Earlier text: FAITH IN PROPHECY.Infidel Objections to the Bible Answered. No. 11.
God Hardened Pharaoh's Heart.—But I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.—Ex. iv, 21. And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh.—Ex. ix, 12.
Pharaoh Hardened his Own Heart.—But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them.—Ex. viii, 15.
On this point Bishop Horne remarks:— “The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart (Ex. iv, 21; ix, 16;) has been a fruitful source of malignant cavil with the adversaries of the Bible; some of whom have not hesitated to affirm that this single chapter is sufficient to destroy the authenticity of the entire Scriptures, while others, more decently and speciously, assert that a just God could not punish the Egyptian monarch for a hardness of heart of which he himself was evidently the cause. This is the objection in all its force. Let us now see how little foundation there is for it. “When we meet with an assertion apparently contrary to all the truth and equity in the world, it is but common justice to any writer, human or divine, to suppose that we mistake his meaning, and that the expression employed to convey it is capable of an interpretation different from that which may at first present itself. We cannot, for a moment, imagine, that God secretly influences a man’s will, or suggests any wicked, stubborn resolution to his mind, and then punishes him for it. We are therefore to consider, by what other means, not incompatible with his nature and attributes, he may be said, in a certain sense, and without impropriety, to harden a man’s heart. “There are many ways by which we may conceive this effect to be wrought, without running into the absurdity and impiety above-mentioned. The heart may be hardened by those very respites, miracles, and mercies, intended to soften it; for if they do not soften it they will harden it.—God is sometimes said to do that which he permits to be done by others, in the way of judgment and punishment: as when his people rejected his own righteous laws, he is said to have ‘given them’ the idolatrous ones of their heathen neighbors, ‘statutes that were not good.’—The heart may be hardened by his withdrawing that grace it has long resisted; men may be given up to a reprobate mind; as they would not see when they possessed the faculty of sight, the use of that faculty may be taken from them, and they may be abandoned to blindness. But all this is judicial, and supposes previous voluntary wickedness, which it is designed to punish.”—Bishop Horne’s Letters on Infidelity, Vol. vi, p. 481. “Further, no person who candidly peruses the history of the transactions with Pharaoh, can deny that what the Almighty did to Pharaoh and the Egyptians, had a tendency to soften rather than to harden his heart; especially as it was not until after he had seen the miracles, and after the plagues had ceased, that he hardened himself, and would not suffer the Israelites to depart. The threatened plagues were suspended on a condition with which he refused to comply, and then only were they inflicted. It is, moreover, well known that Hebrew verbs in the Hiphil conjugation signify to permit or to suffer to be done, as well as to cause to be done: hence nothing more is meant, than to leave a man to the bent and tendency of his own disposition. Thus Pharaoh was left, and he is said to have made his own heart stubborn against God. HE sinned yet more and hardened his heart. The proper rendering therefore of Ex. iv, 21, is—I will permit his heart to be so hardened that he will not let the people go. So in Ex. ix, 12, it ought to be translated, Yet the LORD suffered the heart of Pharaoh to be so hardened that he hardened not to them. And a more literal rendering of Ex. ix, 15, 16, would remove the discrepancy which seems at present to exist in our common version which runs thus:—‘For now I will stretch out my hand and smite thee with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth. And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.’ In the original Hebrew, the verbs are in the past tense, and not in the future, as our authorized version improperly expresses them, by which means an apparent contradiction is produced; for neither Pharaoh nor his people were smitten with pestilence, nor was he by any kind of mortality cut off from the earth. The first-born, it is true, were slain by a destroying angel, and Pharaoh himself was drowned in the Red Sea; but there is no reference whatever to these judgments in the two verses in question. If the words be translated as they ought, in the subjunctive mood, or in the past instead of the future, this seeming contradiction to facts, as well as all ambiguity, will be avoided. For if now I HAD STRETCHED OUT (Hebrew had sent forth), my hand, and had smitten thee and thy people with the pestilence, thou SHOULDEST HAVE BEEN cut off from the earth. But truly on this very account have I caused thee to subsist, that I might cause thee to see my power: and that my NAME might be declared throughout all the earth, or, in all this land. “Thus God gave this impious king to know that it was in consequence of his especial Providence, that both he and his people had not been already destroyed by means of the past plagues; but that God had preserved him for this very purpose, that he might have a further opportunity of showing Pharaoh his power in the remaining plagues, and of manifesting that he, Jehovah, was the only true God, for the full conviction of the Hebrews and Egyptians. “Lastly, our authorized translation of Ex. vii, 13, (and he [that is, God] hardened Pharaoh’s heart) is incorrect. It ought to have been, AND THE HEART OF PHARAOH WAS HARDENED, as the original is rendered by all the ancient versions, without exception, and by the most judicious modern translations. The same phrase is correctly translated in our authorized version, in Ex. vii, 22, viii, 19, and ix, 7. “The objections, therefore, which the opponents of the Bible have raised against it from the passages we have been considering, are thus proved to be utterly destitute of foundation.”—Introduction, Vol. i, p. 558. Tell me the meaning of Scriptures. One gem from that ocean is worth all the pebbles of earthly streams.—M’Cheyne. Is all Scripture Given by Inspiration?
