Memory takes me back across the years to an evening when I sat in our home on the farm at the feet of an itinerant preacher, and listened to his words of counsel. The family reading for the evening (there was always family reading) was John 21. After the reading the visitor conversed on the ambiguity of the question, "Lovest thou me more than these?" I was but a country lad, and had had few opportunities of hearing expositions of Scripture passages, and I listened eagerly to the preacher as he expounded this passage. The incident made an indelible impression on my mind, and helped to create an interest in the rich veins of truth that the Scriptures present for our study.

      This is a peculiarity of the Word of God--that its richest treasures do not all lie on the surface, to be discovered and appropriated by any casual passer-by. The ambiguity of some passages, which to the objector is an occasion for criticism, is to the devout reader a source of ever-increasing interest. "God hath yet more light and truth to break from his holy word." A diligent study of the Scriptures results in ever-increasing discoveries of the inexhaustible sources of instruction the book contains.

      In the following studies A. B. Main, M.A., has brought to his readers the results of wide re-search and clear thinking. Principal Main's long experience as an instructor in the courses in the New Testament at the College of the Bible have prepared him to an unusual degree to become an expositor of the Word, and the pen of a ready writer has enabled him clearly to express the results of his investigations. The studies are a unique addition to our literature of Bible exposition. They will be of value in Bible Classes and other meetings where the Scriptures are studied, and will be appreciated by individuals who love to search the deep things of God.

T. H. Scambler.      

      "Oh, how I love thy law! It is my meditation all the day." It would mean much for his own spiritual well-being and for the advancement of the church of God if every Christian could truthfully make the announcement of the Psalmist. For it remains true, as the ancient Scriptures taught, and as our Lord Jesus Christ declared, that "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

"Hard to be understood."

      We have the authority of an apostle of Christ for the view that in the Scriptures are "some things hard to be understood." There need be no wonder at this. The way of salvation is made so plain that "the wayfaring man, though unlearned, shall not err therein." The vital things are most clearly revealed, and no one of humblest estate is so handicapped by lack of leisure, wealth or learning, that he may not know enough to have the blessed assurance of redemption through Jesus Christ his Lord. But yet the Scriptures are to us as an inexhaustible mine of wealth much of which can

only be extracted by diligent and unremitting labor. Why should we expect all to be easy here, when we have to earn our daily bread in the sweat of our brow? Seeing there is need of the most painstaking study and application on the part of one who would advance in scientific knowledge and read the lessons of "Nature's infinite book of secrecy," why should there not be a similar demand for diligence, and even strenuous study on the Part of those who would understand the riches of grace, the treasures of divine wisdom, hidden in the Scriptures? It is not unreasonable that Peter should write that "the ignorant and unstedfast" wrest the hard sayings of Scripture "unto their own destruction."

      The numerous conflicting interpretations of Scripture heal, witness, in part, to the inherent difficulty of the sayings. They may more often be attributed to ignorance and lack of stedfastness on the part of the interpreters. Our present writing, however, is not concerned with such passages. It is our purpose to give a series of studies of texts which can legitimately be rendered or interpreted in more than one way. The student of Holy Scripture knows that there are many such passages. It may be of interest to those who cannot give much time to minute study of the text, or who are wont to read from one version alone to deal with some of these "ambiguous texts".

Variant readings.

      Sometimes the varieties of renderings given in the different translations are due to the fact that the readings of the manuscripts vary. No New Testament manuscript extant goes back beyond the fourth century. That there are many divergent readings is not surprising, and the fact is made plain in the marginal readings an d references of our English Revised Version. Some of the differences in the texts of the common and revised versions, and again in the English revision as compared with the American Standard Revised Version, are due to the adoption by the translators of different Greek readings.

      In Moffatt's New Translation, again, we occasionally have renderings and alterations due to his choice of a Greek text which was not adopted by most other translators. Instances of variant readings both in Old Testament and New will readily occur to most readers. The omission from our Revised Version of such passages as Acts 8:37, John 5:4, 1 John 5:7, and Matthew 18:11, is due to the fact that the revisers felt that the great weight of manuscript authority was against the readings. The familiar words of "the Lord's Prayer," "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever, Amen" are for a like reason excluded from Matthew's record. Similarly, the third petition of the prayer ("Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth") and the words "Deliver us from the evil one," are omitted from Luke's account, though "many ancient authorities" include them. Many such instances occur.

      Where there is not omission, there may be great variation. For instance, the remarkable difference between the common and the revised rendering of Jude 22 and 23 is largely due to uncertainty in the reading of the Greek text. In Mark 7:4 our translation has the words "wash themselves" where the American version has the more definite "bathe"--each being given as a rendering of the Greek word "baptise" but the marginal note indicates that there is an alternative Greek rendering "sprinkle themselves." Curiously, this has led some to think that our translators meant that the Greek word "baptizo" could legitimately be translated by "sprinkle," than which nothing can be more unfounded. The contrary is the case; some manuscripts have "rantizo," which of course would be translated by "sprinkle"; but our translators (English or American) did not suggest that "baptizo" could possibly be so translated.

Ambiguities and doubtful applications.

      There are in the Greek text ambiguities of construction. This is not strange, for we have

similar ambiguities in English and other languages. Shakespeare's line, "The Duke yet lives that Henry shall depose," is a well-known example of amphiboly or ambiguity of structure. There are similar ambiguities in the New Testament. One of the best known of these is "Lovest thou me more than these?" which will later he dealt with in detail.

      Some ambiguous texts are of a different kind. The application of a word may be doubtful. For instance, the word "pneuma" is used of the human spirit and of the Holy Spirit. It is not easy in some places to say whether the reference is to the divine or the human. Our translators have indicated the difference by the use of the capital "S" where in their judgment the Holy Spirit is meant. The great majority of the passages are clear and simple, but in some cases there is ambiguity. An excellent illustration is found in Rom. 8:4 and 5. Our English Revised Version reads: "That the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the spirit the things of the spirit." The Common Version and the American Standard Revised Version both read "Spirit." All three versions make verse 9 ("if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his") refer to the Holy Spirit, though many preachers in their sermons on this text wrongfully speak as if "the Spirit of Christ" merely meant his character or disposition. The three versions named all again agree that 1 Cor. 2:12 should read: "We received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God." The word is "pneuma" in each case.

      A similar confusion may arise with the word "psukee," which stands either for "soul" or "life." Compare, for example, the following passages in common and revised versions: Matt. 10:28, 39; 16:25, 26; Mark 8:35-37; Luke 9:24, 25; in each case the word "life" or "soul" is the translation of "psukee." Other cases will probably readily occur to the reader.

      In this series of studies we wish chiefly to consider another kind of alternative readings, viz., those due not to divergent readings in the Greek texts, but to the fact that there are various ways of rendering the one text. Every student of language knows that there may be several equally legitimate translations of the same text. Hence our different helpful English versions of the Bible.

Meanings change.

      Some of our variant translations and interpretations are due to the fact that language grows and words change their meanings. This is so with English words, and explains some of the alterations made in our Revised Version. "By and by" now means "after a time"; in 1611, when King James's version was issued, it meant "at once" or "forthwith" (compare C.V. and R.V. of Mark 6:25). "Prevent" once meant to "come before" or "anticipate" and has this meaning in 1 Thess. 4:15 where the Revised Version rightly renders "precede." The "let" of 2 Thess. 2:7 used to mean "hinder"; hence the revised reading "restraineth."

      Similarly Greek words changed their meaning with the passing centuries. Sometimes it is difficult to decide between the older and newer meanings, and hence the text is to us ambiguous. In part, the meaning of the phrase in the Commission relating to baptism is thus open to question. Is the baptism "into" or "in" the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? The Revised Version gives the former rendering, which seems to give a much richer meaning. Another case is found in Luke 6:35, where the revisers substituted for the common reading "hoping for nothing again" the more significant words "never despairing." We shall later deal more specifically with this interesting passage.

      Some texts are ambiguous to us because of the lack of punctuation marks in the Greek manuscripts. We to-day may indicate the difference between a question and a statement both

by the insertion of a mark of interrogation at the end, or by a variation in the order of the words. Even without the interrogation point, no one could fail to discriminate between these sentences--"He did eat" and "Did he eat." But with Greek it was not so. If we had had the interrogation point in our admittedly correct text, there could be no question whether 1 Cor. 1:13 should be translated "Christ is divided" or "Is Christ divided?" Yet see R.V. margin. It is because of this kind of ambiguity that some ingenious interpreters have, quite unnecessarily and rather quaintly, sought to get rid of the well known difficulty in connection with Christ's cursing of the barren fig-tree by altering the translation of Mark 11:13 from "it was not the season of figs" to "was it not the season of figs?"

      We are not suggesting that where there is ambiguity in the structure of a sentence, there is no way of arriving definitely at the meaning. The context may make the reference quite plain.

Ours the difficulty.

      It should be noted, also, that the texts which are ambiguous to us were not necessarily so to the persons to whom they were originally written or spoken. With spoken words the tone or emphasis may assist to make the meaning plain. Take, for instance, the written question, "Did you walk to Melbourne yesterday morning?" According as the speaker accentuates different words, that question has seven different meanings; but when spoken by anyone the emphasis would indicate the precise inquiry, and elicit the appropriate answer. Again, the current meanings of terms, and shades of expression, would he familiar to those who read the New Testament writings or listened to the teaching of Christ and his apostles, as they are not known to us. At times, a gesture or look would illuminate the expression. Thus, doubtless, all ambiguity would be banished from the question of Jesus to Peter, "Lovest thou me more

than these?" Probably, also, would this have obviated any difficulty in that much discussed statement of Christ's, "Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church."

      It will frequently he the case that in whichever possible and legitimate way we read an ambiguous passage we can derive helpful and beautiful lessons from it. So the loss need not be great even if we cannot wholly remove the ambiguity. In our studies, we shall attempt to put fairly the differing views and the supplementary lessons drawn from the texts, while at the same time we shall indicate a preference and give reasons for one reading rather than another.

Our attitude.

      As we approach the Sacred Oracles once again, and seek to understand the divine truths therein revealed for our growth in grace and knowledge, the appropriate prayer of our heart may be that expressed in Charles Wesley's hymn:

      There is no more familiar verse of Scripture than John 5:39, and no exhortation is more common or more needful than "Search the Scriptures."

      So constant and simple is this reading of the famous passage that some Christians may wonder at our including the verse among ambiguous texts. The reason will be apparent if the Revised Version, both text and margin, is read. The verse is thus translated:

      "Ye search the Scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they that bear witness of me."

      The marginal reading (Or, "Search the Scriptures") reproduces the rendering of the common version. One of these translations of the word used by Christ is as legitimate as the other. The Greek verb is "ereunate," and may be either imperative ("Search") or indicative ("Ye search").

The need of Bible study.

      When an earnest preacher pleads with people to "Search the Scriptures," he is giving excellent advice, and indicating one of the great needs of the Christian world. The Bible is not studied as once it was. It is not even read very much. We used to warn people against reading books about the Bible rather than the Bible itself. Even that warning may miss the mark in this busy and pleasure-loving age.

      No one can "grow in grace and knowledge" who neglects the Book of God. Our Saviour nourished his own soul on the Scriptures, and re-affirmed that man lives not by bread alone but by every word which proceedeth out of

the mouth of God. The Apostle Paul tells us that the Scriptures are able to make wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. They are profitable for instruction in righteousness, and are given that the man of God may be complete and furnished completely unto every good work. So nobody can he complete or completely furnished who neglects the sacred writings.

      The verse penned on the fly-leaf of John Richard Green's Bible sets forth a truth:

      "I fear you are ill," said Dr. Latham to Faraday, whom he found in tears with his hand resting on an open book. "It is not that," said Faraday with a sob; "but why will people go astray when they have this blessed book to guide them?"

The duty of right searching.

      The fifth chapter of John furnishes a good illustration of the fact that the ambiguity which lurks in a word or text when taken by itself may be completely and satisfactorily removed by a study of the context. There need he no real doubt that it is the revised translation, "Ye search the Scriptures," which is correct.

      So certainly is this the right rendering that we confess to a feeling both of surprise and of pain to find preachers and writers obscuring the meaning of the passage by using the other reading. We have heard a Conference Sermon on the duty of Bible study, based on John 5.39, and on the common rendering. It is a pity to begin a carefully prepared address on such a theme with au obvious misinterpretation. Before us lies a book containing helpful interpretations of texts "hard to be understood." The distinguished and scholarly author puts in the preface the following sentences: "We are

told to 'search the Scriptures' (John 5:39). We are not merely to read, but to 'search' for hidden treasures. The meaning of Scripture does not always lie on the surface . . . No attention we pay can be too great or too minute, for the smallest points of Holy Writ have often a deep meaning." The sentiment is excellent, but these lessons are not found in John 5:39.

      Few better working rules can be given to a speaker than that he see that his homiletics harmonise with his exegesis. It is well to resist the temptation to strain a text, or give it a twist in order to illustrate a point or make a sermonic hit. If we wish to inculcate the duty and helpfulness of Bible reading, there are other excellent texts awaiting our use.

      The Jews whom Jesus condemned in the address reported in John 5 did search the Scriptures. Those who were destined to be lawyers or rabbis devoted very much time to their study. The scribes, as their name denoted, mere "scripturalists," and their ideal office was to search into the meaning of the Scriptures. He who so searched felt that he was sure of life everlasting. Rabbi Hillel said, "The more law, the more life." Yet all their study availed little. Though searching the sacred books because they thought that in them they had life, they yet rejected the Christ of whom those very Scriptures testified. Herein is the pathos and tragedy of the Jews' position. They boasted of their privilege as possessors of the oracles of God (the first "advantage" of the Jew; see Rom. 3:2). They professed to reverence these oracles, and certainly they studied them but they missed the meaning of the message. They looked and prayed for the advent of the Messiah, yet knew him not and crucified him when he came.

      So Christ says: "Ye search the Scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me; and ye will not come to me, that ye may, have life." "The intense, misplaced diligence is contrasted with the futile result."

The true function of Scripture.

      Our great text teaches its the true function of Scripture, viz., to testify of Christ and to lead men to him. The Jews believed that in the careful study of the Scriptures, and in the laborious keeping with minute scrupulosity of the requirements of the law, they would find life eternal; but the purpose of God was that the Scriptures should prepare for Jesus Christ, his Son, and lead to him, as the real source of spiritual life.

      No one who uses the Scriptures aright can possibly study them too diligently or prize them too highly. But not even the study of Scripture is an end in itself. Dr. Marcus Dods gave the following continent on John 5:39:" The true function of Scripture is expressed in the words, 'these are they which bear witness of me'; they do not give life, as the Jews thought; they lead to the life-giver. God speaks in Scripture with a definite purpose in view, to testify to Christ; if Scripture does that it does all. But to set it on a level with Christ is to do both it, him, and ourselves grave injustice."

      The Scriptures, the church, the ordinances of our Lord's appointment, must be prized and cherished by every Christian. They are all means, however, and not ends in themselves. Very many of the errors in the realms of religion and morals are due to the turning of means into ends. We do not have life in ordinance, or Bible, or church: we have life in Christ. We need these because we must have him.

      There is a perennial lesson for its all in the well-known text of our study. O the tragedy--to profess to love the Book, and yet not to come to him in whom life is to be found; to know of Christ as revealed in the Scriptures, and yet not to "know him" whom to know is life eternal.

      John 5:39 is not so much an injunction to search the Scriptures as it is a warning against Scripture searching to little purpose.

      In one of the most practical sections of the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord Jesus Christ told his disciples to succor the needy, give to the beggar, and lend freely to those from whom no gain could be expected. Followers of Christ must not be content with the lower standards of others. Sinners love their friends, do good to those who do good to them, and "lend to sinners to receive again as much." To his disciples Jesus gave the following command and promise:

      "Love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest; for he is kind to the unthankful, and to the evil" (Luke 6:35, Common Version).

The difficulty of an ideal.

      While we are here dealing with ambiguities and difficulties in interpretation, it has to be allowed that the greatest difficulty with such a text is the loftiness of the ideal set before us. Which of us can truth fully claim to be carrying out in daily life, as we should, the principles of the Sermon on the Mount? We are told to love our enemies, bless those who curse us, "give to every man that asketh," and "as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Many unbelievers admire the Sermon on the Mount, but doubt its practicability for a world such as this. But what of Christians? Dare they dismiss the words of the Lord as impracticable, or neglect them in daily life? When we are tempted to disregard the teaching as too idealistic let us remember the solemn close of the Sermon. Our Lord said

that whosoever hears and does "these sayings of mine" is wise and like a man who builds on the rock to the salvation of his house; while he who hears and does not is foolish as the man who was involved in inevitable ruin when the floods overwhelmed his house built on the sands. We use this illustration to convince sinners of the duty of primary obedience to the gospel; but let us not forget that the words were given in an address to disciples, and the warning is against our neglect of "these sayings" which include the difficult rules we have quoted.

The general meaning.

      There is no need to press Christ's words to a grotesque extreme, as if with absolute literalness we should allow every hefty vagabond to despoil our goods, and should become the prey of every smooth liar who cares to pitch a tale and wheedle a gift or loan. But scarcely anyone is tempted to that extreme. We are all much more likely to do the opposite, and withhold our compassion and our gifts from the needy. After all, our Lord meant something. His rules about lending to the poor without hope of repayment cannot be dismissed by quoting the essentially worldly-wise advice of Polonius to his son:

      We must not, in order to excuse ourselves, explain Christ's words by explaining them away. It does not follow that we must either give a foolish interpretation to them, or, on the other hand, justify stinginess. We may be quite right in condemning indiscriminate charity given without care and examination; but we must he willing to sacrifice time and money for the helping of our fellows. Christ enjoins a constant willingness to "do good" to others; when gifts and loans will not do good but harm, then they are not enjoined upon us. Till then, as we have the ability, we must seek to help the poor and needy, as brethren of ours and of our Lord. We cannot at once be selfish and Christian.

"Hoping for nothing again."

      It is one phrase, particularly, which brings Luke 6:35 into our present series. According to the Common Version, Jesus said: "Lend, hoping for nothing again." Our English Revised Version and the American Standard Revision both translate, "Lend, never despairing"; while both in the margin indicate that a slight variation in the Greek text of some manuscripts should be translated "despairing of no man."

      The words of the received text are "meedena apelpizontes" The marginal rendering follows the reading "meedena apelpizontes." All English versions prior to the Revised Version are said to have adopted the common view that "apelpizontes," a word used once only in the New Testament, means "hoping for in return." This rendering is based not on the meaning of the word elsewhere found, but on the supposed requirements of the context in Luke 6.

      It is clear that "hoping for nothing again" both fits the context admirably, and makes quite good sense in itself. That it suits the context is easily seen. The Saviour in verse 30 bids us to give, and adds, "Of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again." In verse 34 he deprecates the lending "to them of whom ye hope to receive," saying that "even sinners lend to sinners, to receive again as much." An injunction to "lend, hoping for nothing again" would follow on very naturally.

