Footnote: fta1 Here, as so often in Scripture, “Israel” is used as a generic term for the people of the Abrahamic covenant. It is not a synonym for “the Jew.”

Though Jews had a privileged position as branches of the olive tree (Romans 11), the tree was not “the Jew,” but the people of the covenant as a whole; and “the root and fatness” of which we Gentiles partake, points, not to Judaism, but right back to Abraham. fta2 The seeming contradiction between verse 15) and verses 1 and 2 is due to the same English word being used to translate two different words in the original.

It may be well to notice here once again, for it is often ignored, that “Israel” is not a synonym for “the Jew.” This appears in a very marked way in Romans. In the first section of that Epistle, where the Apostle is dealing with the nation then in evidence, in relation to their blessings and responsibilities with respect to Christ and the Gospel, it is only and always “the Jew.” But after (Chap. 3:1) the Jew is never expressly named again save in (9:24)(10:12), where he refers parenthetically to his opening theme. “Israel,” on the other hand, is never mentioned until (Chap. 4; 10; 11). And in those three chapters the word occurs twelve times. For there the Apostle is dealing with the past and the future; and therefore he has in view “the seed of Abraham” in a fuller and wider sense.

Footnote: ftb1 Bishop Westcott. ftb2 The kale partheke ftb3 This is all the more remarkable because his ministry during the interval between his first and last Roman imprisonments is not recorded. It must have been of peculiar interest and importance, but it was outside the scope of Scripture. It is not accidental, but the result of a divine purpose, the book of the Acts ends where it does. ftb4 There is no ego in the Greek ftb5 Stuart’s book on Hebrews refers to a suggestion of Berger that this Antioch sermon was the basis of the Epistle. ftb6 The original is still more emphatic. It has been aptly rendered: “for it is in few words that I have written to you.” ftb7 Bloomfield, Gr . Test ., p. ftb8 I add the following from The Speaker ’s Commentary . “The question then is this: shall the positive testimony of men who, knowing St. Paul intimately, were qualified to give witness on such a point, be outweighed by the doubts of those who lived some hundred years later, and therefore were not so qualified”

Footnote: ftc1 Still more literally the passage reads: “In many parts and in many ways, of old, God having spoken to the fathers in the prophets in these last days spake to us in (His) Son.” ftc2 “All the first-born in the land of Egypt shall die” ( Exodus 11:5); the first-born here, as usually, representing the family. ftc3 The marginal note in R.V. is “Gr., a Son .” What can this mean? It cannot be intended to delude the ignorant multitude into supposing that the Greek text has the indefinite article! Nor yet that the absence of the Greek article requires the indefinite article in English. (When the word “Christ” is anarthrous, are we to read “a Christ”? Must ( John 1:1) be rendered “the Word was with the God, and the Word was a God”?)

We dare not dismiss the note as merely thoughtless pedantry; but the only alternative left is that it is meant to suggest a Unitarian exegesis.

And yet the painful suspicion receives color from the R.V. rendering of Chap. 5:8; 7:28. Here we turn with a feeling of relief to Bishop Westcott’s gloss, “God spake to us in one who has this character that He is Son.” ftc4 John 5:18; 10:33, 36. As regards the significance of the title as connoting Deity, I venture to refer to my book, The Lord from Heaven . Published by Kregel Publications, 1878. ftc5 See later in this work . ftc6 I cannot allow my appreciation of Bishop Westcott’s book on Hebrews to prevent my dissenting emphatically from his teaching here.

Leaning, as he does, to the heresies of certain of the Greek Fathers on the subject of the Incarnation, he calls it “the foundation of Christ’s High-priesthood”(p. 70). And on p. 189 he speaks of a new covenant between God and man, established by the incarnation: and of “Jesus — the Son of Man — being entered into the presence of God for men .”

And again, “Jesus, the Son of Man, has been exalted…as Priest.”