By Editor
BRO. SMITH: Will you please explain 2 Tim. iii, 16, which reads, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable,” &c. An infidel says he believes those scriptures which are inspired; but when this text was read, he said, “Is,” is an added word. He understands it thus: “All scripture given by inspiration, is profitable,” &c., remarking that it is not all inspired. Please answer through the Review.
Mich. S. J. W. ANSWER. It will be noticed that the second “is,” before the word “profitable” is a supplied word, the same as the first; but if we omit them both, the sense of the passage is entirely destroyed, as the sentence is rendered incomplete. The word “is,” must therefore be supplied somewhere, to preserve the sense. The only question is, whether it should be before the expression, “given by inspiration,” or the word “profitable,” or both. The expression, “given by inspiration of God,” is from a single Greek word, θεόπνευστος, and is in the same construction exactly with the word ὠφέλιμος, profitable, both being adjectives, agreeing with the word, scripture, previously expressed. But the word “and” (kai) is expressed before the word “profitable,” and is found, says Bloomfield, in every existing manuscript. This being so, it is apparent that the word “is” cannot be omitted before the expression, “given by inspiration,” without also destroying the grammatical sense of the passage. Thus, “All scripture given by inspiration of God, and is profitable,” &c. So rendered, the first member of the sentence is evidently incomplete; and the word “is” must be supplied to make up the deficiency. The question involved is therefore simply one of language, not of theology; hence the opinion of the forty-seven learned men who gave us our present version, and have inserted the word “is,” cannot be set aside except on the most unquestionable evidence, which has never yet been presented. If it is correct to supply the word “is” before the word “profitable,” it is also correct to supply it before the expression, “given by inspiration of God.” If neither of them are correct, Paul failed to construct a proper sentence. Again, if the word “and” before “profitable,” is genuine, the word “is” must be supplied before the words, “given by inspiration.” And that the word “and” is a genuine part of the text, we have already given the authority of Bloomfield, to which we now add that of Olshausen. He says that 2 Tim. iii, 16, 17, declares the scriptures to be “all divinely inspired, and profitable for doctrine, etc. Καὶ [and] which is wanting only in the versions and in the Fathers, must on external and internal grounds be deemed genuine.”
Ed. WHEN Paul gave to the Jews in Jerusalem an account of his conversion, they gave audience till he mentioned his commission to carry the gospel to the Gentiles. Then, it is said, “they lifted up their voices and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth; for it is not fit that he should live. And they cried out, and cast off their clothes, and threw dust into the air.” This latter act, which would be taken in this country to be only the wild freak of a madman, it appears had a striking significance with that people. Dr. Hale says, that even at the present day it is an expression of contempt among the Arabians, particularly to criminals, and signifies that such “were fit only to be covered with earth.” Chronol. Vol. iii, p. 538. SCOTT says, “The adjuring a person to speak was equivalent to putting him on his oath and calling on him as in the presence and by the authority of God to speak all he knew.” Comp. Com. on 1 Kings xxii, 16. Christ answered the high priest under these circumstances. Matt. xxvi, 63, 64. —A laundress who was employed in the family of a distinguished United States Senator, said to him with a sigh: “Only think, sir, how little money would make me happy.” “How little, madam?” said the old gentleman. “O! dear sir, $100 would make me perfectly happy.” “If that is all, you shall have it,” and he immediately gave it to her. She looked at it with joy and thankfulness, and before the old gentleman went out of hearing, exclaimed, “I wish I had said two hundred.” THE LAW OF GOD AND THE SABBATH WHICH IT ORDAINS.