      The advice, too, is good in itself. It forbids a practice and a spirit all too common. Men do good to get good. They give hospitality to receive greater hospitality. There are social aspirants who reduce to a fine art the throwing out of sprats to catch mackerels. The Lord Jesus forbids such practices absolutely to his disciples. Their benevolence must be disinterested. They work for no earthly advantage, no human approval, no repayment from men.

      If any reader decides to stand by the common translation he need not feel either lonely or ashamed. Rotherham's Emphasised Bible

("hoping for nothing back"), Weymouth's New Testament in Modern Speech ("without hoping for any repayment"), and Moffatt's New Translation ("without expecting any return") all harmonise with the reading of the Common Version; and it would be absurd for us to scorn such au array of authorities.

"Never despairing."

      Yet we must express a preference for the reading of the Revised Version. Apparently Jesus really said, "Love your enemies, and do [them] good, and lend, never despairing."

      In his excellent "Word Studies," Vincent, referring to the original meaning of "apelpizo" ("to give up in despair"), calls attention to the use of the word in this sense in the Greek version of the Old Testament and in the Apocrypha. In 2 Mace. 9:18 we have "despairing of his health," and in Judith 9:11 "a saviour of them that are without hope." The verb and its kindred adjective are used by medical writers to describe desperate cases of sickness. Milligan in his "Vocabulary of the Greek Testament" quotes a phrase describing the "faith cure" of a man who had been "given up."

      The disciple in his good work is never to give up in despair. How often we wonder if we are wasting time on things and folk? What Christian worker but has occasionally asked, "Is this thing worth the effort? In helping people who will neither appreciate nor respond, it is easy to despair. We may think that our time is wasted, the money we give is wholly lost, and the man we assist is beyond recovery. But Christ says: "Do good," "lend, never despairing." It is a needed lesson. "As it stands it gives this sense, 'Lend, and though appearances may be unfavorable, despair not of being repaid,' because you are lending not to man only, but to the Lord,' who will assuredly repay what you have laid out." Your charity has in it a hope of profitable return, not on earth, perhaps, but certainly from your heavenly Father, whose recompense never fails.

      If "meedena" be the right reading, then "despairing of no one" doubtless is the correct rendering, though some competent scholars declare that with this reading the meaning would be "causing no one to despair" by refusing aid. While this translation does not commend itself to us, it illustrates once more the familiar fact that excellent lessons attach themselves to varying renderings and readings.

      Dr. G. R. Bliss, the Baptist commentator, has an interesting note on "never despairing." This, he says, "gives a better text than the Common Version, for charity sermons; but let anniversary preachers and the representatives of benevolent institutions note how and where the reward for Christian benevolence is to be paid. The Saviour's compensation for service to him, and sacrifices in his cause, is better than worldly good, it is an increase of the spirit of beneficence and sacrifice to all eternity."

      Sir George Trevelyan paid a fine tribute to the character of Zachary Macaulay, father of the more famous Lord Macaulay. After speaking of "the unwearied patience with which he managed the colonies of negroes at Sierra Leone," he remarked: "He was not fretted by the folly of others, or irritated by their hostility, because he regarded the humblest or the worst of mankind as objects, equally with himself, of the divine love and care." How excellently this suits our Lord's words in Luke 6 can be seen by any reader.

      As we are tempted to despair of others, let us remember how we must all appear in the sight of God, how wayward and unresponsive. "He is kind toward the unthankful and evil," and we are but asked to imitate him to the extent of our ability. To quote Dr. G. R. Bliss once more: "How few of all the race of men could have lived and had opportunity of happiness, had their Creator and Preserver looked for worthiness and gratitude, not to say recompense, in them!"

      The character of Simon Peter ever attracts us. His numerous faults, his blundering impetuosity and his impulsive love make him wondrously human, and appeal greatly to men. We feel that he is one of ourselves. That Jesus could turn Simon into Peter, the weak denier of his Name into the strong Rock Apostle is one of the wonders of divine grace, and a most encouraging thing to any disciple who is painfully conscious of his weakness.

      Few passages of Scripture are more familiar or more dear than that in which "the disciple whom Jesus loved" tells the story of the rehabilitation of his friend who had in an agony of fears repented of his denial of the Master. It is with one sentence of the story recorded in John 21 that we now deal. Jesus asked: "Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these?"

      This question of our Lord is one of the best examples of an ambiguous text. With the Greek text there is precisely the same ambiguity as with the English. So far as grammar is concerned, the meaning might be either "Lovest thou me more than these other disciples love me?" or "Lovest thou me more than thou lovest these?"--"these" in this case referring to the boat and nets and the old fisherman's life generally. We must grant to interpreters the right to stand by either construction, so far as the verse by itself is concerned. There is, of course, no need to suppose that there would be doubt as to the reference when Jesus used the words; here is a case where tone

or gesture would make the meaning clear and remove possible ambiguity.

More than you love these?

      With preachers, much more than with commentators, we find it common to make the question mean, "Lovest thou me more than thou lovest these?" The best of such interpreters link up the words with Peter's sudden abandonment of the boat and fishing gear. They also declare (as does Dr. Marcus Dods) that if Christ had meant "Lovest thou me more than these love me?" then "the second personal would almost necessarily he expressed; but as the words stand, the contrast is not between 'you' and 'these,' but between 'me' and 'these.' " This cannot be so decisive as it sounds, for the overwhelming majority of commentators accept the view which Dods criticises. Moffatt's rendering in his New Translation is, "Do you love me more than the others do?" and Weymouth similarly translates the passage.

      Sometimes, in order to make a point, speakers support their choice of readings by the suggestion that there was special reason for Christ's asking Simon if he loved him more than be loved his fishing gear and the old life. Probably many readers of this have literally "suffered" the words of exhorters who say that Simon's having been on a fishing expedition on the Sea of Galilee is proof that he had gone back to his old life, and that consequently there was need of the question, Will you put me before these things? This manner of speech is wholly unwarranted, and distorts the Scriptures. Every reader should know that the despair and doubt of the disciples at the crucifixion of the Saviour had been removed by his resurrection and two appearances to groups of apostles, and one to Peter individually, prior to the appearance recorded in John 21, which is described as "the third time that Jesus manifested himself to the disciples [i. e., to a group of such], after that he was risen from the dead." The command not to depart from Jerusalem

till they were endued with power from on high was given later to the apostles, and was obeyed by them. Moreover, the presence of Simon and the other apostles in Galilee, so far from being evidence that they had lost their faith and gone back to the old life, was proof of their obedience to the word of Christ who had told them to depart into Galilee, he would meet them (Matt. 28:8,10,16; Mark 16:17, cf. 14:28).

      Gross ignorance may explain but cannot excuse the attempt to make a point with an audience at the expense of the good name of the apostles. They were in Galilee at Jesus' command; and there is not, in John 21 or elsewhere in the Gospels, a hint that they were doing an unworthy thing in going fishing. The thought that this indicated a renunciation of their apostolic work is ludicrous.

      To show the lengths to which some will go, we quote from a recent writer who refers to Peter and the fishing in the following terms: "After having lived in a state of high pressure for three years, a moral and spiritual listlessness had set in. Life had lost its force: there was no light ahead. Dejected, overwhelmed with the dread re-action from those years of exaltation, Peter gave himself up to black depression. And now from the far past came memories of youthful days. In his ears sounded the lap of the waters on the lake side, the rattle of tackle, and the grind of boat-keels on the pebbly shore. In a moment the call from the past is answered; he must make some response to the inward urge for immediate action. He would make those three years as though they had never been: 'I go a-fishing.' And the others replied, 'We also go with thee.' There is something rather wonderful in that manifestation of comradeship in despair." Most of this is sheer imagination, and if we asked for justification there could be no adequate response. It is a gratuitous, if unconscious, libel perpetrated for the purpose of making a sermonic point.

      We are far from suggesting that all who read our Lord's question to mean "Lovest thou me

more than thou lovest these?" are guilty of such an offence as the foregoing indicates. Some of them are reputed exegetes and draw excellent lessons from their reading.

      To many a man to-day, to numbers of Christians who are in danger of allowing too great an encroachment of worldly cares, or too great an absorption in business, and possibly to some readers of this, the appropriate question of our Lord would be: Do you love me more than you love these? There was no more insistent demand made by Christ than that he be given first place. One must not love father or mother more than him. We must hold earthly possessions loosely, be prepared to renounce all, and turn the back on self; else we cannot be his disciples. "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness." The familiar injunction summarises a great deal of our Master's teaching and finds the highest exemplification in his own life of consecration. This great demand may be indicated to us in the question, "Lovest thou me more than these?"

More than these love me?

      The writer, however, has no doubt that the meaning of Christ's inquiry is, Do you love me more than these other disciples love me? There is one objection to this which some people apparently regard as insuperable. It is alleged that the Lord Jesus could not have instituted a comparison such as suggested. Dr. Marcus Dods, for example, asks, "Would the characteristic tact and delicacy of Jesus have allowed him to put a question involving a comparison of Peter with his fellow-disciples?" If the interpretation, which with the great majority of exegetes we accept, involved the view that it was our Lord who initiated such a comparison, the objection, we think, would be fatal As it is, the words of Dr. Dods and those on his side seem to us singularly to miss the point. It was Peter himself who instituted the comparison. He had vaunted himself above the

other disciples, and had declared, "If all shall be offended in thee, I will never be offended."

      He had, moreover, dared to contradict the Saviour when he foretold his sad denial, declaring, "Even if I must die with thee, yet will I not deny thee." Yet Peter's bold confidence and foolish boasting were speedily followed by a three-fold denial of Christ. His sad case forcibly illustrates the lesson of Paul's text, "Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." No wonder that the Lord Jesus had said: "Simon, Simon, behold Satan asked to have you (the word is plural and refers to the group of apostles), that he might sift you as wheat; but I made supplication for thee (the singular shows the special need of him who was most confident of his strength), that thy faith fail not."

      Our Lord's inquiry, Lovest thou me more than these love me? would bring all this to Peter's mind. It is indicative of a changed viewpoint, of a new humility and self-distrust learnt by bitter experience, that Simon did not answer Jesus' question. He did not say anything about loving Christ more than others; there could now be no vaunting of himself or depreciation of others. But with absolute sincerity Peter could declare, "Lord, thou knowest that I love thee." Thrice over, as if to offset the three denials, is this confession of love elicited. A three-fold charge to "feed my lambs," "tend my, sheep," and "feed my sheep", proved how fully the Saviour forgave him his lapse and restored him to fellowship and service. It was the complete rehabilitation of Simon. He had "turned again" and so was able to keep the exhortation "stablish thy brethren" (Luke 22:32).

      Following this new charge, the Lord revealed to Peter that faithfulness to his renewed Call would mean the literal fulfilment of the promise, once given unthinkingly, that he would be willing to die with Christ. "When thou wast young, thou girdest thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt

be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not." In his last message to his brethren, Peter wrote, "The putting off of my tabernacle cometh swiftly, even as our Lord Jesus Christ signified unto me." Tradition which need not be doubted tells of his being a faithful martyr and sealing his testimony with his blood.

      There are few passages of Scripture which have made a greater or more poignant appeal than the narrative in the book of Genesis describing Esau's sale of his birthright for "a mess of pottage," and his later futile appeal to Isaac to bestow on him a blessing. The writer to the Hebrews, giving an exhortation to Christians to have constant faith, patience and godliness, urged them to look diligently,

      "Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears" (Heb. 12:16, 17, (Common Version).

Esau the profane.

      We need not recapitulate the long narrative in the twenty-fifth and twenty-seventh chapters of Genesis, for it has been familiar to most of our readers since childhood. God had prophesied before the birth of the twin brothers, Esau and Jacob, that they should be the heads of two nations (Israel and Edom), and that the elder should serve the younger. Both parents, Isaac and Rebekah, showed unworthy favouritism, Isaac for Esau and Rebekah for Jacob; for which sinful folly both suffered greatly in later days.

      The sympathy of most readers has gone out to Esau. Jacob, the supplanter, had many unlovely traits. His readiness to take advantage of his brother's weakness was detestable. The subterfuge by which he impersonated Esau, deceived his father and obtained the blessing, would

ordinarily be regarded as worthy of a sneak and cunning rascal. Who has not been moved by the lament of Esau: "Is not he rightly named Jacob? for he hath supplanted me these two times: he took away my birthright; and, behold, now he hath taken away my blessing." The pathos of Esau's last, vain appeal can hardly be excelled: "And Esau said unto his father, Hast thou but one blessing, my father? bless me, even me also, O my father. And Esau lifted up his voice, and wept."

      We dare not excuse Jacob; he was in part mean and contemptible. Had his mother and he been content to rest in God's promises, the supremacy of Jacob and of Israel would have come about without the trickery and sin which caused them both so much ill. But the story reveals such defects in Esau's character as makes us acquiesce in the preferment of Jacob.

      Esau, the writer to the Hebrews says, was a "profane person." Etymologically, the word "profane" means before or outside the fane or temple. "Inside the walls around the temple lay the sacred, undefiled garden, the loveliest spot in all the land. But the unwalled ground outside was common, and trampled bare by the foot of man and beast. Esau was 'a profane person'; his life was all spent outside the sacred enclosure, and he profaned every hallowed thing, treating it as cheap and vile." Esau did not prize the good; he "despised his birthright." He lived for the pleasure of the moment. He could not curb his appetite, and was willing to exchange a lasting joy for a brief, present gratification. He succumbed to the temptation which overcomes many a weak, passionate, easy-going man to-day. Charles Kingsley has said: "It is natural, I know, to pity poor Esau; butt one has no right to do more. One has no right to fancy for a moment that God was arbitrary or hard upon him. Esau is not the sort of man to be the father of a great nation, or of anything else great."

      We must accept Kingsley's judgment in the last quoted sentence. Dr. Hastings points out

that "even in his selfishness and meanness Jacob showed his sense of the superior value of things unseen and distant, and his willingness to make a sacrifice to secure them." He erred sadly by seeking in devious ways to anticipate or ensure the promise of God; but he had a capacity for greatness such as Esau never had. He was capable of the great transformation from Jacob the Supplanter to Israel the prince of God.

Tears and repentance.

      Why Heb. 12:17 comes within the scope of our present series of studies is because of the difficulty of saying what the writer meant us to understand as having been sought by Esau diligently with tears, and how he found no place for repentance. The structure of the verse is ambiguous; to punctuate even is to interpret, and of course there is no punctuation of Scripture texts with other than human authority. It would be interesting, if space permitted, to collate the different interpretations of the passage--a large number of them quite legitimate, if a few seem very foolish.

      While other versions are worthy of quotation, three stand out above all others, our Common and Revised Versions and the American Standard Revised Version. We have quoted the first at the beginning of this article. The others, which read as follows, should be carefully compared with the more familiar rendering.

      The English Revised Version reads: "For ye know that even when he afterwards desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected (for he found no place of repentance), though he sought it diligently with tears."

      The passage runs as follows in the American Revision.. "For ye know that even when he afterwards desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected; for he found no place for a change of mind in his father, though he sought it diligently with tears." (The words "in his father" are printed in italics to indicate that there are no words corresponding to them in the Greek text.)

What did Esau seek with tears?

      Esau "sought it diligently with tears." Grammatically, "it" could refer either to the blessing or the repentance. Our English Revised Version by its punctuation shows that the translators referred it to the former. Nobody, questions the legitimacy of this, and a reference to Genesis 27 shows that it was the blessing for which Esau entreated with tears: "Bless me, even me also, O my father. And Esau lifted up his voice, and wept" (Gen. 27:38). We therefore accept this view. It is interesting to note that Weymouth substitutes the words "the blessing" for the "it" of the original, rendering the passage definitely, "he sought the blessing earnestly with tears."

      It is quite possible, however that it was repentance which Esau sought with tears. Moffatt and Rotherham so translate the passage as to imply this.

      On this reading, whose repentance would it be? Rotherham gives no indication. The American Standard Revised Version says that of Isaac: Esau "found no place for a change of mind in his father." This was certainly true, the statement fits the Genesis story, that not even tears of entreaty made Isaac retract the blessing already given to Jacob, and many modern commentators have adopted the interpretation. On the other hand, there are many who believe that a repentance of Esau's was meant. Thus Moffatt renders the passage: "He got no chance, to repent, though he tried for it with tears." if this were the case, then "repentance" must here be used, as Dr. Davidson says, "not strictly of a mere change of mind, but of a change of mind undoing the effects of a former state of mind--i. e., such a repentance as "would reverse the consequences of his profane levity and win him back the blessing." There was no possible way of undoing the consequences of his act.

      We dismiss as impossible the view that Esau was anxious to repent (in its ordinary sense), and though he was so willing that he cried over

it, he could not succeed. Farrar truly says that "if the clause means that Esau desired to repent, and no chance of repenting was allowed him, it runs counter to the entire tenor of Scripture."

      To us the most probable interpretation of the passage is that suggested by our English Revised Version that it was the blessing which was vainly sought with tears; and that, despite his intense regret at the lost blessing Esau did not repent. To be sorry at the consequences of our acts, to weep over lost privileges, is not repentance.

      F. W. Farrar mentions the interesting historical fact that Heb. 12:17 was one of the passages by which the Montanists and Novatians sought, in the second and third centuries, to justify their refusal to grant absolution to those who fell into sin after baptism. He also notes that this abuse of the passage led by way of reaction to a tendency to discredit the epistle to the Hebrews in the western church.

      In familiar lines Keble has sought to pass on and to generalise the teaching of our text:

      The Lord Jesus sought to cheer the drooping spirits of his apostles, who were saddened at the announcement of his departure from them by saying: "It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I go, I will send him unto you." The change that was wrought in these disciples by the coming of the Holy Spirit is revealed in the later Scriptures. They were transformed, energised, equipped for service and for witness. The power by which they spake could not be resisted. Simon, afraid when a girl called him a disciple, became indeed Peter, the rock-apostle who testified before the murderers of Jesus that he was the Messiah and Son of God.

      Not all the promises associated with the Spirit's presence and work in the apostles can rightfully be appropriated by believers, but it is evident that the best which the Holy Spirit can do was not limited to the apostolic company. The greatest gift is for all the people of God who will appropriate it. The power for Christian living and service is at our disposal.

      On the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles at .Jerusalem, Jesus stood up and cried aloud: "Whoever is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. He who believes in me, from within him, as the Scripture hath said, rivers of living water shall flow." John adds that "he referred to the Spirit which those who believed in him were to receive; for the Spirit was not bestowed as yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified."

A neglected subject.

