, 21, and 22, are a repetition and enlargement of verses 17 and 18. We quote again verse 23:

“And he took up this parable, and said,

Woe, who shall live, when God doth thus?"

This evidently refers again to verse 19, "And a ruler shall come out," &c. The mere mention of the parallel passages will demonstrate beyond contradiction that the events here spoken of are nothing less than those attending Christ's second coming. They are Matth. xxiv. 21, 22; Rev. ix. 6.

We will not venture to give just now our views of verse 24, and merely quote the words of Hengstenberg: "A power which comes from the west in ships oppresses the oppressors of God's people Ashur; oppress especially the Trans-Euphratean land, and effects a destruction not less than on Amalek, which falls on these powerful states as a retribution for what they had inflicted on the people of God.” “Chittim originally means Cyprus."

Thus far for Balaam's predictions-his end is well known to our readers.

But we cannot take leave of the subject without saying a word to the translator. While we own that many and great difficulties must lie in the way of translating such a work, yet it seems unintelligible to us, how (except he was much pressed for time) he could present such a book to the public. We cannot speak of the merits of the translation, as translation, not having the German original by us, though we would take the liberty of saying, that Eingeistung means not "a state of spiritual activity, but " an entering" into it. But we will let the reader judge for himself of these specimens. Speaking of Simon Magus, it is said, "Yet even his heart was not entirely without a share.” Of what? Again: "This is shown by the fact of his baptism by the Apostles, which without (!!) is not explicable," (p. 351,) passages of which Steudel could only get rid by the unnatural, and yet to be shown false opinions," &c. We read, page 367, "but against this view decides the idea of Jehovah already uttered in the verse: in this the absolutely independent province, the discourse cannot be of force and compulsion," &c. Again, p. 370, "he hopes that God from favour to his passion, will change his will, and, consequently, change his essence upon which his will rests." We presume this is a verbatim translation from "Sein Wesen verläugnen, worauf Sein Willeberuht"; but surely any man who undertakes to present the public with a work, ought to know, without being told it, that such phrases may be good German, but are unintelligible English. Without multiplying farther instances, we would just say that we had often to retranslate men

66

tally into German, sentences, or the entire meaning would else have been hid to us. Surely the publisher, in justice to himself, the German author, and the English public, ought to take care, and not to hurry up works in a half crude state. In justice, however, to Mr Ryland, the translator from p. 404, we must observe, that we mean our criticism to apply only to the labours of his predecessor, the Rev. T. T. Brown. Mr Ryland's translation has none of the faults spoken of above.

We have taken up so much space, that we cannot enter on a consideration of the other Dissertations which the volume before us contains, and we will merely remark, the scholar will find them well worth his anxious study and careful examination.

ART. V.-Christ's Second Coming: Will it be_Pre-Millennial? By the Rev. DAVID BROWN. Edinburgh: John Johnstone. 1846.

FOURTH ARTICLE.

Let us next take up Mr Brown's exposition of the eleventh of Isaiah.* It is very general. He seems to avoid detail, and to content himself with a mere sketch of what he considers the meaning of the passage. This is the more to be regretted, because the prediction is one which comprises not a few particulars or details; and the main question to be settled by the expositor is how to deal with, or dispose of, these details. Mr B. is quite positive that the whole is figurative, and points out some things which, he conceives, put this "beyond all reasonable doubt," as well as render the literal view "preposterous," nay, "ludicrous." As, however, we can see nothing preposterous or ludicrous in the literal view; nay, as this appears to us the natural and obvious one, we shall examine Mr B.'s statements with as much fulness as our limits permit.

We differ from him in his commencing remark, "that the ultimate universal peacefulness of Christ's kingdom is traced to two things, to the destruction of the Antichristian interest on the one hand; and, on the other, the all-pervading presence and influence of Gospel truth." On this we remark,

1. That the prophet cannot mean the" Antichristian interest" alone when he speaks of "the earth." He must mean something more. The earth and the Antichristian interest are not synony

mous.

2. That the prophet is not speaking of an "interest,” but of a

* P. 200.

person or persons. The Hebrew word is in the singular. Lowth translated it "the wicked one?" the Septuagint give it doen, and the Vulgate impium. Mr Brown feels that his theory requires him to transmute this personal into an abstract expression; but he has given us no reason for the transmutation. When Scripture predicts a person or persons, why should we be so anxious to show that it means merely an "interest" or a cause? Does not this taking refuge in the abstractions, lead one to suspect that the theory which can only keep its ground by converting the personality of Scripture into abstractions, must be at variance with the word of God? What makes the passage clearer and more definite is the reference which the Apostle Paul makes to it in his second Epistle to the Thessalonians,-a reference which Mr Brown admits. We cannot enter on this point here. We merely remark, that as we hope to be able to prove that the Apostle's statement concerns a person or persons, not an "interest;" and also, that as he makes it clear that the destruction of Antichrist is by the Lord himself at his second coming, we may say here that the two passages thus placed together are quite at variance with Mr B.'s theory, and cannot be pressed into his service by any such abstract interpretation as he gives, an interpretation which appears to us to dig the very heart out of the Bible.