But whether we study the types of the Pentateuch or the teaching of Hebrews, nothing can be clearer than that the new covenant depends, not upon the birth of Christ, but upon His death. And it is a covenant established absolutely for the redeemed, and not “between God and man.” And Hebrews teaches most emphatically that it is not as man, but as the Son of God, that Christ is High-priest. And moreover His title of Son of Man is neither derived from, nor dependent upon, the Incarnation. It is a heavenly title, connoting a heavenly glory. As Son of Man He “descended out of heaven” ( John 3:13). The Christian who has learned to note the hidden harmony of Scripture will here recall the language of ( Genesis 1:26), “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” “The type,” as the biologist would say, is not the creature of Eden, but He after whose likeness the creature was fashioned. (These last sentences are quoted from the author’s book, The Lord from Heaven , to which he begs to refer for a full statement of this great truth.)

Footnote: ftd1 Etymologically the word here rendered “call” refers to the marketplace, i.e. it suggests a public announcement. Grimm’s Lexicon gives it “to accost, salute; to give a name to publicly.” ftd2 To apply these words to Christ as exalted and glorified is surely a transparent error. If He now deigned to serve on earth no such limitations could possibly apply. ftd3 I am not referring to the Reformers’ use of the word priest as a synonym for “presbyter” — one of their efforts toward compromise, which are used with such unscrupulousness today. ftd4 See later in this work . ftd5 Bloomfield (Greek Test ). Bengel’s note is” an antithesis to Christ; for the Apostle is speaking of the Levitical priesthood.” In the original the words “from among men” are emphatic. ftd6 Compare (8:3), where “for sins” is omitted. ftd7 Mark the words of Chap. 9:7, “for himself.” And of course if the special sin was committed by the priest, he himself was responsible for the whole ritual. Leviticus 4:3 f. ftd8 This statement is not invalidated by the fact that one of the nine Hebrew words translated “offer” in A.V. does sometimes mean “kill.” See ex . gr ., Leviticus 17:5-7. ftd9 Romans 15:16. The marginal note “sacrificing” might perhaps mislead the uninstructed. ftd10 Leviticus 1:1-5. The kindred ritual for the sin-offering is given in Chap. 4, and for the trespass offering in Chap. 5. ftd11 The verb Karav , is near of kin to Korban a “votive gift,” used by the Lord in ( Mark 7:11). It occurs frequently in Leviticus, and is variously rendered by “bring,” “present,” “offer,” etc., and in some tenses by “approach”, “draw near,” etc. ftd12 Chap. 9:14. The Greek word for “without spot” is that used by the LXX for the Hebrew term which our translators usually render “without blemish” in the Pentateuch. ftd13 For it was not until His return to heaven that He entered on His Highpriestly office. (See earlier in this work .) ftd14 And here it is that with awful profanity the sham priests of Christendom claim to intervene. Whether their pretensions be to supplement, or merely to continue, either the sacrificial or the atoning work of Christ, their profanity is infinitely greater than the sin of Korah. ftd15 See Appendix 1, later in this work .

Footnote: fte1 “Religion and piety”; the great men who framed the Service book knew the English language! In the popular sense of the word, the Scotch used to be the most religious people in the world; but when Archbishop Laud visited Scotland he was shocked to find there was no religion there — “no religion at all that I could see — which grieved me much.”

And in his N . T . Synonyms , Archbishop Trench avers, with reference to James 1:27, that Christianity is not a religion; but, to spare the feelings of his readers, he uses the Greek word! fte2 prose>rcomai occurs in Hebrews 4:16; 7:25; <581001> 10:1, 22; 11:6; and 12:18, 22). A different word of like meaning is used 7:19. fte3 The word is iJla>skomai . It occurs only here and in Luke 18:13; but in the Greek Bible it represents the Hebrew verb which our translators render “to make atonement.” The death of Christ is so commonly spoken of as the atonement that to object to this use of the word would savor of pedantry. But in Scripture making atonement is priestly work following and based upon a sacrificial death. fte4 The word rendered “washing” in these two passages is a noun, not a verb. The R.V. marginal note suggests a false exegesis; for loutron is not the Greek Bible word for “laver.” In the only passage where the LXX uses it doctrinally (Ecclesiasticus 31:25), it refers to the water of purification of Numbers 19. fte5 “The question before us is how the simple baptism of the New Testament, administered to those who professed belief in Christ, as an acknowledgment by them of submission to His Lordship over them and their identification with Him in death, was supplanted in the cult of ‘the historic Church’ by a mystic rite by which the sinner is cleansed from sin and, as Augustine has it, ‘born of the bowels of the Church.’ Here is the solution of the problem. This brief notice of the Eleusinian mysteries has been given almost entirely in borrowed words (Prof. Sir W. Ramsay), lest any should suppose the facts are misstated for a purpose. And in the sequel, for the same reason, the language of another shall be followed still more closely.”