      It has to be confessed that many Christians neglect unduly the New Testament teaching regarding

the Holy Spirit. Dr. A. E. Garvie begins a recent article with the sentence: "Except in a few devout circles, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit has in the history of the Christian Church been very generally neglected." This witness is true. The thought of the living, personal Christ is much more real to the ordinary believer than is that of the ever-present and indwelling Spirit. As Dr. Garvie puts it: "It may be admitted that the historical reality of Jesus gives to the content of the consciousness of the living Christ, in which the historical reality is, as it were, spiritually diffused and continued, a definiteness which any consciousness of the Spirit's presence and activity lacks. Further, few Christians have the assurance to maintain, as I have heard one Christian minister at least maintain, that they can by reflection in their inner life clearly distinguish and separate the fellowship with the living Christ and the working of his Spirit." But the failure thus to distinguish neither gives justification for a denial of revealed truth, nor proves the identity of Christ and the Spirit. Despite some recent statements to the contrary, we are sure Dr. Garvie is right when he says: "However intimately Paul relates Christ and the Spirit, so that whenever Christ is believed as Saviour and Lord, the Spirit is possessed, I am convinced that he nowhere identifies Christ and the Spirit, still less does he confuse them."

      It is not with the Holy Spirit's work in and for the believer that we are now concerned, but with the fact of his indwelling. The great thought is of the highest mark of our discipleship. Believers are distinguished from non-believers by their possession of the Spirit. They have been "sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise" (Eph. 1:13). They are thus marked as Christ's own. Here is something beyond and above any work wrought in or for them. Christians have the supreme token of God's favor when he gives to them his Holy Spirit. There are two familiar texts which emphasise this wonderful method of divine discrimination between the worldling and the Christian. Of the Spirit,

Jesus used the words: "Whom the world cannot receive" (John 14:17). To Christians the Apostle Paul wrote: "Because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father" (Gal. 4:6).

The gift promised at Pentecost.

      To the inquirers of Pentecost, pricked in their hearts by the message, the Apostle Peter gave a command and a promise: "Repent ye, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). What is this gift? There is a certain ambiguity which brings this text into our series.

      The "gift of the Holy Spirit" might be (a) a gift which is bestowed by the Spirit, or (b) the Spirit as a gift. There is a similar ambiguity in another much discussed text, Eph. 2:20, where Paul speaks of Christians as belonging to the household of God, "being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets"--which is interpreted by some to mean the foundation of them simply because they laid it; and by others (with more reason) a foundation consisting of apostles and prophets.

      Regarding Acts 2:38, it might be argued that, since in the parallel construction of John 4:10 "the gift of God" means a gift from God, so "the gift of the Holy Spirit" will mean some endowment or gift which the Holy Spirit bestows. Accordingly, there are to be found some who think the reference is to such spiritual gifts as certain members of the apostolic church received. These, however, are by the Apostle Paul otherwise described as "charismata" (1 Cor. 12:1ff.). There is no evidence at all that the "doorea" of Acts 2:38 is the "charisma" of 1 Corinthians.

      There are other passages in Acts and the epistles, also, which make it clear that it is the Spirit himself who is promised, in fulfilment of Jesus' word in John 7.39. Thus in Acts 5:32 Peter and the apostles are represented as speaking of "the Holy Spirit, whom God hath given

to them that obey him." Paul in 1 Thess. 4:8 writes that God "giveth his Holy Spirit."

      The Christian's body is in 1 Cor. 6:19 described as "a temple of the Holy Spirit." The Ephesian Christians were urged to "be filled with the Spirit" (Eph. 5:18). No amount of argumentation could make more definite the teaching of such passages. The badge of our sonship is the possession of the Holy Spirit.

      At Pentecost we have not only a fulfilment of the promise of power made to the apostles, so that they should be able to give their adequate witness; but we also have the beginning of the fulfilment of the promise of John 7:that believers were, after Christ's glorification, to receive the Holy Spirit. It is well to consider these two promises apart. Pentecost marks the beginning of the dispensation of the Spirit. But the greatest thing in connection with the Spirit's Pentecostal manifestation was not the more spectacular baptism and speaking with tongues on the part of the apostles, but the promise of the bestowal of the Spirit upon every one who in humble faith surrendered himself to the exalted Christ and Lord.

Unchristian, without the Spirit.

      There is a text which expresses the great truth a negative form. In Rom. 8:9 the Apostle Paul writes: "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

      This passage also may be read in two different ways, and so is classed as ambiguous, though there should be no real doubt of the meaning. In the chapter as a whole there is a certain ambiguity due to the fact that the Greek word "pneuma" is used either of the human spirit or of the Divine Spirit. The word can denote wind, air, breath, life, or spirit. If the reader will carefully peruse Romans 8, and compare the Common and Revised Versions, be will find that the Common Version throughout prints Spirit with a capital "S," while in verses 4 to 11 the revisers print the word six times with a small

"s," indicating that the human spirit is meant. It is the very same word which in the same chapter the revisers printed ten times with a capital letter. The American Standard Revised Version and Moffatt's New Translation return generally to the view of the Common Version, while Weymouth and Rotherham agree more with the English Revision. There can be no finality regarding all the verses; there is a legitimate difference of view.

      Regarding verse 9, in the judgment of all the translators of the versions quoted "the Spirit of God" and the "Spirit of Christ" (there can be no intended distinction between these) refer to the divine Spirit, a personal Being and not a mere influence or disposition. The personality of the Spirit is clearly implied in verses 11, 16 and 26; to raise the dead, to give testimony, to pray, to have a mind, are evidence of personality., and could not properly be predicated of an energy or influence.

      There are two classes of people who do interpret Rom. 8:9 as referring to the disposition of Christ. First, of course, all who deny his divine personality do so; but their general reasoning is weak and their view opposed to Scripture. In the second place, it is not uncommon for speakers who do believe in the Spirit's personality to use the text in an accommodated sense to enforce a needed lesson. They talk thus:--"If any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his." What was the spirit, or disposition, of Christ? One of humility, obedience, trust, self-sacrifice, devotion, fidelity, and so on. An admirable lesson is thus adduced, but one which in our judgment had much better be attached to another text. It is true that we should follow the example and imitate the character of our Lord; but that is not the lesson taught in Rom. 8:9. The preacher should make his homiletics and his exegesis agree; else he may unintentionally mislead his hearers regarding important truth.

      If we read Romans 8:9 in accord with John 7:39, Acts 2:38, 5:32, 1 Thess. 4:8 and 1 Cor. 6:19,

we shall get its deepest meaning. This indwelling Spirit is God's highest gift to his people, that which distinguishes the believer from the unbeliever. It is of course true that when the Spirit dwells in the heart of the Christian, there will be produced the fruit of the Spirit--love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, and self-control. The Spirit helps our infirmity, strengthens us with might in the inward man, and enables us to reproduce in some measure the character of our Lord.

"Be filled with the Spirit."

      We referred at the beginning of this study to a common neglect of the New Testament doctrine of the Spirit. We shall do well to remove the reproach of this neglect. As with the doctrine of our Lord's coming, that "blessed hope," so here--it is probably the common neglect of the scriptural truth which furnishes the occasion for the errors and extravagances of others. Extremes beget extremes. We shall lose, and also make others lose, if we minimise or ignore the working of the indwelling Spirit of God. With Alexander Campbell we would say that we "could not esteem as of any value the religion of any man, as respects the grand affair of eternal life, whose religion is not begun, carried on, and completed by the personal agency of the Spirit of God." We who have appropriated the promise of Acts 2:38 should give heed to the command of Eph. 5:18 and seek to be "filled with the Spirit."

      We may close with Dr. Moffatt's translation of a well-known Pauline passage: "In him [Christ] you also by your faith have been stamped with the seal of the long-promised holy Spirit which is the pledge and instalment of our common heritage, that we may obtain our divine possession and so redound to the praise of his glory" (Eph. 1:13, 14).

      In two great passages the Apostle Paul deals with the Christian's rights and his great privilege in not living up to them. The word Paul uses can be legitimately translated in somewhat different ways, and this has given rise to some discussion as to his meaning. In reality there should not be the slightest doubt, since the context makes the apostle's intention quite clear.

      The word "katachraomai" is used only twice in the New Testament, in 1 Cor. 7:31 and 9:18. A reference to a Greek lexicon will show that the following two meanings are possible in the passages cited: (1) to use to the uttermost or to the full, to use up; (2) to misuse, misapply, abuse. In each passage the Common Version translates by "abuse," which word in older English meant (as did the Greek word it was employed to represent) either of the two things, to use to the full, or to misuse. Unfortunately, the ordinary reader today must from the 1611 version arrive at the conclusion that the apostle is warning against an evil use, rather than urging or illustrating restraint in the use of even legitimate things. The loss in this is great; for there is no doubt of Paul's meaning.

The Christian Preacher's Rights.

      In the ninth chapter of 1 Corinthians Paul revealed to the disciples that when he asked them, for the sake of their example and influence on others, to be willing to give up their rights, he was but requesting that they adopt a principle by which he himself lived. In very skilful fashion, he combined this with a defence of himself against certain foolish remarks or insinuations of brethren hostile to himself. They had said that Paul was not all apostle as Peter

was, and they cited in proof the fact that Paul did not receive support from the church, but instead labored with his own hands. In verse 18, Paul tells of his reward in service:

      "What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the Gospel" (Common Version).

      Now, there are still to be found a few writers and speakers who, it may be charitably supposed, are ignorant of what has been noted as to the double meaning of "katachraomai" in Greek and of "abuse" in older English, and (what is less defensible) ignore the whole of Paul's former reasoning in 1 Cor. 9, and who, therefore, arrive at the astounding conclusion that Paul indicates that it would be wrong for a man to

receive support in his work of preaching the Gospel. Than this, nothing could be more un-founded, or more out of harmony with the argument. When the would-be exegetes go further and denounce a "paid ministry and brand as "hirelings" all who are supported in the work of the Lord, they are guilty of such an offence as cannot wholly be excused by ignorance.

The proven right.

      In the first part of the chapter, Paul proves his right to certain privileges. He was not behind Cephas and other apostles in the right to lead about a sister-wife. He and Barnabas, it is inferred, had all equal right with others to "forbear working." If some cynical objector should suggest, "Yes, equal right--for neither had any," he may be encouraged to read verses 7 to 14, where the absolute right to receive support is argued and declared.

      First the apostle refers to human analogies. A soldier on campaign is not required to pay his own expenses. Planters of vineyards, and keepers of sheep, get a living out of their labor. The apostles and missionaries might be regarded as soldiers on service; they were planters of

churches; they were shepherds of the flock--they were not bound to pay their own charges.

      But human analogies could not furnish a final proof. Hence the apostle refers to the law of God. In the Old Testament God had said, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn"--a principle which Paul implies was certainly not limited to the case of oxen, but which could be extended to the plougher and sower. In verse 11 Paul applies the right to those who sow spiritual things. Again, the law of the temple service was appealed to by the apostle. The priests and Levites had an acknowledged right to maintenance in connection with the temple and altar. Lastly, in one closing verse Paul raises the question above all reasoning from analogies, whether drawn from human practices or divine law. He makes the declaration: "Even so did the Lord ordain that they which proclaim the gospel should live of the Gospel." That settles the question for all who believe in the Lord Jesus and accept the authority of his inspired apostles. It also enables us definitely to decide as to the rendering of verse 18, that we must read it not of the abuse which is misuse, but of the using of a right to the full. The English and American Revised Versions and Rotherham's translation all agree and make the meaning clear. The first of these reads as follows:- "What then is my reward? That, when I preach the Gospel, I may make the Gospel without charge, so as not to use to the full my right in the Gospel."

      Ere we pass on, it may be of interest to note that the help which he refused from the Corinthian church Paul was willing to receive from the brethren at Philippi (see Philip. 4:10-17). There must have been special reasons operating at Corinth--involving grave danger of misrepresentation and hindrance to the work--and these persisted, for in his second epistle to the Corinthian disciples the apostle declared his determination to adhere to the rule of not accepting anything from them (2 Cor. 12:14).

Reasons for abstinence.

      It is abundantly worth while to consider the noble example of the Apostle Paul. He enunciates a principle of self-abnegnation which we should adopt. We should be willing to give up our rights. Many a Christian worker has been helped by the apostle's example, and has with noble self-sacrifice spent himself in service without receiving any pecuniary reward. Men who act thus are to he honored. There must, however, be no slighting of others who are not free or able to act in this way.

      The reasons which Paul gives for his abstinence are worthy of attention. F. W. Robertson in his Expository Lectures sums them up as follows: "In order to do his work in a free, princely, and not a slavish spirit, he was forced to preach the Gospel, and for the preaching of it no thanks were due. If he did it against his will, a dispensation of the Gospel was committed to him, and 'woe is unto me, if I preach not the Gospel!' He was bound to do it. But he turned his necessity to glorious gain. That was his 'reward,' that is, made him rewardable--by forfeiting pay he got reward: and in doing freely what he must do, he became free. When 'I must' is changed into 'I will,' you are free. And so in a profession you dislike--an alliance which is distasteful--a duty that must he done--acquiesence is Christian liberty. It is deliverance from the law.

      "His second reason was to gain others. 'For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.' For this was only one instance out of many; his whole life was one great illustration of the principle: free from all, he became the servant of all. He condescended to the mode of looking at life that was peculiar to the Gentiles with respect to their education and associations, to that of the Jews also, when form was expressive of a true reverential spirit. Nor less to the weak and superstitious; he sympathised with their weakness, tried to understand them, and to feel as they felt."

      To forego acknowledged rights and privileges for the sake of others is a worthy thing for a follower of the Christ of whom it is written that even he "pleased not himself."

      Every disciple, and not merely the Christian preacher, might well imitate him who could say, "I can refrain from insisting on all my rights as a preacher of the Gospel" (Moffatt's translation of 1 Cor. 9:18).

The Christian and the World.

      There is no problem which more constantly presents itself for solution than that of the Christian's relation to the world. It is apparent that in the apostolic days, as during all the subsequent history of the church, the question was discussed.

      The early environment of those who became Christians affected their viewpoint. On some points Jewish Christians were much more likely to be strict than were Gentile believers. It is clear to any reader of the New Testament that while some disciples adopted a very rigid code with which without warrant they sought to bind the consciences of others, there were many who took a dangerously lax attitude, and even a few who went so far in accommodation to the practices of unbelievers as to jeopardise their own souls and bring disgrace upon the church of God. The numerous apostolic warnings against love of the world forbid us to believe that our greatest problem--our young people's problem, as it is often erroneously termed is peculiar to the twentieth century.

A helpful principle.

      In our judgment, there are few passages of Scripture more likely to he helpful in a consideration of the question than 1 Cor. 7:31, where the Apostle Paul urges Christians, while using the world, not to use it to the full. Our English versions, Common and Revised, both have the word "abuse," translating thus: "And those that use the world, as not abusing it."

      We have seen that the Greek word, and the word "abuse" in older English, meant either abuse in the sense of misuse, of use to the full. In the only other passage in the New Testament where the word occurs (1 Cor. 9:18) the revisers translated it "use to the full," and Paul's argument demanded that meaning. It is a pity that our revisers were not consistent, for the whole treatment in chapter seven makes it clear that "using it to the full" is the proper rendering. While our English Revised Version has this proper reading in the margin, the American Standard Revised Version, Rotherham and Weymouth put it in the text.

Two classes of worldly things.

      Worldly things, pleasures and activities, are of two classes. First, there are those which may be regarded as positively sinful or harmful in themselves. But, again, there are those which we cannot declare to be wrong in themselves, but with regard to the use of which special care should be exercised.

      Regarding the former class, there is no doubt as to the Christian's attitude. It must be an uncompromising one, Worldlings may feel free to practise deceit or fraud: to depart from strict honor, purity or truthfulness; to indulge in gambling. Drunkenness, and such things; but to the Christian there can be no such liberty. When we are dealing with things evil in themselves, with "abuses" in this sense, our rule is one of total abstinence. We must, indeed, "avoid the very appearance of evil" for such is the command of the Spirit of God.

      So far there will be little, if any, difference amongst Christians. We are thankful for the general willingness of disciples to keep from this kind of "abuse" of the world. But there is not the same unanimity with regard to the second class of worldly things. If we would all heed the injunction not to use the world to the full, there would be a immeasurable gain. Read 1 Cor. 7, and it will be seen that "all the things mentioned in this series by the apostle are right

things; and the warning is against being in bondage to those things which are in themselves right and good, and not against any criminal use of them."

"Not engrossed."

      Consider Moffatt's translation of verses 29 to 31:

      "I mean, brothers, the interval has been shortened; so let those who have wives live as if they had none; let mourners live as if they were not mourning, let the joyful live as if they had no joy, let buyers live as if they had no hold on their goods, let those who mix in the world live as if they were not engrossed in it, for the present state of things is passing away."

      F. W. Robertson points out that Christianity stands between the worldly spirit and the narrow religious spirit. The former says, "Time is short, take your fill; live while you can." The latter so looks upon all pleasure in this life as a snare and dangerous, and says, "Keep out of it altogether." "In opposition to the narrow spirit, Christianity says, "Use the world," and in opposition to the worldly spirit, "Do not abuse it. All things are yours. Take them and use them; but never let them interfere with the higher life which you are called on to lead." It must be borne in mind that this advice cannot be given in reference to a thing which is in itself evil.

Leave margins.

      Really, the apostle bids us leave margins. One who acts on his advice will leave even a margin of the field of legitimate things mentioned. We are not to be living on the borderline. The Christian attitude is not that of the person who is always as king, How near can I get to the line separating church and

world? The familiar story of the school books about the man seeking to engage a coachman should not be forgotten. One declared he could drive within an inch of a precipice. To make a greater impression a second said he could go within half an inch. But the man who got the position said that he did not know how near he could go, for it was always his aim to keep as far from the edge as possible. Borderline Christians are not getting the best out of life. They cannot get the greatest good or enjoyment out of their religion; and, besides, they are not helping others as they ought. Let us each one remember that a question is not settled for the Christian when it is decided that it is not wrong in itself. The further questions press, Is it wise? is it helpful? does it interfere with my enjoyment of spiritual things, or with my Christian influence?

      Let us not attempt to use the world to the full. "Instead of being moulded to this world, have your mind renewed, and so be transformed in nature, able to make out what the will of God is, namely, what is good and acceptable to him and perfect" (Rom. 12:2, Moffatt's translation).

      Every lover of the word of God has a special interest in the beautiful passages of the Gospels wherein are recorded the visits of our Lord to Bethany and the home of Lazarus, Martha and Mary whom he is specially said to have loved. It appears that in the closing days of his ministry, when the dark clouds were gathering, our Master often found comfort and consolation in the house of his devoted friends. The character of the sisters is so wonderfully and consistently drawn that the narratives are favorites with us all.

      We deal now with one incident recorded alone by Luke. Martha received Jesus into her house; Mary "also sat at the Lord's feet, and heard his word." Martha was "cumbered (literally distracted) with much serving," and came to Jesus to complain about the neglect of her sister. In her excited state, she not only condemned Mary's alleged unfairness but even reflected upon the Lord Himself. Moffatt's rendering is graphic: "Lord, is it all one to you that my sister has left me to do all the work alone? Come, tell her to lend me a hand." This was presumptuous language to use to the Master, and ordinarily Martha would not have been so peevish. It is the tender and yet reproving answer of Jesus which now engages our attention. There is no essential difference between the texts of our English and Revised Versions and the American Standard Revised Version.