3. That the "all-pervading presence and influence of Gospel truth" is not the only thing to which we are to ascribe the holy blessedness of these days. Its source is twofold:-First, the presence of the Holy Spirit; and, secondly, the presence of Christ. We are surprised that he has not noticed this. We can see how he, according to his theory, should deny the presence of Christ as the cause; but he will at once admit the presence of the Holy Spirit. Might he not rather say that we are to ascribe "the ultimate universal peacefulness of Christ's kingdom to the all-pervading presence and influence of the Holy Ghost." Gospel truth is but the instrument; it is the Spirit that is the agent, both in the present age and in that which is to

come.

4. That there is to be a restoration of the Paradisaical state of the earth. This Mr Brown denies. But it is this that the prophet appears to us directly to predict, when he says "the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid," &c. It is generally admitted that the state of the lower creation in Paradise was one of harmony, and that it was sin that introduced the discord. Or, using the language of the passage in question, it is admitted that, in Paradise, the wolf did dwell with the lamb, the leopard did lie down with the kid, the calf

and the young lion and the fatling were together, the cow and the bear did feed, and their young ones lay down together, and the lion did eat straw like the ox. It was sin that broke the tie, and set these creatures a-warring with each other. It was man's transgression that drew down the ruin upon creation, animate and inanimate. If such was the harmony of creation's original estate, where can we find words more exactly descriptive of it than those of Isaiah? Hence Milton has adopted them, and in the following lines sketched the joy and perfection of the primæval condition of the creatures,

"About them frisking played

All beasts of the earth, since wild, and of all chase

In wood or wilderness, forest or den.

Sporting the lion ramped, and in his paw

Dandled the kid; bears, tigers, ounces, pards
Gambolled before them."

Since, then, it is universally admitted that, in Paradise, creation did exist in that very state which the language of the prophet, literally taken, would describe, are we doing violence to that language when we understand it as teaching a restoration to that which was the primæval condition of the creature, when first it came out of the hands of God? And are not those who spiritualise the prophetic picture diverting the words entirely from their simple and explicit meaning?

Further, the present state of creation is such as to confirm our interpretation, for it is precisely the reverse of what the Prophet here leads us to look forward to; so that no language could more aptly describe the present condition of the creature than this of the prophet reversed. "The whole creation groaneth," as the Apostle teaches us (Rom. viii. 22); and Mr Robert Haldane, in his exposition of that passage in the Epistle to the Romans, writes thus-"The lower animals have largely shared in the sufferings of man; they are made to be taken and destroyed,' and they devour one another." If, then, the reverse of the Prophet's language, taken literally, describe the present state of things on earth, why should not that language itself, taken literally, set forth the future condition of creation in millennial times? Is there any difficulty or unlikelihood about this? Are we doing violence to Scripture by taking it literally? Are we not adopting the simple and natural meaning, from which no one would have thought of departing, had it not been for a theory standing in the way.

Vol. ii. p. 289.

But further still, it is a curious fact that all our poets, in painting the earth's future days of blessedness, have at once taken for granted the literality of the prophet's words. Even the heathen Virgil thus sings of that time:

.. Nec magnas metuent armenta leones; Occidet et serpens, et fallax herba veneni Occidet..

And Pope, paraphrasing the prophet, thus writes in his "Messiah:"

“The lambs with wolves shall graze the verdant mead
And boys in flowery banks the tiger lead.

The steer and lion at one crib shall meet,

And harmless serpents lick the pilgrim's feet.

Cowper, too, in the conclusion of the Task, thus paints the promised scenes of peace and creature-harmony:—

“The lion, and the libbard, and the bear

Graze with the fearless flocks; all bask at noon
Together, or all gambol in the shade

Of the same grove, and drink one common stream.
Antipathies are none. No foe to man

Lurks in the serpent now; the mother sees
And smiles to see her infant's playful hand

Stretched forth to dally with the crested worm,

To stroke his azure neck, or to receive

The lambent homage of his arrowy tongue."

Pollok, also, sketching the same scenes, anticipates the same restoration of universal harmony throughout creation in all its tribes:

"The animals, as once in Eden, lived

In peace.

The wolf dwelt with the lamb, the bear

And leopard with the ox.

With looks of love

The tiger and the scaly crocodile

Together met at Gambia's palmy wave.

Perched on the eagle's wing, the bird of song
Singing arose and visited the sun;

And with the falcon sat the gentle lark.

The little child leaped from his mother's arms
And stroked the crested snake, and rolled unhurt
Among his speckled waves, and wished him home;
And sauntering schoolboys slow returning played
Alone about the lion's den, and wove
Into his shaggy mane, fantastic flowers.
To meet the husbandman, early abroad
Hasted the deer, and waved its woody head,
And round his dewy steps, the hare, unscared,
Sported and toyed familiar with his dog.'

« 前へ次へ »