The reference here is to the Hibbert Lectures , 1838, by Dr. Hatch of Oxford. That great book gives overwhelming proof that the baptism of “the historic Church” is purely pagan, derived from the Eleusinian mysteries, not merely as regards its main characteristics as a laver of regeneration and soul-cleansing, but as to all its details and even its terminology. The present author’s book from which the above sentences are quoted, contains lengthy extracts from Hatch, and discusses the whole question (The Buddha of Christendom — reissued in 1908 under the title of The Bible or the Church ).

Footnote: ftf1 See earlier in this work . ftf2 It is noteworthy that in this section of Hebrews (9 and 10) the Lord’s Advent in all that it signified and all that it accomplished, from His “coming into the world” to His return to His heavenly throne, is spoken of as one . If such statements, ex . gr ., as (10:5; 9:11; 9:24) etc., were prophecy, a reader might suppose that their fulfillment would be a matter of days — if not of hours, like the ritual of the Day of Atonement. ftf3 “Most modern scholars are agreed to reject ‘on the tree’ in favor of the marginal ‘to.’” Dean Alford’s gloss here is, “took them to the tree, and offered them up on it as an altar.” Fancy offering up sins to God upon an altar! If we neglect the types — the language in which Christian truth is taught in the New Testament — no vagary of exegesis is too wild! The imputation of the sinner’s sin to Christ was the act of God ( Isaiah 53:6.) “This is your hour and the power of darkness,” the Lord exclaimed in Gethsemane: may not that hour have been the crisis?

Again and again the Lord spoke of it; and till then no hand was ever laid on Him save in loving service. ftf4 1 John 3:5, R.V. (margin). The word is ai]rw as in John 1:29. See its use in John 5:8,9,10,11,12, ex . gr . ftf5 The writer is not unaware of what is said to the contrary. He has dealt with the subject fully in his book, The Gospel and its Ministry . Published by Kregel Publications, 1978. ftf6 See later in this work . ftf7 The writer to the Hebrews in 9:16 sqq . substitutes for the meaning covenant , which diatheke bears elsewhere in the Epistle, that of testament , and likens Christ to the testator” (Grimm’s Lexicon ). Save only in two passages diatheke is always the Septuagint rendering of the Hebrew word berith . This explains why the word has a double meaning in the New Testament; but in his Light from the Ancient East Prof..

Deissmann shows that with all Greek speaking peoples in the first century, the only meaning in common use was “testament”. ftf8 See Bishop Lightfoot’s words quoted later in this work . The mention of the contents of the ark of the covenant in chap. 9:4, shows how definitely it is the Tabernacle and not the Temple on which the teaching of the Epistle is based. See 1 Kings 8:9. And the difficulty created by the mention of the Golden Altar of incense admits of a solution that is at once simple and instructive. The suggestion of certain foreign expositors, that the Apostle blundered on such a matter, savors of the ignorance and conceit of Gentile exegesis. Though it stood in “the first tabernacle,” and not within the veil, yet, as its use clearly indicated ( Leviticus 16:12-13), and as 1 Kings 6:22 (see R.V.) states in express terms, it “belonged to the oracle.” The significance of this is made clear by such passages as Exodus 30:6,10, and 40:5.