      "But the Lord answered and said onto 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 he taken away from her" (Luke 10:41,42).

Types of character.

      Difference of opinion still exists as to the comparative worthiness of the characters of Martha and of Mary. Each has so many admirable points, and each so appeals to people of different temperaments, that considerable opposition might be aroused by a criticism of either. It is Martha, of course, who is usually criticised in our addresses; and almost invariably some hearer--probably, some sister--is roused to defend the busy housewife of Bethany. The defence may be necessary in some cases where undue depreciation is made, but nothing is more certain than that our Lord himself gently reproved Martha and commended Mary as having chosen the good part which should never be taken away from her. All interpretations or estimates which lose sight of this essential thing are to be shunned.

      We do not unduly reflect upon the world's Marthas when we point out that their characters are defective:

      Frequently the contrasted characters of the sisters have been made basis of an estimate of the comparative values of lives of activity and contemplation. Thus J. E. Macfadyen writes: "Martha and Mary are sisters, and their virtues are sister virtues- Martha, the symbol of strenuous energy, Mary, the pattern of sweet contemplation. In the kingdom of God there is a place for both." There is truth in this, but the antithesis can be strained, and it is often strained in such a way as to be unfair both to Martha and to Mary. We do not know that Martha always neglected meditation and contemplation, and we are certain that Mary cannot

be proven to have been merely contemplative. She was not lazy and neglectful of duty. Had she been so, were there the slightest hint of it on this occasion, our Lord would not have praised her as he did. Luke by the use of the word "also" (Mary "also sat at the Lord's feet") shows that Mary received the Lord as well as sat at his feet. Then, whereas distracted Martha was concerned about the credit of the house and special dishes to suit so honored a guest, Mary manifested a true appreciation of the Master and his wishes by also sitting and drinking in his word. He was the real host at a heavenly feast, while Martha's thoughts centred on her duties as hostess at an earthly dinner.

      As an extreme case of what some read into the contrasted characters the following may be noted. Macaulay, comparing Naples and Rome, the former where religion is accessory to civil business, the latter a city of priests, writes: "A poet might introduce Naples as Martha, and Rome as 'Mary.' A Catholic may think Mary's the better employment, but even a Catholic, much more a Protestant, would prefer the table of Martha." The wrong in this is not the preference for Naples, but the gratuitous assumption that the alleged position of Naples is well typified by Martha and that of Rome by Mary!

The few, and the one.

      It is chiefly because of a variant reading in the manuscripts that this passage comes into our studies of ambiguous texts. Our Revised Version puts in the margin a reading which has the support of some of the very best Greek manuscripts, and which seems to be greatly gaining in favor with scholars, viz.: "But few things are needful, or one." It is now generally assumed, rather than proven, that the allusion in the "few things" is to such dishes as Martha was busily preparing, and it is commonly taken for granted that the "one" also refers to a dish at table. One writer puts it thus: "Martha, it appears, then designed a meal on the grand scale--one of 'many dishes'--in

order to do honor to Christ. In this she found her programme larger than her means to achieve it, and it was this that caused the 'distraction' and led to the display of pique against Mary. And the whole point of our Lord's answer was to defend Martha against herself. He was content with one dish." Now, we should not deny that this view yields some sense, but it is a great descent from the ordinary interpretation. We believe that our Lord could have inculcated the lesson of "plain living and high thinking," but not that that is what is urged here.

      It should be clear to any reader that the marginal reading does not demand any more than the common text the view that the "one" refers to a dish at table. The "many things" which Martha was said to be worrying about probably included the elaborate dinner courses and dishes; and the "few things" may also refer to these. If so, the sense of the reading "But few things are needful, or one" is likely to be that expressed by Dr. A. B. Bruce: "There is need of few things (material); then, with a pause, or rather of one thing (spiritual). Thus Jesus passes, as was his wont, easily and swiftly, from the natural to the spiritual."

      We feel compelled to agree with F. W. Farrar that "the context should sufficiently have excluded the very bald, commonplace and unspiritual meaning which has been attached to this verse--that only one dish was requisite." Rather, the "one thing needful" was "the good part" which Mary chose and which could not be taken away.

What was Mary's "good part"?

      It has often been noted that our Lord does not explain what "the good part" is. Various excellent things have been enumerated in attempts at solution. Probably the best way of approach is that given in the Expositor's Bible: "Can we not find the truest interpretation in the Lord's own words? We think we may, for in the Sermon on the Mount we have an exact

parallel to the narrative. He finds people burdened, anxious about the things of this life, wearying themselves with the interminable questions, 'What shall we eat? and What shall we drink?' as if life had no quest higher and vaster than these. And Jesus rebukes this spirit of anxiety, exorcising it by an appeal to the lilies and the grass of the field; and summing up his condemnation of anxiety, he adds the injunction, 'Seek ye his kingdom, and these things shall he added unto you.' Here, again, we have the 'many things' of human care and strife contrasted with the 'one thing' which is of supremest moment. First, the kingdom, this in the mind of Jesus was the 'summum bonum,' the highest good of man, compared with which the 'many things' for which men strive and toil are but the dust of the balances."

      We may also quote J. E. Macfadyen's comment: Jesus "does not tell us, but he shows us. One thing is needful. Look at Mary, and you will see it. There it is! or rather, there she is! for Mary is that thing incarnate. Sitting at the Master's feet, and hanging wistfully upon his every word, she is an immortal illustration of the truth which Jesus would bring home to the restless Martha, and to all those eager, strenuous spirits of which Martha is the type."

      Readers of Moffatt's translation will have noted that his rendering is very different: "The Lord answered her, 'Martha, Martha, Mary has chosen the best dish, and she is not to be dragged away from it." This means simply that Moffatt reconstructs the text and follows quite different (and inferior) manuscripts, from those generally followed. The word for "part" in our text is "merida," which may be used of a "portion" of a meal. Moffatt of course does not here mean "dish" literally. His note is: "I translate 'merida' by 'dish,' to bring out the point and play of the saying. Jesus means that Mary has chosen well in selecting the nourishment of his teaching."

      Mary put first things first. The quiet spirit of love and meditation, the desire for heavenly

communion, the drinking in of the word and spirit of Jesus himself, the receiving of spiritual nourishment from him--these are far ahead of the bustling activity due to a thought that to satisfy Jesus' physical needs could be more pleasing to him than to sit at his feet as a humble and adoring disciples

      G. A. Studdert Kennedy has put in verse in appropriate prayer:

      Some few persons are to be found who vigorously deny our right to attach the name "The Lord's Prayer" to the model prayer which our Lord gave to his disciples. They call the prayer of John 17 "the Lord's prayer" because he prayed it; and that of Matt. 6 "the disciples' prayer" because they were to pray it. This is not mere hypercriticism; but it is invalid. The prayer of our study is the Lord's in the sense that he is its author. Even the title seems to justify our selection of the theme for such a series as this.

      Despite the frequent use of it, it is astonishing how many Christians have no knowledge of the different New Testament versions of the prayer. That in most common use does not follow exactly the rendering of Matthew or of Luke either in Common or Revised Versions. It is certain, also, that the Common Version contains matter lacking adequate manuscript authority. It is doubtless the case that large numbers of Christians would not regard the following as "the Lord's prayer" at all:

      "Father, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins: for we ourselves forgive every one that is indebted to us. And bring us not into temptation."

      Yet that is the entire prayer as it appears in the Revised Version of Luke. In Matthew, there is a longer account, which yet comes short of the form in common use.

      The simple explanation of the different readings in Matthew and Luke is found in the fact

that our Lord on two separate occasions gave a model and not a set form of words. The different accounts given in the Gospels furnish the clearest proof that the apostolic church did not regard the Lord Jesus as giving a liturgical form of prayer. As a model the prayer remains the most wonderful and comprehensive of petitions.

Some alternative readings.

      Nearly everything in the model prayer is clear and simple, but two or three points arise which justify the inclusion of the prayer in our present series of studies.

      The qualifying clause "as in heaven so on earth" is generally used with reference to the third petition alone, and that seems the natural treatment. But some prefer to take the words in connection with the first three petitions, thus:

      Grammatically, this is possible, and of course it gives quite good sense. That reading would remove the difficulty felt in connection with the second petition. To pray "Thy kingdom come," it is frequently pointed out, was appropriate when the kingdom was yet proclaimed as future; but it is not so to-day, for Christians have been delivered from the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son. For the development or the progress of the kingdom, for its coming in fulness and glory, we can all fervently pray.

      Much discussion, most of it profitless, has taken place regarding the words "deliver us from evil" (Matt. 6:13). The word for "evil" in the original may be either masculine or neuter. Taking it as masculine, our revisers have rendered it "the evil one." The matter cannot be finally decided, and it is unimportant. There can be no practical difference in our being said to be delivered from evil or from him who is the author of evil.

Our "daily" bread.

      There is one word in the Lord's prayer which is puzzling. It is not only difficult, but it is quite impossible, in the present state of our knowledge, to give a final interpretation. That word is "daily"--one which the ordinary reader is apt to think of as one of the simplest words in the prayer. The Greek original is "epiousion," and it is found only in Matt. 6:11 and Luke 11:3, and nowhere else in literature. Scholars are still divided as to its derivation and meaning.

      It should he quite clear to even the casual reader that the "daily" of Luke 11:3 cannot mean merely "every day," for that would be superfluous and tautological, seeing that Christ said "Give us day by day our 'daily' bread."

      Roman Catholic and some Protestant interpreters have accepted the meaning of supersubstantial bread, i. e., bread over and above material substance. Put in its best form, this interpretation simply says that Christ "meant his disciples, in this pattern prayer, to seek for the nourishment of the higher and not the lower life." Those taking this view point out that this is in harmony with the rest of the prayer: "The whole raises us to the region of thought in which we leave all that concerns our earthly life in the hands of our Father, without asking him even for the supply of its simplest wants, seeking only that he would sustain and perfect the higher life of our spirit."

      That we should put spiritual nourishment above physical bread, and that we may pray for spiritual food, is undoubted; but we do not think this is the probable meaning of the passage. It seems to us better to take the common view that one petition of the Lord's Prayer deals with earthly needs. The prayer is a comprehensive one, dealing with both spiritual and physical requirements. A lesson in proportional values is taught in that the first part of the prayer deals with God-his holy name, his kingdom and his will; then we make request

for ourselves also, and only one petition of the six relates to physical wants. It must be legitimate to entreat sustenance for even earthly life: and the very making of the petition shows that we recognise our absolute dependence upon God. After all, as Farrar remarks, "though we are spirits we have bodies," and in this prayer our Lord "recognises our human needs and bids us ask the All-Father that of his bounty they may be supplied."

      There have been a few who have strangely thought this petition more suitable for men such as the apostles than for disciples to-day who may have well filled store-rooms and banking accounts. This objection seems a foolish one. We are all day by day dependent upon God. But for his constant care and providence where would our boasted provision be?

      Very many scholars believe that daily bread means "bread for the coming day," and this follows the analogy of a similar Greek word and also gives excellent sense of itself. The prayer may be made at the beginning of a day, and in that case "bread for the coming day" will be "to-day's bread," and that would fit Matthew 6:11, "Give us this day our 'daily' bread." But "the coming day" might mean "tomorrow," and some definitely so regard it. For instance, Dr. Moffatt in his New Translation renders Matt. 6:11 by "Give us to-day our bread for the morrow," and Luke 11:3, "Give us our bread for the morrow day by day." That is, we seek supplies for one day ahead. While this view is not impossible, and while it may not be excluded by Matt. 6:34 ("Be not anxious for tomorrow"), yet "the daily asking for to-morrow's bread does not seem quite natural."

      The English and American Revised Versions have the marginal reading, "our bread for the coming day," while the American has the additional alternative of "our needful bread." Rotherham puts "our needful bread" in the text definitely as his translation.

      For ourselves, while admitting that the matter must be left open, we incline to either of the meanings "bread for the coming day" (not necessarily "tomorrow"), and "bread for the day" in the sense of the needful or sufficient food. The latter view has much to commend it. The request then is for food required for health and strength. The prayer of Agur in Proverbs 30:8 has often been cited in illustration, "Give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that is needful for me." Plummer's comment is worthy of notice. "We are not to ask for superfluities," he says. The petition will cover what is needed for culture and refinement, but it will not cover luxury or extravagance. What we need must not be interpreted to mean all that we desire; sufficiency and contentment will never be reached by that method. Contentment is reached by moderating wants, not by multiplying possessions."

      There is a difference between Matthew and Luke which may be noted in closing. In the model prayer of the Sermon on the Mount the word for "give" is "dos" ("give in one act"); in the prayer given on the occasion recorded by Luke our Lord's word was "didou" ("be giving" or "give us continuously"). Farrar quotes Dr. Vaughan's comment on the different tenses: "Matthew touches the readiness, Luke the steadiness; Matthew the promptitude, Luke the patience of God's supply."

      The Parable of the Unjust Steward has been a puzzle to many, and our Lord's injunction to his disciples to "make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness" remains to some an exegetical stumbling-block. There are difficulties in the passage of our present study, but there is nothing which should cause much trouble.

      The steward whose conduct is described was an agent or factor rather than merely a house steward. The management of affairs was left in his hands. Doubtless he had power to make contracts, fix prices and rents, and generally act for his master. The case of Eliezer in the house of Abraham (Gen. 24) or Joseph in the house of Potiphar (Gen. 39) may parallel that of the steward. Clearly a man in such a responsible position who abused his trust had much opportunity for fraudulent gain. This steward was accused of wasting his lord's goods, we know not how. Accordingly he was asked to give a report and statement of accounts, and received intimation of dismissal. To make provision for the future, he then determined to place his master's debtors under an obligation to himself, and made an agreement with them whereby a large proportion of the indebtedness was written off.

      Exactly what the cunning arrangement involved is not indicated. Many believe that the debtors were tenants who were wont to pay a proportion of the harvest as rent, and that in the past the steward had charged to them the higher amount stated and paid to his lord the lower figure, pocketing the difference. This is possible. Others imagine that goods had been

sold, and bills or notes of hand taken in acknowledgment of the indebtedness. It should be noted that the narrative does not represent this reduction of debt as an illegal or even a secret act. It was doubtless the case that while he was yet steward the man could legally fix and adjust prices, and there was no danger of his master's being able to proceed against the debtors for the greater amount. The bargain was valid, and the debtors or tenants remained permanently benefited. Needless to say, in their eyes the steward made no immediate gain out of the present transaction. The view that he let the debtors know of his position and won them over by hope of personal gain to be participators in fraud must be dismissed from our minds, though some commentators evidently accept it.

The lord and the Lord's comments.

      Jesus said: "His lord commended the unrighteous steward because he had done wisely." "His lord" of course means the steward's master, and not the Lord Jesus. "Prudently" is a better translation than "wisely." It will be noted that the use of this word carries with it no commendation or condonation of the steward's wickedness. The foresight and prudence even of an evil man may be praised. The lord of the parable is represented as having wit enough to appreciate the shrewdness and foresight of his employee even while that is directed against himself.

      "The fraud of this 'steward of injustice' is neither excused nor palliated" by Christ. "The lesson to us is analogous skill and prudence, but spiritually employed."

      The words which immediately follow are the words of Christ. "The sons of this world," he says, "are for their own generation wiser than the sons of the light." This verse is frequently misquoted and as frequently misunderstood. Our Lord neither meant nor said that the sons of this world are wiser than the sons of light. The poorest Christian is a much wiser man than the

greatest person in the world who rejects Christ, and nothing in the text suggests the contrary. But "for their generation" the children of the world are wiser or more prudent. There are two ways in which this verse has been interpreted. One, that the sons of the world are wiser in worldly things than Christians are in the same worldly things. This may be true, but surely that is not the meaning. Rather, the sons of the world "make better use of their earthly opportunities for their own life time than the sons of the light do for their lifetime, or even than the sons of light do of their heavenly opportunities of eternity." Many illustrations of this appear. Contrast the diligence and

      singleness of aim of the successful business man of the world with the half-hearted service we often give to Christ and the church. We are familiar with the saying that if an earthly business were run as the church is it would inevitably become bankrupt. The church seeks to win men from sin--contrast the comparative attractiveness of church and picture show, chapel and hotel bar. The chief thing in our Lord's word seems to be that the children of the light "give not half the pains to win heaven which the children of the world do to win earth--that they are less provident in heavenly things than those are in earthly--that the world is better served by its servants than God is by us." "The zeal and alacrity of the 'devil's martyrs,'--'says Farrar, "may be imitated even by God's servants."

A friend of money?

      It is the ninth verse of the chapter which has caused most discussion, and which comes within the class of ambiguous texts. According to the Common Version, the Saviour added: "I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations." The Revised Version has some alterations, notably "by means of" for "of," and "it" for "ye."

      There are some people who apparently think it impossible that Jesus advised the making of friends either of or by means of the mammon of unrighteousness, and some desperate expedients have been taken to remove the thought that he did so. One noted interpreter tried to solve the problem by translating as a question and giving an interpretation as follows: "Shall I say unto you, make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness? Nay, rather I say, He that is faithful in a little is faithful also in much," etc. Others who have hesitated to deal thus with the passage have been completely puzzled.

      A great advance towards a reasonable interpretation is made when we realise that "the mammon of unrighteousness" simply means money. It need not be money wrongfully acquired. It is called "mammon of unrighteousness by a figure of speech (metonymy), the qualities which characterise its common use being transferred to the thing itself." Weymouth translates, "the wealth which is ever tempting to dishonesty." The abuse of riches is more common than their proper use. As Dr. Marcus Dods says, "Take any coin out of your pocket and make it tell its history, the hands it has been in, the things it has paid for, the transactions it has assisted, and you would be inclined to fling it away as contaminated and filthy." No wonder that such expressions as "filthy lucre" or "mammon of unrighteousness" came to be employed even when there was no implication that in the particular case under notice there was any wrongful acquisition or expenditure.

      Trench rightly rejects the view that wealth unjustly gotten, by fraud or violence, is referred to, saying: "The words so interpreted would be easily open to abuse, as though a man might compound with his conscience and with God, and by giving some small portion of alms out of unjustly acquired wealth make the rest clean unto him. But plainly the first command to the possessor of such would be to restore it to

its rightful owners, as Zacchaeus, on his conversion, was resolved to do; . . . and out of such there could never be offered acceptable alms to him who has said, 'I hate robbery for burnt-offering.' Only when this restoration is impossible, as must often happen, could it be lawfully bestowed upon the poor."

      But how could Jesus tell us to "make friends of" money, seeing that "the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil"? The word for "of" is "ek," meaning literally "out of," and the Revised Version translates "by means of." A man uses his money well, to help his fellows and relieve the poor, can make true friends by means of his riches. By prudent foresight the steward of the parable provided by use of unrighteous mammon friends who would later receive him; in a higher and better sense may Christians make friends with their money.