By W. H. Littlejohn
Those with whom we differ, as if conscious that this was at least measurably true, have evidently felt unsafe in resting so important a change upon a basis so inadequate, both as to size and solidity. With a zeal which, in a better cause would have been commendable, they have ransacked the Scriptures in the vain hope of finding something which would make their evidence look as though it were cumulative. For this purpose they have labored with desperate energy to establish a Sunday-keeping practice among the churches which the apostles raised up during their ministry. Two texts are usually quoted for this purpose. The first is as follows: “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.” 1 Cor. xvi, 2. The line of argument usually resorted to in order to make the above furnish the proof which they desire, runs somewhat as follows: 1. The object which Paul had in view, was that of marking out for the Corinthians, a systematic mode of raising money for the poor saints at Jerusalem, whereby the necessity of any delay might be obviated when he should call upon them on his way to the latter place. 2. To attain this end he gave directions that money should be laid aside for that purpose, on each first-day. 3. This was to be done at the church, each individual placing in the contribution box an amount commensurate with his ability to give. 4. Before this could be carried out, it would be necessary that they should be assembled at their place of meeting on each Sunday which intervened between his epistle and his coming. The foregoing, as it accords perfectly with the wishes and practices of modern orthodoxy, has been almost universally accepted as sound. But let us examine the successive steps by which the conclusion has been reached, and see if nothing has been taken for granted which was not demonstrable. The first and second points present no apparent defect. The fourth derives its strength from the third, and must stand or fall with it. The third is, therefore, the pivot upon which the whole argument turns. If it is really a legitimate deduction from the language of 1 Cor. xvi, 2, then we shall be compelled to admit that there is at least a shadow of authority for supposing that the Corinthians and Galatians were for the time being united in the practice of assembling on the first-day of the week. But read this third point again. Now turn to the text and tell me what there is in it which justifies the statement that this was to be done at the church, or by a collection in the use of the contribution box. The words church, collection, contribution box, are not so much as mentioned. So far from this, the phraseology is such that it at once excludes the idea that they were in the mind of the apostle when he penned it. Reference is not only not made to a church edifice, but it does not even address the body of believers in their collective capacity. He begins; “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him.” The injunction was to each individual, and it could only be fully carried out, when treated as such. That this is so, and that a church collection did not furnish the method which the apostle had in mind, will be evident from the following: 1. If the place and manner had been essential, they would have been mentioned as was the time. 2. As this was not done, and as there were many modes in which, and places where, one could lay by him money in store, each person must have felt at liberty to consult his own convenience in this regard. 3. As collections during church service are not objectionable from a moral point of view—as the delay which they would have occasioned would not have been sufficient to demand a place in so grave a paper as that of an epistle from an apostle to a church, since the time which they would have required could not have exceeded a few moments—it must be that the gatherings which were sought to be avoided, were something entirely different from the ordinary circulation of the contribution box. 4. As the appeal was a personal one, the gatherings referred to were, doubtless, of the same character; i. e. the end to be attained by having them lay by weekly such amounts as they were respectively able to give, was that of obviating the necessity of collecting the desired sum from outstanding matters after Paul reached their city. Because, should it be postponed till this, they would not only be liable to be disappointed in getting what they wished, but the effort required, and the perplexity attendant thereupon, would render it difficult if not impossible for many to so far exclude these affairs from their thoughts as to be able to preserve that frame of mind which would have been so necessary in order that they should receive all of the benefits which were to be derived from the apostle’s preaching and conversation while present with them. 5. No man can be said to have laid by him in store that which he has voluntarily deposited in the contribution box, either for a general or specific purpose; for the very moment that he did this, he parted with all personal title to, and right of control over, the amount thus donated. By his own free act and deed, he had placed it at the disposal of the church corporate, and it could be applied to the purpose for which it was given, even though he should object, and resort to every means to thwart their plans. Whereas, any one who has property laid by him in store, must of necessity be the rightful owner thereof, and as such, have it laid away in some secure and accessible place where he can reach and appropriate it at will. So that, before you can infer from the text quoted, that the Corinthians habitually came together on the first days mentioned above for the purpose of taking up a collection in church for the saints at Jerusalem, you must think them capable of disobeying the explicit directions of Paul, and substituting for that which he had devised, a plan of their own which was diametrically