I am assuming, though not without some doubt, that in Hebrews 9:4, the R.V. is correct in reading “altar,” and not “censer.” The Greek word bears either meaning. And if A.V. be right, it is obvious that as Aaron was to enter the holiest in a cloud of incense, the censer, though it “belonged to the oracle,” must have been kept outside the veil.

Footnote: ftg1 Hebrews 10:21, R.V. There is probably a reference here to Zechariah 5:11, where the Greek version reads, “Jesus (i .e . Joshua) the great priest”; of whom the thirteenth verse says, “he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne, and he shall be a priest upon his throne.” ftg2 Such is the force of chap. 12:22. ftg3 hJ aJmarti>a ejstia 1 John 3:4. ftg4 And the position of these words in the Psalm would indicate that this was no mere incident in His sufferings, but a climax.

Footnote: fth1 The word occurs in chap. 2:14; 5:7; 9:10 (carnal); 9:13; 10:20; and 12:9. fth2 See earlier in this work . fth3 In Hebrews 9:12 it is dia< ; here in Hebrews 10:19 it is ejn . fth4 Philippians, p.181. fth5 The word parresia occurs in chapter 3:6; 4:16; 10:19 and 35. fth6 Dean Alford adds, “This is the ground-sin of all other sins. Notice the present, not the aorist past. ‘If we be found willfully sinning,’ not ‘if we have willfully sinned,’ at that Day. It is not of an act, or of any number of acts of sin, that the writer is speaking, which might be repented of and blotted out.”

Similar to this is the warning of the sixth chapter. Their turning back to Judaism gave proof that they were ignorant of the very rudiments, “the first principles of Christ,” which Judaism taught (chap. 5:12; 6:1). But instead of sending them back to that school, he warns them that thus they would “be crucifying to themselves the Son of God afresh” — mark the present tense again; and for such apostasy there was no remedy. Not that lie really believed they would sin thus (verses 9-12).

But in Scripture a path is judged by the goal to which it leads.

Footnote: fti1 Canon Bernard’s Progress of Doctrine , Lecture VIII. fti2 See Appendix 3, later in this work . fti3 We should be on our guard against the common error of confounding “the day of Jehovah” — the great day of wrath — with “the day of Christ” ( Philippians 1:6,10; 2:16); or the day of our Lord Jesus Christ ( 1 Corinthians 1:8; 5:5; 2 Corinthians 1:14). In Thessalonians 2:2 we should read “the day of the Lord ,” as in R.V. fti4 The Hebrew prophets speak of a time of widespread blessing to Gentiles. But the suggestion of a “Gentile dispensation” is unknown to Scripture until we reach the Epistle to the Romans, or possibly the Acts when read in the light of that Epistle. It is therefore a matter of course that the special hope of the people of God in this present age has no place in the Old Testament. See Appendix 3. fti5 The triumphs of the Gospel in various parts of heathendom today make the condition of Christendom seem all the more dark. Roman Catholic countries are rapidly lapsing to infidelity; and the change which has come over the religious condition of Great Britain in recent years is appalling. The National Church used to be Protestant; and organized Nonconformity was a great spiritual power. But now! And the prevailing evil is not spiritual death — for that there is a remedy, but the apostasy warned against in the Epistle to Laodicea ( Revelation 3:17). fti6 It is “the sins of many .” Mark here the accuracy of Scripture. For the reference is to the sin-offering of the Day of Atonement; and it was the sins of the people that were put upon the victim ( Leviticus 16:21).

This element did not obtain in the great redemption sacrifice of Exodus 12.

Footnote: ftj1 Both here and in chapter 1:2 the unlearned need to be warned that the R.V. marginal note is misleading. “Ages” is an English word, not Greek.