      It be seen that there would be no special difficulty even if the meaning were "make friends of money." The man who lives to make money, who uses fraud or deceit in its acquisition, who spends it in riotous living, or who uses it selfishly, does not make money in the best sense his friend. It is injuring him as an enemy would harm him. But money may be made a friend, and become a minister of good both to him who gives it and to him who receives. We turn mammon into a friend, as well as make friends by means of it, "when we use riches not as our own to squander, but as God's to employ in deeds of usefulness and mercy."

Received into heaven.

      The friends made by the steward received him after his dismissal, and we are to make friends by means of money "that, when it shall fail [or, ye fail], they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles." It matters little whether the reading be "it," referring to money, or "ye, in allusion to the death of the disciples. Our use of money presumably ends with death. But many readers are left wondering who are the

people who are to receive us into heaven, or the eternal tents. There are two explanations which seem worthy of note. One naturally refers the "they" to the nearest preceding plural noun, "friends" and though there is no pronoun at all in the Greek text very many expositors give this interpretation. Weymouth definitely translates "friends who . . . shall welcome you." Those who oppose this view generally point out that our reception into heaven is not by the favor of men, and so God and Christ are often said to be meant. Others refer us to the angels who carried Lazarus into Abraham's bosom. There is no incongruity in thinking of those we have helped as at least welcoming us in the life beyond, and it is certainly true that this view fits well, and perhaps best, with the analogy of the action of the friends of the steward. Dr. Marcus Dods expresses the meaning thus: "The parents whose closing years, you watched and sheltered at the sacrifice of the opportunities of your own youth, the children for whom you have toiled, the friend or relative whose long sickness you brightened and rewarded by unwearied affection, the acquaintance you kept from poverty by timely intervention, the lad whose whole life you lifted to a higher level by giving him the first step--all those whom you have so loved here that your service of them has been ungrudging and unthought of--these are they who will receive you into everlasting habitations."

      It may be better, however, to regard the expression as being made with an impersonal sense (as in Luke 12:11; 23:31). The underlying meaning is clear. It is the great lesson of Matt. 25:34-40, that they who will be accepted at last will not he those who have made a mere profession but those who feed the hungry, care for the poor, visit the sick, and minister to the needy ones whom Christ calls his brethren. The literal truth is that "the heart of love which prompts and induces us to do good to the poor fits us for heaven."

      The silence which encompasses twenty-eight years of our Lord's earthly life is once broken. Luke the evangelist, who gives us the most detailed record of the infancy, tells us the one authentic anecdote of the boy Jesus.

      Not until the age of twelve years was a Jewish boy required to enter into the full obedience of an Israelite, and to attend the Passover. After this age, he became a "son of the law." Doubtless it meant much to Jesus to go up to the Holy City and witness the impressive ceremonial of the most sacred of feasts.

      After spending the usual time in Jerusalem, Joseph and Mary joined a Galilean caravan and set out for Nazareth. To their consternation, Jesus was lost. Making anxious inquiry, the distracted parents returned to Jerusalem. After three days--probably one for the outward journey, one for the return, and one for search in the city--they found Jesus in the temple "sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions." We fear that some Christians have failed to appreciate this passage. There was nothing forward in Jesus' attitude; he is not represented as assuming any authority or acting the part of teacher. F. W. Farrar contrasts the Gospel story with what we find in the Apocryphal Gospels and other books, where a forwardness and presumption is implied which would have awakened the displeasure of the Rabbis, whereas Jesus had won their admiration by his modesty and intelligence. "He was 'sitting' at the feet of the Rabbis, 'hearing them,' i. e., trying to learn all which they could teach; and ingenuously, but with consummate insight, 'answering' the questions which they addressed to

him." All the people who were present-apparently Rabbis and visitors alike-were "amazed at his understanding and answers," and Joseph and Mary too were astonished at the sight. The mother of our Lord let her natural anxiety manifest itself in a gentle rebuke, "Son, why hast thou dealt thus with us? behold, thy father and I sought thee sorrowing."

The Father's business-or house.

      Jesus' reply to his mother's inquiry and expostulation is variously rendered. The Common Version puts it: "How is it that ye sought me? Wist ye not that I must he about my Father's business?" In the Revised Version the second question runs: "Wist ye not that I must be in my Father's house?" The literal meaning of the original Greek words is "in the things of my Father," and there is even yet some discussion as to which of the two famous English versions is preferable, though most scholars agree with the revisers.

      "I must be about my Father's business." The words would furnish an excellent life's motto for the Christian. They give also a beautiful description of the life of him whose first recorded utterance we are considering, for it is written of him that he "went about doing good" and that he came to earth to do God's will. We might like to think that as a boy of twelve Jesus had declared his life's purpose and devotion as the common reading suggests. It is doubtless such thoughts which have made many cling to the words of King James's Version even while they have been convinced that the revision gives a more probable view. The sentiment and associations of the familiar rendering are so beautiful that it seems a pity to have to depart from it.

      It has to be confessed, however, that the translation of the Revised Version has so much in its favor, and so fits the context, that we are practically compelled to adopt it. When Mary had complained about having to seek her son sorrowing. Jesus' appropriate remark was: "Seek

me? Why did you need to seek me? Did you not know I must be here, in my Father's house?" Mary should have come at once to the temple.

      It has been suggested by some writers that we might retain both renderings, A.V. and R.V. alike, taking one as primary and the other as secondary. There is no doubt that both make sense, and give excellent lessons; but it seems "certain that only one of the meanings was in the mind of the artless Child from whose lips they fell," and that meaning is given in the Revised Version.

"Thy father"--"My Father."

      It will be noted that, taking either version, the boy Jesus is represented as answering Mary's reference to "thy father" by a declaration that it was God who was his Father. Mary of course, as Luke who records the story, knew that Jesus had no human father; but, as was quite natural, Joseph received the title as the reputed father, just as in Luke's own narrative we have mention of "his parents" (2:41). Now, however, Jesus reveals his consciousness of a special and divine origin and mission. The question has often been discussed: When did Jesus first become conscious of his divinity and of the redemptive purpose of coming to earth? No final answer can be given; for, in the absence of revelation, speculation is idle. But it is clear from his own words that at the age of twelve he was conscious that no man was his father but that he stood in a unique relationship to God.

      It is surely most significant that in his first recorded utterance Jesus spoke of God as his Father, and that in the last sentence spoken prior to his death on the cross he also did so. "Father," he prayed, "into thy hands I commend my spirit,' and having said this, he gave up the ghost." Pre-eminently Jesus came from heaven to earth to show men the Father and to bring them back to the Father. Fittingly, then, the first and the last of his recorded utterances should contain his greatest word. Between

these was given the revelation of the character of God in the words and deeds of a perfect life.

The example of Jesus.

      Other thoughts inevitably associated with the incident are worthy of mention. We see Jesus' early love for and knowledge of the Scriptures. He later declared that man lives not by bread alone but by every word of God. He met all enemies--Satan, human foes and death itself--with weapons from the arsenal of the word. Again, his love for the temple, which he twice called his Father's house, is evident. In his careful attendance on religious services--in temple and synagogue--our Lord furnished an example to his disciples. Lastly, we have the beautiful record which says that, after his acknowledgment of God alone as his Father, he went down to Nazareth with Joseph and Mary "and was subject unto them." He was divine and yet human, so high and yet so lowly, beyond the greatest of earth in dignity and yet willing humbly and obediently to return to the peasant home and labor at the carpenter's bench. Well might we say, with Irenaeus of old: "He passed through every age, having been an infant to sanctify infants; a little one among the little ones, sanctifying the little ones; among the youths a youth." He left us an example, that we should follow his steps.

      Dante, the great Italian Poet, tells how, walking with Virgil through the Inferno, he saw

      In the first three Gospels we have the story of the rich young ruler, a man whose virtues elicited the love of Christ, one whose heart seemed set on heavenly things, and who yet when the testing time came was guilty of "the great refusal." The earnestness, zeal and humility of the young man are beautifully exhibited in the narrative. That he, a ruler of the people, should run to Jesus and kneel before him in the way, was an unusual and wonderful thing. Whatever may be wrong in his question, "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?" it at least betokened a good interest in heavenly things. His upright life is implied in his response to Christ's words referring him to the law. "All these things have I observed from my youth" is a statement made with evident sincerity. That it was not the empty boast of a religious trifler is manifest from the record of Mark, who at this stage tells us that "Jesus looking upon him loved him."

      Despite all his attractive qualities, however, the young ruler failed to pass the test of Christ. Because he had great possessions, he would not sell his goods and give to the poor, but instead went away sorrowful." Turning his back on Christ, he turned it upon the life which his opening words seemed to indicate he was willing to seek first of all. He was not so much prepared as he thought he was to do anything and everything to obtain life eternal. Whether or not he ever turned again and complied with our Lord's conditions is not revealed. The

Scripture record was given for our profit and admonition, not for the gratification of our curiosity.

"Good Master" and "good thing."

      For the purpose of our present study we are concerned not with the full story of the ruler, but only with his opening words and with our Lord's reply to them. It will help to have before us the accounts given by Mark and Matthew. In each case we quote the Revised Version.

      "There ran one to him, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good save one, even God" (Mark 10:17, 18).

      "One came to him and said, Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why askest thou me concerning that which is good'

      One there is who is good" (Matt. 19:16, 17).

      A difficulty which some devout readers have had with the various readings of the Gospels must be noted. Matthew represents the young man as asking about the "good thing" he should do, and so quotes Jesus as saying, "Why askest thou me concerning that which is good?" In Mark and Luke, however, the rich young ruler's epithet of "good" is prefixed to "Master," and hence Jesus' inquiry ran: "Why callest thou me good?" The accounts can easily be harmonised. The ruler doubtless said, "Good Master, what good thing shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" Then Jesus in reply takes up each "good"--"Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? Why callest thou me good? None is good, save one, even God." The words in Matthew, "One there is who is good" imply the evangelist's knowledge of the second question propounded by Jesus. Reference to the marginal readings will show that some ancient authorities give readings in Matthew identical

with those in Mark; but taking our Revised Version as following the better attested text, the believing reader can easily harmonise the records.

The assumptions of unbelievers.

      There are many modern critics, however, who will have nothing to do with such reconciliation. They say that Mark, the author of the earliest Gospel, gives the accurate record, and shows that Jesus repudiated the epithet of "good" as applied to himself. It is further alleged that the author of the Gospel which we call Matthew's, writing after the dogma of Christ's sinlessness was being developed, and finding in the record of Mark, which be had before him, words which were inconsistent with that dogma, deliberately altered the narrative to avoid any appearance of conflict with the accepted doctrine of Jesus' sinlessness.

      We have no wish to examine in detail the unfounded series of assumptions in this alleged explanation of unbelievers; for our articles are written to help true believers to understand the Scriptures which they accept as the product of the Holy Spirit's inspiration. However, it may be remarked that there is no proof whatever that Matthew altered Mark's record for the reason given or any other. It cannot be proven that Matthew is any less reliable than Mark. There is no proof that Christ could not or did not speak as both Mark and Matthew declare. There is not a shred of evidence to show that after Mark wrote and before Matthew penned his Gospel the dogma of the sinlessness of Christ had been developed. Our critical friends could not begin to prove that Mark did not believe in the sinlessness of Jesus. The interested reader will note that Mark's Gospel opens with the words: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." it will require something more than the mere statement of an unbelieving critic to give semblance of cogency to the view that Mark could think of the Son of God as one who sinned!

      Again, Mark gives in the Saviour's words that he came "to give his life a ransom for many." Was the Ransomer too in need of a ransom for his own sin? The idea is unthinkable. But we need not be surprised at the strange expedients adopted by those who today make "the great refusal" of Christ and his word.

      To one other point in the objection we give somewhat more detailed treatment, because in support is adduced the question of Christ which brings the passage within the scope of our studies.

Did Jesus repudiate the epithet "good"?

      "Why callest thou me good? None is good save one, even God." This is a text in which some unbelievers exult and by which some Christians are puzzled.

      There is no doubt either about the original reading of Mark's account or concerning the translation of the text. We may take it that our versions report accurately what our Lord said. Even so, it is possible to read, "Why callest thou me good?" in different ways and with different meanings. It is a matter of emphasis. If a person wishes to read into the passage a repudiation by our Lord of his own sinlessness, he has only to emphasise the "me" strongly and read: "Why callest thou ME good? None is good save one, even God." But let such a one recognise the fact that that is his interpretation (or distortion) of the text. it is a wilful reading into the verse of something which makes it contradict the witness of Christ himself as well as the repeated witness of other writers of Scripture (John 6:69; 11:46; 14:30; 1 Pet. 2:22; 1 John 3:5, etc.). There is no warrant for so reading this passage in Mark as to make it contradict the claim of him who challenged his enemies to convict him of sin. The attempt on the strength of this one verse to impugn our Lord's perfect sinlessness is as unfair as it is unwarranted.

      If we emphasise the "why" of the question, there is excellent sense, the meaning is clear, and the passage harmonises with all the rest that is revealed by or concerning Jesus Christ. The ruler had come with a sincere desire to honor Jesus as a great teacher, and as one who would at all hazards possess eternal life. He came with a somewhat facile compliment upon his lips and also with a question regarding some good thing he could do. Jesus in his reply pulls him up, and bids him think of the word he is using and of its implications. Why is it, he asks, that you call me good? Do you realise what is involved in the use of that epithet?

      Either the ruler should acknowledge Jesus as divine, and not simply regard him as a human rabbi, or else he should not use the title "Good Teacher."' The words "none is good save one, even God" also cut away all just ground for that man's, or any other man's, conceit about his own goodness.

God--or not good.

      Dr. Alexander Maclaren has an excellent comment on the passage: "Our Lord answers with a coldness which startles; but it was meant to arouse, like a dash of cold water flung in the face. 'Why callest thou me good?' is more than a waving aside of a compliment, or a lesson in accuracy of speech. It rebukes the young man's shallow conception of goodness as shown by the facility with which he bestowed the epithet. 'None is good save one, even God' cuts up by the roots his notion of the possibility of self-achieved goodness, since it traces all human goodness to its source in God. . . . How then can any man 'inherit eternal life' by good deeds, which he is only able to do because God has poured some of his own goodness into him? Jesus shatters the young man's whole theory, as expressed in his question, at one stroke. But while his reply bears directly on the errors of the question, it has a wider significance. Either Jesus is here repudiating the notion of his own sinlessness and acknowledging, in contradiction

to every other disclosure of his self-consciousness, that he was not through and through good, or else he is claiming to be filled with God, the source of all goodness, in a wholly unique manner. It is a tremendous alternative, but one which has to be faced. While one is thankful if men even imperfectly apprehend the character and nature of Jesus, one cannot but feel that the question may fairly be put to the many who extol the beauty of his life, and deny his divinity, 'Why callest thou me good?' Either he is 'God manifest in the flesh,' or he is not 'good."'

      No man is entitled to rest half way, and to reject the Saviour's divine authority while lauding his character in the facile way in which multitudes do so to-day. There are but the two forms of valid reasoning from the premises before us. Either--There is none good but God; Christ is good; therefore Christ is God. Or--There is none good but God; Christ is not God; therefore Christ is not good. Our faith is in the Son of God, who died for us, and set the perfect example of a sinless life; in the Lamb without blemish and without spot, by whose precious blood we are redeemed.

      The famous passage in which the Apostle Paul refers to baptism "for the dead" was not at first included in this series of studies, as it was felt to be a text presenting difficulty in interpretation rather than ambiguity in the strict sense. There is, however, a certain degree of the latter, and in response to a suggestion the verse has been included.

      In 1 Corinthians 15, the great "resurrection chapter," the apostle sought to confute those who in his day were denying the resurrection of the saints. His chief point was that the arguments his opponents were using would apply also to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If there was no resurrection, and no risen Christ, then the Christian faith was a vain thing, there was no salvation from sin, those who had fallen asleep in Christ had perished, and Christians who had entertained delusive hopes were of all men to be pitied most. However, by cogent argument Paul could prove the resurrection of Christ, and with that established the Christians could be sure of the future resurrection of departed saints.

      It seems curious, after the Apostle Paul had reached the heights of triumphant declaration of the final conquest of the risen Christ, that he should then return to what seems to most readers a subsidiary as well as an obscure argument. A certain practice, he writes, was unmeaning if there were no resurrection of the dead. It will be well to quote his own words:

      "Else what shall they do which are baptised for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptised for them?" (1 Cor. 15:29, R.V.).

      The Common Version punctuates differently, and at the end of the second question has the repetition of the word "dead" in place of the better attested pronoun of the revision, thus: "Else what shall they do which are baptised for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptised for the dead?" But there is no alteration of meaning, and we nee(t have little difficulty so far as translation is concerned.

      There is, however, no agreement amongst scholars as to the precise meaning of the verse, and from the early centuries expositors have been perplexed. Some people have been very sure of the meaning, but wiser writers freely confess that certainty is beyond us. Dr. Plummer said that "with our present knowledge it is impossible to do more than determine the direction in which a correct solution may be found. It is possible to show what kind of interpretation the language of 1 Cor. 15:29 requires; and, when this is done, other kinds of interpretation are excluded as impossible."

      One writer has collected thirty-six different interpretations, and there is no likelihood that he gave an exhaustive enumeration. If the reader of this has any settled opinion at all, it is highly probable that he has some supporters. The defender of the quaintest view need not feel lonely!

Vicarious baptism.

      It seems natural first to notice the explanation that Paul refers to vicarious or proxy baptism, in which a living man was baptised on behalf of a dead one, so that the departed friend might receive a benefit. The Mormons of modern times have revived this baptism for the dead, which we know was practised in the early centuries, after the apostolic age. Tertullian (died c. 220 A.D.) and Chrysostom (died 407 A.D.) tell us that it existed amongst the Marcionites of the second century; and Epiphanius (died 403 A.D.) says that there was "an uncertain tradition handed down, that it

was also to be found amongst some heretics in Asia, especially in Galatia, in the times of the apostles." Chrysostom describes the practice: When a catechumen (i. e. one training for baptism and church membership) had died before receiving baptism, "they hid a living man under the bed of the deceased; then coming to the dead man they spoke to him, and asked him whether he would receive baptism; and he making no answer, the other replied in his stead, and so they baptised the living for the dead." Epiphanius states the purpose: "lest in the resurrection the dead should be punished for want of baptism, and not subjected to the powers that made the world." Chrysostom says he could not speak of the practice without bursts of laughter, and the early writers did not think that Paul was making any allusion in 1 Cor. 15:29 to any such practice.

      It is true that even a superstitious practice of the kind referred to would imply a belief in resurrection and future life, and so it could fit Paul's general argument in 1 Corinthians 15. An illustration might be drawn even from an evil thing. But we are persuaded that had Paul referred to such an unauthorised and grossly superstitious rite he must have condemned it. It is impossible for us to believe that he could have been content with the language he uses, if he had known that some of the Christians had so distorted the ordinance of our Lord's appointment. Further, there is no proof that proxy baptism existed in apostolic times, and it is much more probable that the later superstitions rite grew out of the fancied meaning of our text than that the text refers to an existing practice.

