SIR ROBERT ANDERSON
Secret Service
Theologian
THE SILENCE OF GOD
APPENDIX
NOTE I. (page 18).
IN these pages I am dealing only
with miracles in the theological sense; that is, with Divine miracles. The
phenomena of Spiritualism I have never personally investigated; but if genuine
they are clearly miraculous, and to reject, on a priori grounds, the
mass of evidence adduced in proof of them in books like Professor A. R.
Wallace's "Miracles and Modern Spiritualism," seems to me to savour of the
stupidity of unbelief. Assuming their genuineness, no Christian need hesitate
to account for them by demoniacal agency. To attribute them to departed spirits
is unphilosophical as it is unscriptural. It would seem that in this Christian
dispensation, when the third Person of the Trinity dwells on earth, demons are
subject to restraints which were not imposed in a preceding age, bet there is
no reason to refuse belief in their presence or their power.
Religious
miracles also claim a passing notice here. I do not allude to the tricks of
priests, but to cases of extraordinary cures from serious illness; and some at
least of these appear to be supported by evidence sufficient to establish their
truth. The phenomena of hysteria and mimetic disease will probably account for
the majority of cases of the kind. Others again may be explained as instances
of the power of the mind and will over the body. The diseases which are
necessarily fatal are comparatively few. But when a patient gives up hope his
chances of recovery are greatly reduced. On the other hand, the progress of
disease may be controlled, and even checked, by some mastering influence or
emotion which turns the patient's thoughts back to life, and makes him believe
he is convalescent. But while the vast majority of seemingly miraculous cures
may thus be explained on natural principles, there may perhaps be some which
are genuine miracles. There are no limits to the possibilities of faith, and
God may thus declare Himself at times.
There is nothing in this admission
to clash with the concluding statement of my second chapter, that in our
dispensation, unlike those which preceded it, there are no public events
to compel belief in God. I am there dealing, not with the mere fact of
miracles, but with their evidential value; and if there have been miracles in
Christendom, that element is wanting in them. I may add that among Christians
it is pestilently evil to make the exceptional experience of some the rule of
faith for all. The Word of God is our guide, and not the experience of
fellow-Christians; and when this is ignored the practical consequences are
disastrous. The annals of "faith-healing," as it is called, are rich in cases
of mimetic or hysterical disease, but about the spiritual wreckage due to
failures innumerable they are silent.
NOTE II. (page 45).
According to
the dictionary the primary meaning of religion is "piety." But this, of course,
is entirely personal and subjective. In these pages I use the word only in its
original sense, in which alone it occurs in our English Bible. "How little
'religion' once meant godliness how predominantly it was used for the outward
service of God, is plain from many passages in our Homilies, and from other
contemporary literature." But though Archbishop Trench, from whose "English
Past and Present" this sentence is quoted, suggests that such a use of the word
is now obsolete, I venture to maintain that it is in this, its original, but
now secondary, meaning that it is commonly used at the present day. And I may
appeal to the fact that the Revisers have retained it even in Gal. i. 13, 14,
where "the Jews' religion" is twice given as the equivalent of "Judaism." In
the only other passages where it occurs (Acts xxvi., and James i. 26, 27), it
is the rendering of the Greek , a word which means the outward ceremonial
service of religion, the external form, as contrasted with the word which, with
one exception, is always translated gadlintus in the fifteen passages where it
occurs. The first is rendered worshipping in Col. ii. i 8, thus plainly showing
that it is outward ceremonial it implies. Its use in Acts xxvi. needs no
comment, but in James i. its significance is generally missed. "Pure religion,"
the writer declares, "is this "-and every Israelite (for to such the Epistle
was specially addressed) would expect a reference to new ordinances in lieu of
those of the bygone dispensation; but his thoughts turn in a wholly different
direction-" to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep
himself unspotted from the world." As Archbishop Trench remarks, the very
Opicricda of Christianity "consists in acts of mercy, of love, of holiness."
The words are intended, not to indicate a parallel, but to suggest a contrast.
In no more forcible and striking manner could the apostle teach that
Christianity is not a Opicricda at all.
NOTE III. (page 56).