In these passages, as occasionally in Alexandrian and Rabbinical Greek, the word which is usually translated “ages” means the material universe. ftj2 Here it is not the logos but the rema — the “God said” of in Genesis 1. ftj3 Hebrews 11:15. Respecting Abraham’s position in Ur I would refer to Colonel Conder’s Critics and the Law . ftj4 To deal with Verses 39 and 40 of Hebrews 11 would need a separate Chapter: here I can only offer a few suggestions. I cannot accept the usual exegesis of the words. It seems to me incredible that in any Scripture, and especially in Hebrews, the spiritual , heavenly blessings of the Old Testament saints should be said to depend in any sense upon “us,” no matter how the “us” be interpreted. I myself would interpret it from the standpoint of the Epistle (see earlier in this work .). The Old Testament saints had “great and precious promises” that are common to all the people of God. But here it is the promise, which I take to be Abraham’s special promise. He is the father of all that believe, but his distinctive promise was that he should be “heir of the world,” and “a father of many nations” ( Romans 4:13; Genesis 17:4) his land being the rallying center for the nations — “the land of the promise” ( Hebrews 11:9, Gr .); and his city the Metropolis of the world — “the city which hath the foundations” ( Hebrews 11:10, R.V.). If Hebrews is to have a definite dispensational application to that elect “remnant” of Israel to whom pertain the bridal relationship and glory, this would afford a clue to the signification of the words “that they without us should not be made complete.” But probably these words are to be explained by the fact that their resurrection awaits the fulfillment of (1 Corinthians 51, 52), in which we of this dispensation shall share.

Footnote: ftk1 The Gospels indicate that some demons were of this type, and exercised a brutalizing influence upon their victims. But they were a distinct class. The disciples could cast out other demons, but as to “this kind,” the Lord told them, they were dependent on prayer to God ( Mark 9:29). If anathartos implied moral pollution demoniacs would not have been allowed to enter the synagogue, and not even the Lord bitterest enemy would have charged Him with having a demon. ftk2 In all the Epistles of the Apostle Paul there are but sixteen passages in which the Lord is named “Jesus,” and in each of these there is either a special emphasis, or a doctrinal significance, in the use of the name of His humiliation. But Christians speak and write about the Lord of Glory just as euphony or whim may suggest. On this subject, and also as regards the significance of the title Son of Man, the author would refer to His book, The Lord from Heaven . ftk3 See Chap. 2 of The Lord from Heaven , published by Kregel Publications, 1978. ftk4 As so much has been written upon verses 22-24, they have been here passed by unnoticed. Two points, however, claim attention. It is strange that any Protestant expositor should accept the view that “the church of the first-born” is the Professing Church of Christendom.

Indeed it is amazing in the case of such a writer as Dean Alford who has such clear thoughts, and uses such plain words, about that superstition: see ex . gr . his exposition of Matthew 12:43-45, quoted earlier in this work . The New Testament references to the Professing Church of this dispensation are mainly by way of warnings of its apostasy. Were it not for the added clause, “the spirits of just men made perfect,” no one perhaps would question that “the church of the first-born ones enrolled in heaven” means the whole company of the redeemed. And if that clause be held to bar such a view, the only tenable alternative is the spiritual unity of the body of Christ, which is in a peculiar sense “the Church.”

Again, “the blood of Abel” is commonly taken as his own blood crying for vengeance. But “better” is not the comparative of bad , but of good .

The reference is clearly to the blood of Abel’s sacrifice (see chap. 11:4), as compared with the blood of Christ, which that and every other sacrifice prefigured. Alford’s note is, “than Abel (not than that of Abel; for in chap. 11:4 it is Abel himself who speaks, in his blood”).

Of course “the blood of sprinkling” is explained by the type of ( Exodus 24:8), which found its fulfillment in the blood of the New Covenant.