      There is no proxy religion in the New Testament. Faith, repentance and obedience in baptism are all matters personal to the individual seeker for salvation. It is interesting to note that Dean Stanley, who believes that 1 Cor. 15:29 refers to vicarious baptism (though of course he thought that practice to be superstitious and unauthorised), should seek to show a certain

connection between later church practices with their alterations of New Testament and those of the people referred to by Paul. In his commentary on Corinthians Stanley writes: "This endeavor to assume a vicarious responsibility in baptism is the same as afterwards appeared in the institution of sponsors." It will be remembered that the church of which the Dean was a brilliant member and leader represents the godfathers and godmothers as making profession of faith and other promises on behalf of the infant to be baptised. We can but repeat, whether of ancient heretical baptism or of any modern practice, that no one person can believe, repent or be baptised for another. Stanley goes on to refer to what the Church of Rome has done to the other ordinance of our Lord's appointment, as illustrating the motive behind the proxy baptism of the heretics: "The striving to repair the shortcomings of the departed is the same which in regard to the other sacrament, still prevails through a large part of Christendom, in the institution of masses for the dead."

Some better interpretations.

      (1) One of the interpretations which yet holds the field is found in the early Greek "fathers," that Paul refers to the ordinary Christian rite, which implies a belief in the resurrection. Evans in the "Speakers' Commentary" strongly defends this view, and would translate "with an interest in [the resurrection of, the dead," or "in expectation of [the resurrection of] the dead." The objections usually given to the view, however, are very strong if not demonstrative. viz.: (1) that the words "they who are baptised for the dead" suggest a special class rather than refer to the whole body of Christians. It would he an unnatural way of speaking if those who were "baptised for the dead" included all to whom Paul wrote as well as the apostle himself. Indeed, he seems in the very next verse to put himself into another class. (2) It may be doubted whether the

preposition "huper" can have this meaning. (3) The ellipse is too violent; the words put in brackets above have no place in the original text.

      (2) A few scholarly interpreters have attached a figurative meaning to the phrase "baptised for the dead," making it stand for the baptism of suffering such as Christ was baptised with, a "baptism for the sake of [entering into the church of] the dead." The only merit of this is that it suits the immediately following verses which refer to Paul's suffering for Christ's sake. But, as has been objected, "this is a still greater strain upon the preposition, and is equally open to objection from the use of the third person and of the 'them' at the end of the verse."

      (3) Some writers have imagined that deathbed or clinic baptism is referred to. This, however, was a post-apostolic practice, and, so far as we know, was not found in the first century. Besides, "baptism of the dying" could hardly be described as "baptism for the dead." Despite the great names of Calvin and others associated with this view, we may dismiss it also as impossible.

      (4) Another view is well worth mentioning, and is of a very different class. It is, briefly, that Paul is referring to what is a common experience that "the death of Christians leads to the conversion of sinners, who in the first instance 'for the sake of the dead' (their beloved (lead), and in the hope of reunion turn to Christ." Professor David Smith adopts this view, and expresses it in the following words:

      "What then does the verse signify? Observe that the phrase 'for the dead,' though ambiguous in English, cannot in the original mean, as the idea of vicarious baptism would require, 'instead of the dead.' The Greek preposition here signifies 'for the sake of; and it illumines the apostle's words when we recognise that these were sorrowful days at Corinth. It was a heathen city, and it appears that it had recently been visited by a pestilence (cf. 11:30). 'Many

among them were weak and sickly, and not a few were falling asleep'--the Christian phrase for dying. As our Lord had forewarned his disciples, the gospel had enkindled strife. There was many a home where a husband or a wife, a son or a daughter, a brother or a sister had confessed Christ and been loaded with ridicule and abuse. And now when the believer had gone to his rest, his kinsfolk's hearts softened towards him, regretfully remembering his gracious pleading and their bitter words; and that they might meet him again in the blessed home, they turned to his Saviour and 'were baptised for the sake of their dead.' And this is the apostle's appeal to those who doubted the resurrection. Will you, he pleads, forgo that blessed hope?"

      Professor G. G. Findlay, who in the Expositor's Greek Testament argues for this interpretation, says truly that "the hope of future blessedness, allying itself with family affections and friendship, was one of the most powerful factors in the early spread of Christianity."

      In closing, we suggest that the two interpretations which most appeal to us are those numbered (1) and (4) above. If we cannot definitely decide between these, we confess that the closing view has made an ever stronger appeal to us as the years go by, so that we now regard it as the one with least difficulty and that which is probably correct.

      Readers of what are called the Pastoral Epistles--the three letters in which Paul gives advice to Timothy and Titus. his youthful helpers in the Gospel--will have noted how there appears in each of them a word which Paul nowhere else uses. We have frequent mention of "sound" doctrine. This word occurs eight or nine times in these three short epistles. In 1 Timothy Paul refers to a number of grievous sins, as "contrary to the sound doctrine" (1:10). A man who "teacheth a different doctrine" than the apostolic one and who "consenteth not to sound words" is condemned (1 Tim. 6:3). Timothy is exhorted to "hold the pattern of sound words" (2 Tim. 1:13). "The time will come" when men "will not endure the sound doctrine" (2 Tim. 4:3). A bishop must be able to "exhort in the sound doctrine" (Titus 1:9). Reproof must be given to unruly men and vain talkers "that they may be sound in the faith" (Tit. 1:13). Titus has to speak "things which befit the sound doctrine" (2:1), so that aged men may be "sound in faith" (2:2). In his doctrine he is to show "sound speech, that cannot be condemned" (2:8).

Doctrinal preaching.

      The word "doctrine" is not a popular one. Only to a less degree than the word "dogma," it seems to repel. To call a man a "dogmatic" person is but one way of condemning him. To say that one preaches a "doctrinal" sermon would generally be regarded as adverse criticism. Yet the apostolic message was a most definite and dogmatic one, and the need of "sound doctrine" was insisted on by the apostle. There

is a common modern antithesis between the preaching of Christ and the delivering of a doctrinal sermon. That distinction could hardly have meaning for the apostle. There is no possible preaching of Christ without the preaching of doctrine. All that the writer or reader of this knows of Christ comes from doctrine. "Doctrine" simply means "teaching," and the difference between one preacher and another in his utterances regarding Christ is not that the one gives doctrine while the other does not, but is a difference in the quality of the doctrine or teaching that is given.

      He who reads the New Testament will see that doctrine is important. We have made unwarranted separations. Some say that conduct, not faith, is what counts for most. But conduct is rooted in faith, and what a man really believes in his heart finds an issue in his life. God would not have given a revelation of himself at the length he has in the Scriptures if it did not matter what a man believes. It is true that a faith which does not issue in a godly life, which does not manifest itself in works of beneficence and mercy, is worthless and dead. But it is also true that the real faith in the heart of a man determines what his actions will be. We wish to believe truth, and not error. "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." So long as this word of the Saviour stands, so long will it he imperative to give careful attention to doctrine. "Take heed to thyself, and to thy teaching," wrote Paul to Timothy; "continue in these things; for in doing this thou shalt save both thyself and them that hear thee."

"Sound" in the faith.

      One of our most familiar expressions is that which is given in praise to a speaker whom we call "sound." He is "sound in the faith," we say; or, he gives "sound doctrine." What do we usually mean by this? That he is an orthodox believer; that he accepts the revelation God has made; that he is free from "critical"

or "modernist" tendencies. All this is to the good, and it may be useful to have a word like "sound" to serve as a label. There is no doubt that to Paul and his fellow apostles it was most important that the divine revelation should be accepted. Paul declared that "he received of the Lord" the things which he spake; and that he spoke "not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth." There was a sacred "deposit" of truth which he urged Timothy to "guard." Some heretics made "shipwreck concerning the faith." Christians were urged to "contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints."

      While we are compelled to make it clear that the sacred truths of the Christian religion come to us as a deposit to be jealously guarded, yet we must also point out that it was not simply orthodoxy which Paul had in mind when he wrote of "sound words" or "sound doctrine." It has been easy for some to think that when Paul wrote of "the form of sound words" he meant something like a modern church creed, that by conformity to which a man's faith or utterances might be tested. But it was not so. In the ancient church there were no formularies such as are found to-day. The creeds were a later growth, and Paul referred neither to them nor to any mere safeguard of orthodoxy.

      The word "sound," which Paul uses, had not for him or his readers such associations as are common to-day. A comment from Alexander Maclaren will help to make Paul's meaning clear: "'Doctrine' conveys to the ordinary reader the notion of an abstract, dry, theological statement of some truth. Now, what the apostle means is not 'doctrine' so much as 'teaching'; and if you will substitute 'teaching' for 'doctrine' you will get much nearer his thought; just as you will get nearer it if for 'sound,' with the meaning of conformity to theological standard, you substitute what the word really means, 'healthy,' wholesome,--health-giving, healing. All these ideas run into each other. That which is in itself healthy is health-giving as food, and as a medicine is healing. The

apostle is not describing the teaching that he had given to Timothy by its conformity with any standard, but is pointing to its essential nature as being wholesome, sound in a physical sense; and to its effect as being healthy and health-giving. Keep hold of that thought, and the whole aspect of this saving changes at once."

      It is interesting to note that the word Paul uses in every case except Tit. 2:8 ("hugiees") is employed in Luke's Gospel and in 3 John 2 in the sense of being whole or made whole physically. The word "hugiees" employed in Tit. 2:8 is found in each of the four Gospels and in Acts, in all of which it is translated "whole" and is used of physical healing. Of New Testament writers only Paul uses either word in a figurative sense. It is interesting to see how in his old age the apostle adopted this striking metaphorical form of speech. It is one of the key words of the Pastoral Epistles.

      Weymouth and Rotherham depart from the usual translation with its somewhat misleading associations. The former has a rich variety of expressions: "wholesome teaching," "wholesome instruction," "sound teaching," "healthy language" "robust in their faith." Rotherham uses the word "healthful"--"healthful" teaching, discourses, instruction-and the phrase "healthy in their faith."

"Healing, because it makes holy."

      Maclaren points out that in the pastoral epistles Paul gives a long catalogue of things "contrary to the health-giving doctrine," and adds: "If the ordinary notion of the expression were it, that catalogue ought to be a list of heresies. But what is it? A black list of vices--'deceivers,' 'ungodly,' 'sinners,' 'unholy,' 'profane,' 'murderers,' 'manslayers,' 'whoremongers,' 'man-stealers,' 'liars,' 'perjured' persons. Not one of these refers to aberration of opinion; all of them point to divergences of conduct, and these are the things that are contrary to the healing doctrine. But they are not contrary, often, to sound orthodoxy. For there have

been a great many imitators of that King of France, who carried little leaden images of saints and the Virgin in his hat and the devil in his heart. 'The form of sound words' is the pattern of healing teaching, which proves itself healing because it makes holy."

      It is the message of "the glorious Gospel of the blessed God" which is wholesome and healing. Orthodoxy in the best sense is therefore implied in Paul's advice to Timothy and Titus; for there are not two ways of salvation; there cannot be two Gospels. "If you change the 'pattern of health-giving words, you lower the health of the world," writes Alexander 'Maclaren. "If you strike out from the 'pattern of health-giving words' the truth of the incarnation, the sacrifice on the cross, the resurrection, the ascension and the gift of the Spirit, the 'health-giving words' that you have left are not enough to give life to a fly." So even in the ordinary sense one has to be "sound" in the faith. In our own experience we have found the healing power of the Gospel, and now, as in love we proclaim the message, we would recognise its wholesomeness and health-giving power. It is healing and wholesome, for it is the message of him who came to be the great Physician of men, and who said, "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life."

      In the third chapter of the second letter to the Corinthians the Apostle Paul gives a wonderful contrast between the Old and New Covenants. That which came through Moses was with glory, but was far surpassed by the inure glorious New Covenant which came through Jesus Christ. The former was a ministration of death and condemnation, and passed away. The latter is a ministration of the Spirit and of righteousness, and so remaineth.

      In extremely interesting fashion the apostle refers to an experience of Moses as an illustration of the transitoriness of the Old Covenant. When Moses went up to Mt. Sinai to receive from God the law which was graven on stones, the exceeding glory of Jehovah was reflected on his face, so that when Aaron and the children of Israel saw the brightness, they were afraid to come nigh him. Moses put a veil on his face, the result being, according to Paul, that "the children of Israel should not look stedfastly on the end of that which was passing away." To some readers this comment of the apostle seems to be inconsistent with the narrative in Exodus; for the common translation of Ex. 34:33 says that "till" Moses bad done speaking with the people he put a veil on his face. The better translation of the Revised Version, however ("when Moses had done speaking with them, he put a veil upon his face"), is quite in harmony with Paul's comment. The effect of the veil was to conceal the fading of the brightness. The apostle treats the evanescent glory of Moses' face as symbolical of the transitoriness of the law of which he was the representative.

      Considering the hardness of the hearts of his Jewish brethren and their rejection of the Christ,

Paul goes on to refer to a veil (not on the face, but on the heart) which kept them from seeing, the glory of Christ--a veil, however, which would at once he taken away if a man turned to the Lord, just as the veil of Moses was removed when he turned from the people and went in before Jehovah to speak to him.

"Beholding" or "reflecting."

      It is with one verse in Paul's great chapter that we now deal. In this the apostle contrasts Christians with Moses:

      "But we all, with unveiled face reflecting as a mirror the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the Lord the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:18. R.V.).

      The Common Version has "beholding as in a glass" instead of "reflecting as a mirror," and it is interesting to note that the American Standard Revised Version returns to this view, with a translation as follows:

      "But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the Lord the Spirit."

      Here are two different meanings attached to the verb "katoptrizomai," which is used in this place alone in the New Testament. There seems to be no difference of opinion among scholars as to two things, first that the verb in the active voice means "to show in a mirror" or "to cause to be reflected"; secondly, that in the middle voice, (which is used in 2 Cor. 3:18) the ordinary meaning is "to look at or behold oneself in a mirror." But this meaning of "beholding oneself in a mirror" clearly does not suit the context, and so other meanings have been sought, and there are two possible renderings. One is that which appears in the Common Version, American Standard Revised Version, and margin of the English Revised Version--"beholding as in a mirror." It is contended that "it is in accordance with analogy to

say that if the active means 'to show in a mirror' the middle means 'to get shown in a mirror' or 'to behold in a mirror."' Considering the array of scholars on this side, it seems impossible to condemn the rendering. Stanley objects that the context is against it. "'Katoptrizomenoi,"' he thinks, "cannot be used of 'beholding' simply, because in that case the apostle must have used the word 'atenizo,' as already twice before, in verses 7, 13." Stanley strongly argues for the reading "reflecting as in a mirror," and seeks to answer the objection that there is no actual instance of the sense of reflecting, by saying that "the fact that a Greek writer like Chrysostom understood it here in that sense, shows that there was in his time nothing in the usage of the word to make it impossible. And this sense is undoubtedly most agreeable to the context."

      We cannot definitely decide between the two translations, and it must be allowed that excellent sense can be obtained from each. We do behold in the mirror of the Gospel the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ, and it is true that as we contemplate him, the beauty of his earthly life, the moral grandeur of his character, and also the glories of his ascension and coronation, we are influenced, changed, transformed into the same image. For Paul Christ was emphatically "the Lord of glory" (1 Cor. 2:18); they who contemplate him in his "glory" are in a sense transfigured. As one has said, "The contemplation of the image of the Son of God acts upon our moral and spiritual natures as the presence of God did upon the face of Moses. It causes us to shine forth with some of his glory. The humblest Christian who looks constantly to Christ as his Redeemer and Exemplar and Source of spiritual life, reflects in his own life something of the glory of Christ; and if he faithfully continues to do this he reflects it more and more, and goes from strength to strength."

      If with the Revision we read "reflecting as a mirror," we put in the forefront the result of our contemplation of the glories of Christ.

      Others will see that we have been with Jesus and learnt of him. The influence of our lives will be felt by them; in a sense they will see in our faces, as did the Israelites on the face of Moses, the reflected glory of the Lord.

      Attempts have been made to combine the two renderings. Stanley gives one, though he admits it is far-fetched: "It is just possible that both meanings might be combined by an allusion to the bright metal mirrors then in use, so as to render it 'beholding the glory, as we look at a light in a bright mirror of brass or silver, which, as we look, is reflected back on our faces." Rotherham translates: "With unveiled faces receiving and reflecting the glory of tine Lord." It is most unlikely that the two ideas can rightly be combined as a translation, but it is obvious to any one who thinks that both are harmonious with our Christian experience.

      The careful reader will note the significant contrasts which Paul makes between the experience of Moses and that of Christians. He says "We all with unveiled face." "The contrast is between the one Hebrew leader and the whole body of Christians. Then only one was illuminated, and his illumination was hidden from all the rest; now all are illuminated, and there is no concealment." There is no veil-no need of concealment; "there is no fear, and there is nothing to hide." Much more important, in Christian experience the transformation is not temporary. The fading of the brightness of Moses' face was symbolical of the transitoriness of the Old Covenant. But, on the contrary, "we all . . . are transformed . . . from glory to glory." There is both a progression and a completeness and permanence in our transformation. It is also "from glory to glory" in that "the change proceeds from the moral splendour reflected in the Gospel, and results in splendour imparted to us."

"Even as from the Lord the Spirit."

      This last phrase of our text contains one of the most ambiguous of all New Testament constructions.

      The Greek words are "kathaper apo kuriou pneumatos." Dr. Plummer says: "It is impossible to decide with certainty what the words mean. Every possible translation has been advocated. Are the genitives in apposition? or is one dependent on the other? If the latter, which of the two is dependent? Is the definite or the indefinite article to be supplied in each case? If the definite with one and the indefinite with the other, which is to have which? May the article, whether definite or indefinite, be in either case omitted in English? May 'kuriou' be an adjective?" Here are the possibilities. Who dare confidently decide between them? The translation of the Common Version, "even as by the spirit of the Lord," is quite possible, but does not commend itself to us. Why in that verse should Spirit once be printed with the capital "S" to show that the Holy Spirit is meant, and once in 17 and again in 18 be printed with the small "s"? It seems much better to consider the reference throughout to be to the Holy Spirit. It is the opposite extreme to translate "from a sovereign Spirit" (i. e., "a Spirit who exercises lordship) making 'kuriou' an adjective." Rotherham comes near to this thought, though he treats "kuriou" as a substantive, when he translates "as from a Spirit that is Lord." This is practically the reading of the R.V. margin, "the Spirit which is the Lord." That Father, Son and Holy Spirit are divine persons is undoubtedly true, and there is nothing curious or difficult about calling the Spirit Lord. Dr. Agar Beet renders: "As from the Lord of the Spirit," which again is quite legitimate, but does not suit the statement of verse 17 any more than Rotherham's translation does. Paul in verse 17 says, "The Lord is the Spirit"; and probably the true rendering of verse 18 is that of both the English and American Revised Versions, "even as from the Lord the Spirit."