The Acts
of the Apostles is divided by theologians into three main periods: The Hebraic
(chap i.-v.); the Transitional (vl-xii.), and the Gentile (xiii.-xxviii.). But
this classification is arbitrary. The Hebraic section includes at least the
first nine chapters; and if the view of the Book here advocated be correct, the
rest must be regarded as transitional. That it is so in a real sense no student
can fail to recognise; and that this is the intention of the narrative I
venture to maintain. The admission of the Gentiles, recorded in chap. x., was
on strictly Jewish lines, as the apostles came to understand, and James
explained at the Council of Jerusalem (xv. 13, &c.). Those that were
scattered by the Stephen persecution preached "to Jews only" (xi. 19). The
marginal note to ver. 20 in R.V. shows that the passage must not be strained to
imply a denial of this. That Paul's ministry during the year he spent in
Antioch was confined to Jews, appears from xiv. 27. When from Antioch Paul and
Barnabas came to Salamis "they preached in the synagogues of the Jews" (xiii.
5). When they came to Pisidian Antioch, they again repaired to the synagogue
(ver. 14). And it was not till the Jews rejected the ministry that the apostles
"turned to the Gentiles" (ver. 46). This passage marks one of the minor crises
in the narrative. At Iconium again the apostles preached in the synagogue of
the Jews (xiv. i) As the "Greeks" here mentioned were attending the synagogue,
they were evidently proselytes, and are not to be confounded with the
"Gentiles" of verses 2 and 5. Verse 27 of the fourteenth chapter, makes it
clear that Paul's ministry among the Gentiles began with his sojourn in Pisidia
(chap. xiii.). Chap. xv. claims far fuller notice than can here be given to it.
Any one can see, however, that it records the session of a council of Jews to
deal with new problems to which the conversion of Gentiles had given rise.
Chap. xvi. i-8 records the apostles' visits to existing Churches. The vision of
ver. 9 then called them to Philippi where (as probably at Lystra) they found no
synagogue. But on passing thence to Thessalonica "Paul, as his manner was,"
frequented the synagogue (xvii. 2). So also at Berea (ver. io), and at Athens
(ver. i7).
From Athens Paul came to Corinth where "he reasoned in the
synagogue every Sabbath" (xviii. 4). So also at Ephesus (ver. 19, and xix. 8).
Thence it was he turned towards Jerusalem upon that mission which is regarded
by some as the fulfilment of his ministry, and by others as a turning away from
the path of testimony to the Gentiles, seemingly marked out for him to follow.
Be this as it may, having been carried a prisoner to Rome, his first care was
to call together -not the Christians, much though he longed to see them (Rom.
l. 10, ii), but-" the chief of the Jews," and to them to give the testimony
which he had brought to his nation in every place to which his ministry had led
him. In his introductory address to them he claimed the place of a Jew among
Jews:
"I have done nothing (he declared) against the people, or the customs
of our fathers (xxviii. 17); but when these, the Jews of Rome, refused the
proffered mercy, his mission to his nation was at an end; and for the first
time separating himself from them, he exclaimed, "Well spake the Holy Ghost
through Isaiah the prophet unto your fathers "- and he went on to repeat the
words which our Lord Himself had used at that kindred crisis of His ministry
when the nation had openly rejected Him (Acts xxviii. 25 R.V.; Matt. xiii. 13,
xii. 14-16).
My contention is that the Acts, as a whole, is the record of a
temporary and transitional dispensation in which blessing was again offered to
the Jew and again rejected. Hence the sustained emphasis with which the
testimony to Israel is narrated, and the incidental way in which the testimony
to Gentiles is treated. Of the thousands baptized at Pentecost a large
proportion doubtless were of the strangers mentioned in ii. 9-11; and these
carried the testimony to the Jews in all the places there enumerated. The 5,000
men mentioned in iv. 4 were apparently resident in Jerusalem, and these, when
scattered by the Stephen persecution, "went everywhere preaching the Word,"
"but to the Jews only" (vili. I, 4, and Xl. 19). Surely we may assume that
there was not a district, not a village, inhabited by Jews, where the gospel
did not come.