Footnote: ftl1 See earlier in this work . ftl2 xe>nov . Cf . Hebrews 11:9). Canaan was a foreign country to the patriarchs. ftl3 To take the word “meats” literally is a strange exegesis; as though any sane person could imagine that food taken into the stomach could establish the heart! By a well-known figure of speech the word “meats” is here used to represent the religion of “the first tabernacle,” which, as Hebrews 9:8-10 (to which this passage clearly refers) tells us, stood in meats and drinks, etc. ftl4 The tense of the verb indicates this. ftl5 This was not the tabernacle. But it is an ignorant exegesis to suppose that it was merely a meeting-place for the devout. The words “the tabernacle of the congregation,” made so familiar to us by our A.V., must be read “the tent of meeting.” The phrase occurs for the first time in Exodus 27:21, and the references there given in R.V. margin chapter 25:22; 29:42; 30:36 prove that it meant the place where God would meet those who sought Him. It was the designation given to the sanctuary divinely ordered in 25:8; and it is so used repeatedly in the four following chapters. The statement, therefore, that Moses gave this title to the tent he pitched without the camp is clear proof that that tent was provisionally appointed as the tabernacle, the erection of which was no doubt delayed by the apostasy of the golden calf. ftl6 As Leviticus 16 contains no explicit direction as to this, I assume that it was killed in the same place as the ordinary sin-offerings, namely, beside the altar (for such is the meaning of the words “on the side of the altar”). The only sin-offering ever killed outside the camp was the red heifer of Numbers 19 (See earlier in this work .) ftl7 See Appendix 1.

Footnote: ftm1 The words “saint” and “holy” in our English Bible represent but one word in the original. And as the apostate church has degraded our word “saint,” it is a pity that in the sixty odd occurrences of it we do not read “holy people.” The change would remind Christians of their “calling.” ftm2 The Christian is not only justified but sanctified by the blood of Christ ( Romans 5:9; Hebrews 13:12). In 1 Corinthians 1:30 we have these truths stated apart from typical language, though with a plain reference to the types. We there read that Christ is “made unto us both righteousness and sanctification, even redemption.” Redemption in its fullness as including all that was prefigured by both the twelfth and the twenty-fourth chapters of Exodus. But this is obscured in our versions, neither of which translates the “both,” plain though it is in the Greek; and thus the epexegetical force of the “and” is lost.

Theology teaches that while we are righteous in Christ, holiness must be attained through the work of the Holy Spirit. Scripture teaches that holiness of life, like righteousness of life, is a practical conformity to what we are in Christ. And this is what the Spirit’s work signifies. ftm3 See ex . gr ., chap. 8; 9:12; 19:20; 10:29; 12:18-21 ftm4 On John 10:16 Dean Alford writes: “Not one fold, as erroneously rendered in A.V., but one flock; no exclusive enclosure, of an outward Church.” ftm5 katartizio occurs again in 10:5; and 11:3 (“framed”). ftm6 As in 1 Thessalonians 3:10, and 1 Peter 5:10. The kindred word used in 2 Timothy 3:16 is used of fitting out a ship. ftm7 With what indignation the Apostle would spurn a title denied to all the holy martyrs who have been butchered by the Church from which this “honor” comes, but accorded to many evil men (like “Saint” Cyril of Alexandria, and certain of the Popes, and many other sham “saints” of Christendom! Joan of Arc is the latest addition to the galaxy). ftm8 The authorship of the epistles is matter of controversy. The evidence points to Callistus, who was elected to the papacy a century after the death of Ignatius. His prospects were prejudiced by his having been a slave, a criminal, and a convict. But by representing that the saintly Ignatius had had similar antecedents he turned the prejudice round in his favor. That a man with such a past should have been Bishop of Antioch in the early days of truth and purity is most improbable. Still more improbable is it that Ignatius could have written such epistles.

Here is a typical passage: — “It is good to recognize God and the Bishop. He that honoreth the Bishop is honored of God. He that doeth ought without the knowledge of the Bishop, rendereth service to the devil.” Profane drivel of this kind was possibly acceptable to the leaders of the Roman Church in the age of Callistus. These words are not written in ignorance of Bishop Lightfoot’s treatise on the subject. ftm9 As the administration of the Professing Church is admittedly not conducted now on New Testament lines, there is room here for differences among Christians; but the fact that in Apostolic times Ministers, in the spiritual sense, were never formally appointed , destroys every excuse for refusing or failing to accord them definite recognition in any community claiming to be Christian.