      There are those who have stumbled at the apparent practical identity of the "Lord" and the "Spirit" in this chapter, and especially in verse 17, where there is little difficulty in translation. As Dr. Beet points out, "To

turn to the Lord,' i. e., to receive Jesus as Lord, is to receive the Holy Spirit as the animating principle of our lives. By receiving the one we receive the other." Receiving the Lord and the Spirit, we are "renewed unto knowledge after the image" of God. "There is no transforming power so effectual as Spirit, and in this case it is the Lord Christ himself who is the transforming power. Spiritual agency is here at its highest. The most wonderful changes are not only possible but natural, when such a cause is operating."

      Alone by humble shepherds at Bethlehem was heard the song of the angelic host. Just as the circumstances of the birth of Christ were lowly in the extreme, so the announcement of that birth was made "privately, at midnight, and without anything of worldly pomp and ostentation."

      We might have expected that the highest in the land, the secular rulers or the ecclesiastical leaders, would have been honored by first hearing the announcement; but, instead, lowly shepherds watching their flocks by night were the privileged ones. Bishop Ryle well remarks: "The saying of James should come into our mind, as we read these words: 'Hath not God chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he hath promised to them that love him?' (Jas. 2:5). The want of money debars no one from spiritual privileges. The things of God's kingdom are often hid from the great and noble, and revealed to the poor. The busy labor of the hands need not prevent a man being favored with special communion with God. Moses was keeping sheep, Gideon was threshing wheat, Elisha was ploughing, when they were severally honored by direct calls and revelations from God. Let us resist the suggestion of Satan, that religion is not for the working man. The weak of the world are often called before the mighty. The last are often first, and the first last."

The angel, and the angels.

      Luke records two angelic utterances. One was the announcement of "an angel of the Lord." The other was the song of "the heavenly host." Each referred to the incarnation

of the Son of God--the former "proclaims the transcendent fact," and the latter "hymns its blessed results."

      "The angel" said, "I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all the people; for there is born to you this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord." The closing words of this quotation might with equal accuracy be otherwise translated, though nothing better than the familiar rendering can he given. It is interesting to note that the precise combination does not appear elsewhere in the New Testament; and the translation could be either "Messiah, Lord," or "Anointed Lord" (R.V. margin), or "the Messiah, the Lord," or "an anointed one, a Lord." We shall do well, however, to retain the text of our Common and Revised Versions.

      It is the song of the angels which now engages our attention, and which has a more especial right to inclusion in our series of studies. It is preserved alone by Luke, who loves to record angelic ministrations and who is "the first Christian hymnologist":

      "Suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God, and saying, "'Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace among men in whom he is well pleased'" (Luke 2:13, 14, R.V.).

      In passing, it may be noted that the word "praising" is in grammatical agreement with "host" and not "multitude." The suggestion is that "the whole host of heaven was praising God, not merely that portion of it which was visible to the shepherds." This word for praising is a favorite one with Luke, and is not used by any other Gospel writer.

"Good will to men"--or "men of good will."

      Regarding the substance of the angels' song, it will be noted that the Revised Version, quoted above, differs from the more familiar translation of the Common Version, which reads: "Glory

to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will towards men."

      The difference between the two versions is primarily due to the fact that the translators were following differing Greek texts. The Common Version has the word "eudokia" ("good will"), nominative; while the text followed by the Revisers has a genitive "eudokias" ("of good will" or "of good pleasure"). The weight of manuscript authority is in favor of the revised text, though the marginal note should be regarded, that "many ancient authorities read 'peace, good pleasure among men." Even accepting the Greek text followed by King James's version, its rendering must be challenged in one particular. The preposition "en" cannot be translated "towards"; the meaning would have to be "good will among men."

      Apart from the weighing of manuscript authority, of which the ordinary reader may know nothing, the internal evidence seems to favor the reading of the Revised Version. "The hymn consists of two members connected by a conjunction; and the three parts of the one member exactly correspond with the three parts of the other member." "Glory" balances "peace," "in the highest" balances "on earth," and "to God" balances "among men of good pleasure." Dr. Plummer remarks that "this exact correlation between the parts is lost in the common triple arrangement; which has the further awkwardness of having the second member introduced by a conjunction, while the third is not, and of making the second and third members tautological. 'On earth peace' is very much the same as 'good will amongst men.'" To the last objection of Plummer it could be answered that the peace on earth is between man and man, while the third part relates to "goodwill (of God) among men." But, judged by every standard, the Revision is superior to the Common Version; and here is a case where, despite familiarity and hallowed associations, we should be willing to exchange phrases dear to us from childhood for words which convey more clearly

the heavenly announcement of the results of the incarnation of the Son of God.

      Dr. F. J. A. Hort, a great scholar and one of the most influential members of the Committee of Revisers, preferred another translation of the passage. He followed the revisers' Greek text; but held that the first of the two clauses should end with "earth" and not with "God," thus: "Glory to God in the highest and on earth; peace among men of his good pleasure." The meaning, then, would be: "Glory to God not only in heaven, but now also on earth." It is evidence of the right of our text to he classed as "ambiguous" that this translation can be giver]. While it is a possible one, however, it is not probable, and it has found but few supporters. Plummer notes that "it destroys the exact correspondence between the parts of the two clauses, the first clause having three or four parts, and the second only two." Not only is the symmetry destroyed, but the first part is overweighted, and the second is too meagre in proportion.

The lessons of the readings.

      Excellent sense is found in either Common or Revised Version, and though we prefer the revision, it will be well to consider the general lessons of the two renderings.

      In one of his letters, Darwin observes, "I always think the most perfect description of happiness that words can give is 'Peace on earth, goodwill to men.'"

      "Glory to God in the highest." The angels put first things first. "Creation glorified God, but not so much as redemption." "The highest" will he "the highest places" or "heavens." Maclaren has an excellent comment: "The incarnation will bring 'glory to God' there; for by it new aspects of his nature are revealed to those clear-eyed and immortal spirits who for unnumbered ages have known his power, his holiness, his benignity to unfallen creatures, but now experience the wonder which more properly belongs to more limited intelligences, when they

      behold that depth of condescending Love stooping to be born. Even they think more loftily of God, and more of man's possibilities and worth, when they cluster round the manger, and see who lies there."

      McLeod Campbell wrote: "Surely 'Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill towards men' are words which as yet belong more to prophecy than to history."

      "On earth peace." In his "Ode on the Nativity" John Milton treated the peaceful condition of the world at the time of Christ's birth as significant or symbolical:

      This is a doubtful treatment of the situation. Farrar, dismissing it, says that "it was not in this sense that the birth of Christ brought peace." Primarily, we think of the peace of God which comes to the heart of man, of perfect peace between God and man, but also we think of "the peace which, once admitted into the heart, makes men live at peace one with another."

      "Christ's work," writes Alexander Maclaren,. "is to bring peace into all human relations, those with God, with men, with circumstances, and to calm the discords of souls at war with themselves. Every one of these relations is marred by sin, and nothing less thorough than a power which removes it can rectify them. That birth was the coming into humanity of him who, brings peace with God, with ourselves, with one another. Shame on Christendom that nineteen centuries have passed, and men yet think the cessation of war is only a 'pious imagination' The ringing music of that angel chant has died away, but its promise abides."

Who have the peace?

      Not all men have the peace of God dwelling in them. Until men turn to him who was the Prince of Peace and imbibe his spirit and do his will they cannot have his peace. It comes to "men of good pleasure" or "men of good will," to "men in whom he is well pleased," or even (as Weymouth puts it) to "men who please him." It matters little which of these phrases we employ; the underlying meaning is the same.

      God's promises are often misappropriated. The most gracious and precious promises are never unconditional. We must do more than admire them; we must seek to fulfil the conditions of enjoying them. Dante declares, "In his will is our peace." In doing that will we become pleasing to him and so receive into our hearts the promised peace, which can only come to those in whom God is well pleased.

      "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give unto you; not as the world giveth, give I unto you" (John 14:27).

      "Peace be unto you all that are in Christ" (1 Peter 5:14).

      "Live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you" (2 Corinthians 13:11).

      Faith is the foundation principle of the Christian religion, that on which all else depends for its validity and efficacy. In the New Testament "faith" is used in different senses. The range of meaning is wide, from a belief on testimony tip to a full confidence in and reliance upon a divine person. Faith concerns at once the cognitive, emotional and connative aspects of mind. Not intellect alone, but feeling and will, must be engaged, if the faith is to be of any avail. There has been a distinct loss when faith has been treated as if it were synonymous with intellectual assent. The faith which saves not only leads us to believe in the testimony regarding Jesus Christ, but to give ourselves in loving surrender to him; it is confident, reliant trust in him as our Saviour.

      One of the great New Testament passages dealing with faith is Heb. 11:1, where the writer gives an interesting description of its nature. The verse, which is variously translated and interpreted, reads as follows in the Common Version:

      "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

      The Revised Version reads as follows:

      "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the proving of things not seen."

Faith's power of realisation.

      The word "hupostasis," which is in the Common Version translated "substance" and in the Revision "assurance" means "something which stands underneath," "foundation." "ground of hope or confidence, and so assurance itself." In the New Testament the word occurs elsewhere in 2 Cor. 9:4; 11:17; Heb. 1:3 and 3:14. In

one of these passages (Heb. 1:3) the translation is "substance" in the sense of "substantial nature" or "essence." Christ is of the essence of God, "the very image of his substance." In the other three passages the undoubted meaning is "confidence," as even a casual reading will show.

      When we come to Heb. 11:1 it will be found that the context does not so definitely decide the meaning. The reading of the Common Version must, we think, be given up. Vincent says that "the meaning 'substance,' 'real being,' given by A.V., Vulgate and many earlier interpreters, suggests the true sense, but is philosophically inaccurate. 'Substance,' as used by these translators, is 'substantial nature'; the real nature of a thing which underlies and supports its outward form or properties. . . . It cannot be said that faith is substantial being. It apprehends reality; it is that to which the unseen objects of hope become real and substantial. 'Assurance' gives the true idea. It is the firm grasp of faith on unseen fact."

      Dr. Weymouth's translation seems to us to express the meaning admirably: "Faith is a well-grounded assurance of that for which we hope, and a conviction of the reality of things which we do not see." He adds in a footnote a helpful quotation from Vaughan: "Faith is that principle, that exercise of mind and soul, which has for its object things not seen but hoped for, and instead of sinking under them as too ponderous, whether from their difficulty or from their uncertainty, stands firm under them, supports and sustains their pressure--in other words, is assured of, confides in and relies on them."

      The faith of a Christian, then, is the inner confidence which he has. Things which have not as yet appeared in actual form, but which are objects of hope, are by him apprehended as real. He is sure that his hopes will be realised, that the promises of God will be fulfilled. It is faith which gives us certainty of that which lies in the future. Just as Abraham left home and kindred, not knowing whither he went,

but went forward trusting in the promises of God, so the Christian with serene confidence commits his way to the Lord and reckons that what God has promised is as good as received. We recall the Saviour's striking word regarding prayer. He said: "All things whatsoever ye pray and ask for, believe that ye have received them, and ye shall have them" (Mark 11:24, R.V.). It seems, at first, impossible to speak of believing that ye "have received" them. But yet a great lesson is taught. The prayer has to be offered in faith, and he who prays according to the will of God should be confident of the Father's answer, which is to be considered as good as here when the conditions of acceptable prayer are fulfilled.

      One writer has well summed up the teaching of Heb. 11:1: "Faith has a power of realisation, by which the invisible becomes visible and the future becomes present. While hope is the confident anticipation of a future regarded as future, faith appropriates that future as an experience of the present."

The title deeds of faith.

      The comparatively recent discoveries of business documents and ordinary correspondence written in the Greek language about the time when the New Testament was written have revealed an interesting use of the word "hypostasis." The late Dr. J. H. Jowett in one of his sermons commented as follows on the discovery and its meaning: "Among other words which have been disinterred there is the word which in my text is translated 'substance.' How do you think they used it? You would find an ordinary correspondent, using that word, or a man who was going to select or buy a house, or a seller of a house, using that word with the content of 'title-deed.' When they wanted to use our equivalent to the word 'title-deed,' they used the word which is hiding behind the word here translated 'substance.' Many have come to believe that the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews must have had this content in mind when he was trying to express his

wonderful conception of Christian faith; for, look you, how life and color come into the word when we take this recovered meaning and insert it in my text: 'Now faith is the title-deed to things hoped for.' Yes, thrice blessed, the word leaps into actuality. It becomes fervid and full of color. You at once have the figure of a man with a title-deed in his hand to take possession of splendid estates. And to me the fine, significant figure is this, there are vast moral and spiritual estates waiting for their heirs, and faith is the title-deed which gives possession and makes them ours. Faith is the title-deed of a house. The house is yours. Faith is the title-deed to all the glorious things hoped for in the Word of God."

The firm conviction of the believer.

      The second part of the description of faith deals with "things not seen," which include more than the "things hoped for." "The latter is restricted to that which is purely future," while the former includes "not only future realities, but all that does not fall under the cognisance of the senses, whether past, present, or future."

      There has been and still is much discussion regarding the meaning of "elenchos," which in the Common Version is rendered "evidence," and in the Revised Version "proving."

      A usual meaning of "elenchos" is "proof," or "test," and many writers contend that "proof" must be its meaning here. Dr. Marcus Dods, who takes this view, says that "substantially the words mean that faith gives to things future, which as yet are only hoped for, all the reality of actual present existence; and irresistibly convinces us of the reality of things unseen and brings us into their presence. Things future and things unseen must become certainties to the mind if a balanced life is to be lived."

      Dr. T. C. Edwards in "The Expositor's Bible" is another who takes "elenchos" to mean "proof." He writes: "Faith is this assurance of things hoped for, because it is a proof of their existence, and of the existence of the unseen generally."

      The writer, he says, "intentionally describes faith as occupying in reference to spiritual realities the place of demonstration. Faith in the unseen is itself a proof that the unseen exists." God's thoughts, he concludes, have manifested themselves in nature, in the incarnation of his Son, in the redemption of sinners. But the intellect that knows these things is the good heart of faith."

      Most interpreters, however, think that the writer here attaches a subjective meaning to "elenchos." "Proof" brings to men "conviction"; and so by a figure of speech, wherein the effect is put for the cause, the word here denotes "persuasion" or "conviction." On the whole, this seems to be the best rendering, and it is adopted by the American Standard Revised Versions, by Weymouth, Moffatt and Rotherham. The meaning simply is that the Christian is fully convinced, "has a firm inner persuasion of the existence of unseen things, even as though they were manifest to one's eyes."

      Some of the choicest passages of Holy Writ deal with the reality and the supremacy of the unseen. "Our light affliction, which is for the moment, worketh for us more and more exceedingly an eternal weight of glory; while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal" (2 Cor. 4:17, 18). In Heb. 11:27 we have a great phrase which looks back to the description of faith at the opening of the chapter: Moses endured, "as seeing him who is invisible." There is a higher vision than that which comes through the physical eye. It is a great mistake to take for granted that all knowledge comes through the intellect, or that the only reality is that which can be apprehended by the so-called "five senses." The Apostle Paul made a prayer for his brethren at Ephesus: "That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him; having the eyes of your heart enlightened, that ye may know what is the hope of his calling,

what the riches of his inheritance in the saints, and what the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe" (Eph. 1:17-19). If one who was literally blind were to deny the glory or the reality of that field of vision on which we look, we should not be disturbed in mind, though we might pity him, whose deficiencies cramped his life and limited his understanding. We should be as little perturbed when those who have not "the eyes of their heart" enlightened deny the great spiritual realities by which we are surrounded. They who "walk by faith and not by sight" prove in their own experience the glorious reality of the spiritual life. This last comes very near to the thought of Hebrews 11, which deals with the lives of the great heroes of faith. The "for" of verse 2 introduces a proof of the statement concerning the nature of faith. "Faith has power to see and realise the unseen, 'for' the experience of the fathers proves it." Their experience may be ours.

      The beloved disciple had heard our Lord describe himself as "the light of the world," and the thought of Christ as the great illuminator, the source of light and goodness, was one on which he loved to dwell. In the prologue of his Gospel, the Apostle John refers to the Word who in the beginning was with God and was himself God, and tells how that Word was revealed to men and rejected by men.

      It is our purpose now to note but one verse of John's beautiful introduction. In the Common Version, John 1:9 reads as follows:

      "That was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."

      The text of the Revised Version renders a little differently:

      "There was the true light, even the light which lighteth every man, coming into the world."

Many translations and interpretations.

      The verse is capable of diverse translations and interpretations. It is ambiguous in that the phrase "coming into the world" may agree either with "light" or with "man." This will yield at least four possible and legitimate views. (1) Taking "coming" in agreement with "man," we may have (a) the view of the Common Version: an emphatic way of stating that no man is independent of that light, which "lighteth every man which cometh into the world." The redundancy of this expression is perhaps the chief objection to it. There is no difference of meaning between "every man" and "every man which cometh into the world." (h) The phrase might mean "lighteth every man as he cometh" (R.V. margin). "It would be hazardous

on the strength of this phrase to make the moment of birth the time of one's illumination by the true Light. If on the other hand "coming" be in agreement with "light," the best rendering is (c) that of the text of the Revised Version. It is true that even here a certain ambiguity persists, for those who thus related "coming" to "light" have not agreed as to whether the interpretation is "was destined to come," or "was on the point of coming," or "was in the act of coming." (d) The sense might be "which lighteth every man by coming." This last is not a very probable meaning; for, as Westcott remarks, "the context does not call for any statement as to the mode of the action of the light; and the light illuminates by 'being' as well as by 'coming'."

      When Christ is described as "the true light," the word "true" is used in opposition to that which is imperfect or incomplete. The word "marks the essential nature of the Light as that of which all other lights are only partial rays or reflections. "Christ is the true, the genuine, the perfect light, just as he is 'the perfect bread' (6:31), and 'the perfect vine' (15:1), not that he is the only light, and bread and vine, but that he is in reality what all others are in figure and imperfectly."

      It is difficult to say how much of John's prologue refers to the pre-incarnation days, and how much to the Son of God in the days of his flesh. Some discussion has taken place regarding the allotment of verse 9. Many believe that the marginal reading of the Revised Version sets forth the truth, "the true light, which lighteth every man, was coming into the world," i. e., when the Baptist was giving his witness the true light was dawning on the world. Moffatt emphatically expresses this view in what is an interpretation rather than a translation: "The real Light, which enlightens every man, was coming then into the world." There is no "then" in the original. Some modern commentators translate "the true Light . . . was coming into the world," but "was" and "coming" are so far

apart in the Greek text that this is a very doubtful rendering.

The fight of every man.

      Whatever difficulties of interpretation and translation exist, one outstanding thing appears, viz., that the Apostle John claims for the Lord Jesus that he is the Light "which lighteth every man." This is the constant statement in all the varied translations. It is the glory of this truth which makes us choose the text as a basis for our study.