Some, perhaps, will appeal to passages like Actsi xv. 12 to
disprove my statement that miracles had special reference to the favoured
nation. The careful student, however, will see that nothing in the narrative is
inconsistent with what I have urged. For example, the miracle at Lystra was in
response to the faith of the man who benefited by it (xiv. 9), and its effect
on the heathen who witnessed it was not to lead them to Christianity, but first
to make them pay Divine honour to the apostles, and then, finding they were not
gods but men, to stone them. I have not said that there were no miracles
wrought among the heathen, but that, when the gospel was carried to the
heathen, miracles lost their prominence, and that they ceased absolutely just
at the time when, if the recognised hypothesis were true, they would have been
of the highest value. The great miracle of xvi. 26 was a Divine intervention on
behalf of the apostle. And among the Jews of Ephesus (xix. 1 i) and the
Christians of Corinth (i Cor. xii. io) there were miracles, as doubtless
elsewhere also. But there were no miracles seen by Felix or Festus or Agrippa;
and, as already noticed, when Paul stood before Nero the era of miracles had
closed. The miracles of Acts xxviii. 8, 9 are chronologically the last on
record, and the later Epistles are wholly silent respecting them.
NOTE IV.
(page 87).
Every one recognises that the advent of Christ marked a signal
"change of dispensation," as it is termed: that is, a change in God's dealings
with men. But the fact is commonly ignored that the rejection of Christ by the
favoured people, and their fall in consequence from the position of privilege
formerly held by them, marked another change no less definite and important
(Rom. xi. 15). And yet this fact affords the solution of many difficulties and
a safeguard against many errors. As indicated in these pages, it gives the clew
to the right understanding of the Acts of the Apostles -a book which is
primarily the record, not, as commonly supposed, of the founding of the
Christian Church, but of the apostasy of the favoured nation. But it also
explains much that perplexes Christians in the teaching of the Gospels.
During the last Carlist rising in Spain a wealthy Spanish marquis was said to
have mortgaged his entire estate to its utmost value, and to have thrown the
proceeds into the war-chest of the insurrection. It was a reasonable act on the
part of any one who believed in the Pretender's cause. To him, and to others
like him, the accession of Don Carlos to the throne would bring back their own,
and far more besides. So was it with the disciples in days when the kingdom was
being preached to the earthly people. Certain of the Lord's precepts had
reference to the special circumstances of that special dispensation. Take "the
Sermon on the Mount" for example. Our Lord was there unfolding the principles
of the promised kingdom, and giving precepts for the guidance of those who were
awaiting its establishment. It is all for us, doubtless, but not always in the
same sense that it was intended to convey to them. Christians, for instance,
pray the kingdom prayer. But with us "Thy kingdom come" is a general appeal for
the advancement of the Divine cause: with them it was a definite petition for
the near realisation of the promised earthly reign. And what a meaning the
prayer for daily bread had for those who were enjoined to carry neither purse
nor scrip, but to trust their heavenly Father to feed them as He feeds the
birds; for, like the birds, they had "neither storehouse nor barn"
Principles are unchanging, but the definite precepts recorded in such passages
as Matt. V. 39-42 and vi. 25-34 were framed with reference to the circumstances
of the time, and to the special testimony which the kingdom disciple was to
maintain. The Christian, unlike the kingdom disciple in this respect, is
entitled to defend himself against outrage, and to resist any invasion of his
personal or civil rights; and he is expressly enjoined to make provision for
the future. Banking, insurance, and thrift are not forbidden by Christianity.
"Take nothing for your journey," the Lord directed, as He sent out the Twelve,
"neither staves, nor scrip, nor bread, nor money; neither have two coats" (Luke
ix. 3). And referring to this, when He was about to be taken away from them, He
asked, "When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye
anything? And they said, Nothing. Then said He unto them, But now, he that hath
a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword,
let him sell his garment and buy one" (Luke xxii. 35, 36). What can be plainer
than this? In civilised communities, of course, the State takes charge of "the
sword" (Rom. xiii. 4), and the individual citizen is not left to defend
himself; but the principle is the same. One who is "instructed unto the
kingdom," the Lord declares, is like "a householder who brings out of his
treasure things new and old" (Matt. xiii. 52). But Christians nowadays are not
thus "instructed." They are rather like householders who, bringing out whatever
comes first to their hand, give new milk to their guests and old wine to their
babies! And as the result Holy Scripture is brought into contempt, and earnest
and honest-hearted believers are stumbled or perplexed. Another clew is needed
to guide us in the right use of the teaching of the Gospels. Some of the Lord's
words were addressed to the apostles as such, and we must remember this in
applying them to ourselves.