I should add that there is no scriptural warrant for applying the word deacon in a special sense to the Seven of Acts 7:5. And (as Dr.

Hatch clearly shows) the duties assigned to them pertained to the Eldership, when the Church was fully constituted.

Footnote: ftn1 See earlier in this work . On the Reformers’ teaching about “The visible Church,” see Appendix 4 later in this work . ftn2 Those only who have lived in a Roman Catholic country can realize how evil is this system, and yet how Christian in spirit an adherent of it may be. ftn3 See earlier in this work . ftn4 The word rendered pastor in Ephesians 4:11 is “shepherd,” and is so translated in every other of its eighteen occurrences in the New Testament. ftn5 It is noteworthy that to them were addressed the only Epistles in which the Lord is expressly named as Shepherd 1 Peter and Hebrews. ftn6 The reader has but to open a Bible at the later chapters of Isaiah, ex .gr ., to find by the headings of the chapters that this perversion of Scripture, begotten of ignorance and prejudice, still prevails in Protestant and Christian Britain. ftn7 For that is a distinctive truth of the present dispensation. All judgment is committed to the Son. But He is now sitting on the throne of God in grace , “exalted to be a Savior.” But when the mystery of God shall be finished, there will follow, not the bonfire, but the age of righteous rule — the times of the restitution of all things, of which all the prophets have spoken ( Revelation 10:7; 11:15; Acts 3:19-24. See earlier in this work ). ftn8 This is, in its most condensed form, the Apostle Paul’s characteristic “benediction” at the close of every one of his fourteen Epistles. And it is found in no other Epistle of the New Testament ftn9 See Archbishop Trench on James 1:27 (Synonyms ) ftn10 This is mentioned by Justin (Apol. i. 5, 16) and also by Tertullian (Apol. 10). And Eusebius records that when calling upon Polycarp to renounce his fellowship with Christians, the Proconsul used the words, “Repent: say, ‘Away with the Atheists.’” ftn11 Lives of the Father , (2:603). His words have special reference to the teaching of Augustine. The whole passage is of great importance. ftn12 Hastings’ Bible Dictionary , Art. “Old Testament,” p. 601. This is the standard text-book of the cult. It carries on the title page the name of Prof. Driver of Oxford.

Appendix: fto1 It is very noteworthy that these words were never used by the Apostles Peter or James; and that, doubtless, because their ministry was specially to the Jewish Christians who might have been betrayed into construing them in a wrong sense. fto2 See Leviticus 23:5,6, Numbers 28:16,17. “In the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the Lord; and in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast.” The A.V. has this blunder in Matthew 26:2, where the words in the feast are added — a blunder that is all the stranger on account of the explicit statement of the fifth verse, and also of John 13:1. The Last Supper was before the Feast. As verse shows, the disciples supposed that Judas went out to buy what was needed for the feast, for trading was lawful on the night of the passover. (See Edersheim’s Life and Times of the Messiah ii. 508.) fto3 The word is usually rendered “preach,” as in 1 Corinthians 2:1; 9:14, etc.

Appendix: ftp1 The revised text of Revelation 1:5 (luo for louo) is now accepted. The Gospel and Its Ministry , Chap. 14, notices every passage which bears upon this question. The blood bath was a well-known pagan rite.

Appendix: ftq1 The word “mystery” in the Epistles does not mean a puzzle, but a secret. Dr. Sanday explains it as “something which up to the time of the Apostles had remained secret, but had then been made known by divine intervention.” ftq2 This, and not the truth of “the body of Christ,” is the “mystery” that is to be “made known to all nations.” The rendering, “the Scriptures of the prophets” in verse 26 is a mistranslation which erroneously connects the passage with the opening words of the Epistle. The “prophetic writings” of 16:26 are those of the New Testament. ftq3 It has been urged that, as the Apostle Peter knew he was to die, and the Apostle Paul knew he was to visit Rome, the Coming was not a present hope in Apostolic times. To call this quibbling would be discourteous.