      That every man who ever lived or will ever live on earth is indebted to him whom John calls the Logos or Word, who became flesh and dwelt among us, is one of the greatest truths of the wonderful prologue to the fourth Gospel. The true light "lighteth every man." The passage has been grossly misapplied, as if every man by nature had in himself light enough to know God and come to God apart from the revelation in the Gospel of Christ. Not only is there nothing in the passage or context to warrant this, but the thought is utterly opposed to the teaching of the prologue itself as well as of the rest of the book. It is the only begotten Son who has declared the Father, whom no man hath seen (verse 18). "I am the way, the truth, and the life," said the Lord Jesus; "no man cometh unto the Father but by me" (14:6).

      Partly, I think, because of the erroneous and extreme view to which reference has been made, many others have been kept from giving the apostle's words their due weight, and have hesitated to speak of that light as lighting "every man." Yet, surely there may be light in man without its having a brilliancy sufficient to so light his pathway that he will be kept from stumbling or have no need of the light of the Gospel of Christ. The comment of the late Bishop Westcott may be quoted: "The words must be taken simply as they stand. No man is wholly destitute of the illumination of 'the Light.' In nature, and life, and conscience it makes itself felt in various degrees to all."

      The Apostle John claims that, wherever in the world there is light, it comes from the Word. All men, in so far as they are illumined, are lightened by the true light of God. Intellectually, light is knowledge; morally, it is purity. Wherever there is knowledge and purity, it has its source in him who is the true light." As Christ is the Spring and Fountain of all wisdom," wrote Adam Clarke, "so all the wisdom that is in man comes from him; the human intellect is a ray from his brightness; and reason itself springs from this Logos, the eternal reason." When we think of the true deity of Christ, that, as John says, "the Word was God," and that "all things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that hath been made," we shall not wonder at the boldness with which the apostle traces all human light and knowledge back to him as its ultimate source.

      "Dependent on him," says Alexander Maclaren, "are the little lights which he has lit, and in the midst of which he walks. Union with Jesus Christ--'that light'--is the condition of all human light. That is true over all regions, as I believe. 'The inspiration of the Almighty giveth understanding.' The candle of the Lord shines in every man, and 'that true light lighteth every man that cometh into the world.' Thinker, student, scientist, poet, author, practical man all of them are lit from the uncreated Source, and all of them, if they understand their own nature, would say, 'In thy light do we see light.'"

      There is another sense in which men to-day, even rejecters of the Gospel, are indebted to Christ the true light. There is not a single inhabitant of our land--blatant sceptic as well as humble believer--who is not indebted to Christ. This is obviously true so far as his enjoyment of the privileges which Christianity has secured to men. The difference which Christ has made has affected for the better the external conditions of our lives. We may go further, and say that a man internally as well

as externally may be benefited by the Gospel which he refuses to accept. He may unconsciously be its debtor as to character. There is a well-known sentence in "Sartor Resartus," in which Carlyle, through Professor Teufelsdrockh, says of his time of gloom, "From suicide a certain after shine (Nachsehein) of Christianity withheld me." R. E. Welsh pointedly remarks, "In the sterling lives of good sceptics we often see this 'after-shine of Christianity.' The very qualities which set them in favorable contrast with many nominal Christians run back their roots, not to unbelief, but to the ethics and the diffused spirit of Christ." The very goodness of character, then, which, contrasted with the failures of weak Christians, is made an excuse for rejecting Christianity, should often rather lead to the acceptance of Christ who really is its Author.

      The thought of John in our text, however, carries us further back . He speaks not of Gospel light and benefits, directly or indirectly received, but of Christ as the source of all light and knowledge whatsoever.

      There is a very large number of passages of Scripture in which truths are enforced or duties enjoined by placing them in contrast with something else: not that is true, or good, or required; but this. With many or most of these passages there is no difficulty and no ambiguity; the contrast is made absolutely. In other cases the thought is rather of the great superiority of one alternative to another, of the preference for one of the antithetical statements to the other. Occasionally, error of a serious kind has been fostered by a too literal reading, or by the assumption that the "not" phrase is intended to be wholly excluded.

      In some cases the meaning of "not . . . but" approaches nearly to "not only . . . but also," or it may be "not so much this as that." Or the thought introduced by the "but" is so important and so far above that of the contrasted phrase that to emphasise its superiority the other is as it were put aside from our consideration

      It is our purpose now to note a few of the texts which are capable of being read in different ways. There is no difficulty about the translation; but by reading the negative phrase or clause in too absolute a way some interpreters have distorted the meaning of the Scriptures. A few passages of a more general type may first be noted.

      Amongst these antithetical passages are some of the most cherished texts and several of the most beautiful sayings of our Lord. "I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Luke 5:32). "God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him" (John 3:17). "The

Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). "I am come down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me" (John 6:38). This last text is one of the class in which the "not" phrase must not be pressed to an extreme. In a sense Jesus did his own will, for there is no evidence of the slightest difference between the Father's will and that of the Son. Martin Luther once boldly wrote: "I do not ask, Thy will be done, but my will be done. For thy will is now my will, and I best get my own will by unquestioning acceptance of thine." We may hesitate about accepting that statement as wholly appropriate from the lips of a sinful man; but the Father's will and the Son's will were not in conflict. Even so, the text, "not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me," is one which it is important to notice. The Lord Jesus put God the Father first. Acknowledging, as we must, the deity of our Lord, we have also to accept the scriptural doctrine of the subordination of the Son to the Father who is "greater than all." There is a great example for us in the submission of the Son's will to the will of the Father. If he could pray, "Not my will but thine be done," well may we re-echo the petition. We might with profit accept as our life's motto the great quotation which fittingly describes the life's purpose of the Lord Jesus Christ: "Lo I am come to do thy will, O God."

Faith in the Father and the Son.

      At the feast at Jerusalem, "Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me" (John 12:44). Here, obviously, it would be ridiculous to read the "not" absolutely; in that sense, it would be an absurd contradiction to say, "He that believeth on me believeth not on me." But manifestly the passage, in harmony with many other statements of the fourth Gospel, expresses the conception of the Son's entire oneness with the Father.

      It is impossible for a person to have a true faith in Jesus the Son who has not a similar faith in God the Father. On another occasion Jesus said, "No one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him" (Matt. 11:27). The Lord Jesus came to reveal the Father to men and to show them the way to God. To believe in him was to accept him as God's ambassador and representative. Dr. Plummer well comments: "Jesus came as his Father's ambassador, and an ambassador has no meaning apart from the sovereign who sends him. Not only is it impossible to accept the one without the other, but to accept the representative is to accept not him in his own personality but the prince whom he personates." To acknowledge merely the beautiful life and example of Jesus, or to laud the greatness of his ethical teaching is not to have faith in him. He who truly believes in Jesus Christ believes in him as Son of God and revealer of the Father.

Jesus baptised not, but his disciples.

      Giving reasons for our Lord's journey northward to Galilee, the Apostle John writes: "When therefore the Lord knew how that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptising more disciples than John (although Jesus himself baptised not, but his disciples), he left Judea, and departed again unto Galilee" (John 4:1-3).

      There have been some interpreters who have read the statement that "Jesus was making and baptising more disciples than John" as implying that the Lord Jesus personally baptised, and who therefore have been compelled to read the parenthetical words as meaning that Jesus did not do the baptising alone, but had the assistance of his disciples. This view is perhaps not impossible, but it is extremely improbable.

      A few regard the parentheses as a qualification or verbal correction of what John had previously written. This is a quite legitimate view. If we adopt it, then it had better be with the

understanding that the correction is not of John's own statement but of the form of the Pharisaic rumour referred to in the previous verse. On the other hand, the words need not be read as a correction of the rumour, for it is a sound maxim that what one does by another he does himself.

      With the vast majority of interpreters, we accept the view that the verse teaches that Jesus did not personally baptise. Why, it may be asked, did he refrain from doing so? It is frequently said that the reason was that "baptising is the work of a minister, not of the Lord." Again, it has been noted that Jesus had been announced as the one who should baptise in the Holy Spirit; and it has also been suggested that to baptise in water would be a very subordinate act and perhaps even appear a renunciation of the claim to be the greater One who should baptise in the Spirit? Possibly, though it is doubtful. One of the best reasons seems to us to be that had Jesus baptised any with his own hands, there would have been danger of too great an importance being attached to that circumstance, and of spiritual pride being engendered. In the Corinthian epistles there are references to some who in a special way claimed connection with Jesus, somehow vaunting themselves above others on that account. It can easily be imagined how, if some could have said they received their baptism at the hands of the Lord himself, they would have been tempted to undue exaltation on that account.

"Christ sent me not to baptise."

      In an oft quoted, and much misused, passage the Apostle Paul writes: "Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach the Gospel" (1 Cor. 1:17).

      The most casual reader of the passage ought to note that Paul cannot mean the "not" to be absolute, as if he had received no commission from Christ to baptise converts. The great commission of our Lord (Matt. 28:19, 20) was acted upon by all the apostles. The Apostle

Paul definitely says he did baptise some of the Corinthians--Crispus, Gaius, the household of Stephanas--with his own hands. There is no suggestion that in other places he had not sometimes personally baptised. If "Christ sent me not to baptise" be read too absolutely, then it could be thought that Paul in baptising broke the terms of his commission, which is absurd. At Corinth some were calling themselves by the names of favorite teachers, and Paul rejoiced that he had baptised so few of them, in case some should say they were baptised into his name, or lest some semblance of reason could be given for wearing his name.

      Paul, we know, was accompanied on his missionary tours by a number of companions and helpers. To them doubtless was relegated the duty of baptising. They could do that as well as the apostle, leaving him free for the higher duties of his office which were beyond their powers. As Robertson and Plummer in their commentary say, "Baptising required no special, personal gifts, as preaching did. Baptism is not disparaged by this; but baptism presupposes that the great charge, to preach the Gospel, has been fulfilled." There is point in the statement of Meyer's Commentary, that "The absoluteness of the negative is not at all to be set down to the account of the strong rhetorical colouring. . . . To baptise was really not the purpose for which Christ sent Paul, but to preach (Acts 9:15, 20, etc.); in saying which it is not implied that he was not authorised to administer baptism, but sent 'in order to baptise' he was not."

      Of those who would from this passage belittle the ordinance of our Lord's appointment, one has said that it would be well if persons thus offending were to remember the words of Bishop Butler: "As it is one of the peculiar weaknesses of human nature where, upon a comparison of two things, one is found to be of greater importance than the other; to consider this other as of scarce any importance at all: it is highly necessary that we remind ourselves how great presumption it is to make light of any institution

of Divine appointment; that our obligations to obey all God's commands whatever are absolute and indispensable; and that commands merely positive, admitted to be from him, lay us under a moral obligation to obey them--an obligation moral in the strictest and most moral sense."

      If anything more need be adduced to show how wrong it would be to discount the importance of Christian baptism because of this text, that can be found in the Apostle Paul's own experience and in the teaching of his epistles. To him had been spoken these words by the man sent by the Lord himself: "Why tarriest thou? arise and be baptised and wash away thy sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). He has written as follows regarding the ordinance: "Are ye ignorant that all we who were baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into his death? We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life" (Rom. 6:3, 4). And again: "Ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptised into Christ did put on Christ" (Gal. 3:26, 27). It is incredible that the man who penned these words wished to belittle the ordinance of our Lord's appointment.

Mercy, and not sacrifice.

      At two different times (Matt. 9:13 and 12:7) the Lord Jesus quoted with approval the words of Hosea 6:6, and on each occasion effectively answered those who cavilled at his practice or that of his disciples. The Pharisees were punctilious in their regard for external righteousness, but were harsh and censorious in their treatment of others whom they regarded as beneath them. They forgot the need of the inward qualities, a spirit of humility, love, mercy and judgment.

      Curiously, there have been some readers who have inferred from the words quoted by our Lord ("I desire mercy, and not sacrifice"), and from similar passages elsewhere in the Old Testament,

that sacrifice was repudiated altogether by the prophets. This is quite unwarranted. Sacrifice was of God's appointment. But without a heart of compassion, and offered without a spirit of obedience, the external rite was unavailing and unacceptable. As Samuel told Saul, "To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams" (1 Sam. 15:22). It is the spirit of loving obedience which gives its value to sacrifice.

      The statement is put strongly to indicate the supremacy of the inward, mercy, to the external, sacrifice.

      "The Hebrew form of speech here used denotes inferior importance, not the negation of importance." "Sacrifices in themselves, and when offered at the proper time and place, and as the expressions of penitent hearts and pure hands, were acceptable, and could not be otherwise, for God himself had appointed them. But soulless sacrifices offered by men steeped in sin were an abomination to the Lord; it was of such that he said, 'I cannot away with' them." Dr. Plummer well writes: "Of course the saying does not mean that sacrifice is worthless, but that mercy is worth a great deal more. Compare Luke 10:20, 14:12, 23:28; in all such forms of speech, what seems to be forbidden is not really prohibited, but shown to be very inferior to something else."

      The lesson taught by our Lord is of perpetual value. We are all prone to forget the true values of life. Some would get rid of too much of the outward observances, and the rites which are of divine appointment. They need to be reminded of Jesus' words, "If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments." But others are in danger of attaching too much importance to externals, and of neglecting the disposition of the heart. The prophets of the Old Testament have a lesson for them. Idolatrous systems only required the regular observance of a prescribed ritual; Jehovah was satisfied with nothing less than the devotion of loving hearts. Hosea, as the other prophets, showed that "God cared

more for goodness and piety--the knowledge and doing of his will--than for formal offerings and sacrifice, and nothing at all for religious observances that were insincere and corrupt"; and that "ritual without love is an abomination:"

      As the observances of religion become the habits of our daily lives, let us beware of the sin of formalism, remembering that "everything depends on the right disposition," which is what God supremely desires.

      We close with a quotation from Alexander Maclaren: "Hosea had said long ago that God delighted more in 'mercy' than in 'sacrifice.' Kindly helpfulness to men is better worship than exact performance of any ritual. Sacrifice propitiates God, but mercy imitates him, and imitation is the perfection of divine service. Jesus here speaks as all the prophets had spoken, and smites with a deadly stroke the mechanical formalism which in every age stiffens religion into ceremonies and neglects love towards God, expressed in mercy to men."

      Two of the most beautiful verses of Scripture deal with the Master's love and with his ability to save. We are told that there is no limit, that he loves and saves "to the end" or "to the uttermost."

Love to the uttermost.

      In introducing the events which took place in the upper room on the night of our Lord's betrayal, the Apostle John writes:

      "Now before the feast of the passover, Jesus knowing that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end" (John 13:1).

      Instead of the last three words, the R.V. margin has "to the uttermost:"

      The great majority of translators here prefer the reading "to the end," and the phrase ("eis telos") is used in that sense in the New Testament and out of it. In Matt. 10:22, for example, we have no hesitation in reading, "He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved:" But the words are just as adequately translated by "full," "completely," or "in the highest degree:"

      In 1 Thess. 2:16 we all agree that the phrase is used in this sense; hence the common translation, "The wrath is come upon them to the uttermost:" There is another common meaning, "at last," which some think is the meaning both here and in Luke 18:5, where the phrase also occurs.

      It matters little whether in John 13:1 we translate "to the end" or "to the uttermost:"

      Each rendering gives a blessed truth and each is

in harmony with the context. Alexander Maclaren takes the one view. "It was more to John's purpose," he writes, "to tell us that the shadow of the Cross only brought to the surface in more blessed and wonderful representation the deep love of his heart than simply to tell us that that shadow did not stop its flow." That is, the Saviour always loved his apostles, but now in the hour of crisis and facing the bitterest experience of his life he carried his love to the highest point. Dr. Marcus Dods says that the meaning is that Christ "loved them through all the sufferings and to all the issues to which his love brought them. The statement is the suitable introduction to all that now looms in view. His love remained stedfast, and was now the ruling motive."

      If we might combine the views, we should certainly get truth. On that night of betrayal, Christ's unfailing love was perfectly displayed.

Able to save to the uttermost.

      In Hebrews 7:25 there is a beautiful passage, one of the favorite texts of many a reader, which tells us that Christ "is able to save to the uttermost them that draw near to God through him, seeing that he ever liveth to make intercession for them."

      The phrase here translated "to the uttermost" is "eis to panteles," which has precisely the same ambiguity as has the "eis telos" of John 13:1. Moffatt translates "for all time," instead of "to the uttermost," which is quite legitimate. The meaning may be that no matter to what length sin has gone, Christ is able to subdue it and save from it; or the reference may be to time, Jesus' permanent priesthood being contrasted with the temporary function of the Aaronic priest who by reason of death was not suffered long to continue his service.

      In one of his expository articles Professor David Smith deals with this verse. He says: "It appears that the phrase signified, as the Revisers have it in their marginal rendering of the passage

before us, 'completely' or more literally 'without any limit' whether of time or of extent or of degree. Primarily indeed it is time that is intended here, since the immediate theme is the permanence of our Lord's priesthood; but the corollary thereof is the finality, completeness, and all-sufficiency of his atoning sacrifice, and if we limit the phrase to time, then we impoverish the passage by ignoring those glorious truths which are its main burthen."

      Of the meaning of the phrase for us, Dr. Smith writes as follows:

      "1. 'He is able to save to the uttermost of time.' He is the Eternal Saviour, 'the same yesterday and to-day, yea and for ever.' What he was for Peter and Mary Magdalene and the Dying Thief, that he is for us now, and will be for all who trust him 'to the last syllable of recorded time.' What he was in Galilee and Jerusalem he is evermore in his glory; and what he was to us when we first believed, he will be to us still even to the end of our journey, according to the ancient promise: 'Even to old age I am he; and even to hoar hairs will I carry you.'

      "2. 'He is able to save to the uttermost of human depravity.' For his sacrifice for sin was an infinite sacrifice, 'an atonement for our sin, and not for ours only but also for the sin of the whole world.'

      "3. 'He is able to save to the uttermost of the sinner's day of grace.' Misericordia Domini, said St. Augustine, inter pontem et fontem, 'There is mercy with the Lord betwixt the bridge and the brook.' And what this means is illustrated by an epitaph taken by William Camden, the Elizabethan antiquary, from the tombstone of 'a gentleman who, falling off his horse, brake his neck, which suddain hap gave occasion of much speech of his former life.'

      "There is life for a look at the Crucified--even at the last moment."

      As we close, we may note a further remark of Professor Smith regarding the ambiguities of the New Testament text. It is worthy of remembrance in connection not only with Heb. 7:25, but also with the other ambiguous passages which we have studied. "Where a phrase in the original is vague," he says, "it is always well in translation to reproduce its vagueness and refrain from precise definition; else we substitute interpretation for translation, and even where our interpretation is true, narrow the original and eliminate much of its precious significance."

      The remembrance of this wise remark will help us much in our appreciation of the sacred text and our estimation of the value of the numerous translations now in common use. There is very frequent substitution of interpretation for translation.