opposed to it. For on the very first time that they were guilty of doing this, they would have been chargeable with setting the wisdom of Paul at naught, by parting forever with the means which he had requested each one to keep safely in possession till he should come. Webster, in a note, defines the term “in store,” as equivalent to the expressions “in a state of accumulation, hence in a state of readiness.” If now you have no cherished practice which must be sustained from this passage at all hazards, substitute for the words “in store” those which according to the above, are of like import. It will then need no further explication, as its true meaning will be so obvious it cannot be mistaken. The object which it was designed to secure, was the institution of a systematic benevolence by which, on a stated day, every one was to set apart for the benefit of his suffering brethren, an amount, large or small, according as the Lord had prospered him, much, or little, in his worldly matters. The reason why a particular day was designated was that method should characterize the work; and as the exact time when the apostle would reach them was necessarily somewhat uncertain, that they should not be found altogether unprepared let him come when he would. The necessity of such a provision will be evident when we recollect that those were not the days of steamboats and rail roads, but that the journey from Ephesus to Corinth was necessarily performed in small sail vessels, and that the passage was either long or short accordingly as the winds were favorable or adverse. The selection of the first day for this purpose, instead of attesting its sanctity, should rather suggest that it was possessed of a secular nature. For the amount to be laid aside at each time, being gauged by the actual prosperity of the individual, and not by the funds on hand, it would be required that each man should inquire into the state of his finances and measure his gift thereby. This, in many instances, would be no small task, and would involve such a revision of business matters as would be incompatible with that freedom from care, and that exemption from the effect produced by the consideration of affairs of a pecuniary nature, which should ever characterize the devotions of a sincere worshiper on a day which the Lord had claimed as his own. "SHUN THE GAY, THE LIGHT AND TRIFLING."
By M. J. COTTERILL
Shun the gay, the light and trifling!
Of a still voice soft and low,
Whispers to my heart this caution,
And I try to heed it too. Yes I try to heed the warning,
For I know the light and gay,
Do not love the path I follow—
'Tis the rough and narrow way. And I know that if I mingle,
With the thoughtless and the gay;
I shall soon with them be treading,
In the broad and flowery way. “Flowery?” Yes, 'tis strewn with flowers,
Which are beautiful and fair,
But there's pitfalls hid beneath them,
Thorns, and many a deadly snare. Help me, O my heavenly Father,
Guide thy frail, weak child I pray,
Lest I yield to earth's enchantments,
And 'mid bowers of danger stray. Help me evermore to listen
To that voice which whispers low,
Shun the gay, the light and trifling,—
Strengthen me, to heed it too. THE SCRIPTURES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
By T. D. Bernard
This collection of various and occasional writings presents to us a gradually progressive scheme, fully wrought out in its several stages, and advancing in a natural order of succession. First a person is manifested and facts are set forth, in the simplest external aspect, and under the clearest light, and with the concurrence of a fourfold witness. This witness also is itself progressive, and in the last Gospel the glory of the person has grown more bright, and the meaning of the facts more clear. Then in the book of Acts, Christ is preached as perfected, and as the refuge and life of the world. The results of his appearing are summed up and settled: and men are called to believe and be saved. Those who do so find themselves in new relations to each other: they become one body, and grow into the form and life of a Catholic Church. The state which has thus been entered needs to be expounded, and the life thus begun needs to be educated. The apostolic letters perform the work. The questions which universally follow the first submission of the mind receive their answers, and so the faith which was general grows definite. The rising exigencies of the new life are met, both for the man and for the church; and we learn what is the happy consciousness, and what the holy conversation, which belongs to those who are “in Christ Jesus.” Lastly, as members of the body of Christ we find ourselves partakers in the corporate life and a history larger than our own. We feel that we are taken up into a scheme of things, which is in conflict with the present and which cannot realize itself here. Therefore our final teaching is by prophecy, which shows us, not how we are personally saved and victorious, but how the battle goes upon the whole; and which issues in the appearance of a holy city, in which redemption reaches its end, and the Redeemer finds his joy; in which human tendencies are realized, and divine promises fulfilled; in which the ideal has become the actual, and man is perfected in the presence and glory of God. Only the written word of God, confidingly followed in the progressive steps of its advance, can lead the weakest or the wisest into the deep blessedness of the life that is in Christ, and into the final glory of the city of God.—T. D. Bernard. M. A. —At a party on Fifth Avenue, New York, the other evening, a beautiful young lady was complimented by a gentleman on the simplicity and good taste of her dress. “I am so glad you like it,” the lady replied; “I made it all myself, and it cost just seven dollars.” When our belles pride themselves upon the cheapness of their attire, instead of its expensiveness, we shall hear of fewer failures among our business men.