With reference to the Sermon on the Mount it may
be asked, Does any one imagine our Lord supposed that people would wish to add
twenty inches to their height? Matt. vi. 27 should no doubt be read as the
American Revisers render it, "Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit
to the measure of his life?"
NOTE V. (page 109).
The primary and usual
meaning of (Greek) in Biblical Greek is indicated by its use in the
Septuagint. It occurs eight times in the second chapter of Daniel (verses i8,
19, 27, 28, 29, 30, 47 (twice), and again in chap. iv. 9), and in every case it
is translated secret in our English version. The word occurs also in the
Apocrypha, and always in this same sense. This, too, is its ordinary use in the
New Testament; but the word was then already acquiring the further meaning
which belongs to it in the writings of the Greek Fathers, namely, a symbol or
secret sign. And in this sense it appears to be used in Rev. i. 20 and xvii. 5,
7. In chap. x. 7 it occurs in its earlier meaning. So also apparently in Eph.
V. 32, though the Vulgate understands it differently, using the word
sacramentum to translate it. If it is to be read in the one way, the secret
referred to is that believers are members of the Body of Christ: if in the
other way, marriage is the symbol intended. The Latin version of Eph. v. 32 is
of special interest as indicating the original meaning of sacrament, as "a
mystery; a mysterious or holy token or pledge"(Webster). Bishop Taylor thus
speaks of God sending His people "the sacrament of a rainbow." And Hooker
writes: "As often as we mention a sacrament, it is improperly under stood; for
in the writings of the ancient fathers all articles which are peculiar to
Christian faith, all duties of religion containing that which sense or natural
reason cannot of itself discern, are most commonly named sacraments. Our
restraint of the word to some few principal Divine ceremonies irnporteth in
every such ceremony two things, the substance of the ceremony itself, which is
visible; and besides that, something else more secret, in reference whereunto
we conceive that ceremony to be a sacrament."
In this passage, it will be
noticed, the word is used precisely in the secondary sense assigned to it in
Johnson's "Dictionary," viz., "An outward and visible sign of an inward and
spiritual grace." Johnson's first meaning of the word is "an oath"; and the
Latin word sacramentum may possibly have acquired that meaning on account of
some outward act or sign which accompanied the taking of an oath. According to
Hooker's use of the word sacrament, the English practice of kissing the
Testament would be so described.
NOTE VI. (page 118).
If the reader
will take up the New Testament, and with the help of a good concordance turn to
every passage where the devil is mentioned or referred to, he will be startled
to find how little there is to give even a seeming support to the popular
superstition upon this subject. Three passages only can I find that seem to
suggest that Satan tempts to acts of immorality. Of John iii. 8-io, I have
already spoken. The other two are i Cor. vii. 5, and I Tim. v. 15; and with
these I will deal presently.
In the temptation of our Lord there was of
course no question of morality. The devil's aim was to draw Him away from the
path of dependence upon God, and specially to divert Him from the path which
led to the Cross. It was this also which brought such a terrible rebuke upon
Peter when the Lord addressed him as "Satan "(Matt. xvi. 23). And when Satan
asked to have Peter (as he had asked to have Job) it was his faith he sought to
destroy. "I made supplication for thee," the Lord added, "that thy faith fail
not" (Luke xxii. 31, 32 R.V.).
And with the memory of this before him no
doubt it was that the apostle wrote the words, "Your adversary the devil, as a
roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: whom withstand
stedfast in your faith" (i Pet. v. 8-9). In the parable of the tares in the
field, it is the devil who sows the tares (Matt. xiii. 39). And in the parable
of the sower the devil's work is described as taking away the word out of the
hearts of those who hear it, "lest they should believe and be saved." And if
Elymas the sorcerer was called a "son of the devil," it was because of his
"seeking to turn aside the proconsul from the faith" (Acts xiii. 8, lo).
Two passages indicate his mysterious "power of death," viz., Heb. ii. 14, and
Jude 9, which tells of his claiming as of right the body of Moses. And two
passages again indicate his power of inflicting disease and pain, namely, Luke
xiii. i6, and. Acts x. 38, but these may probably be explained by reference to
the case of Job.
In Rev. xii. 9 (R.V.), he is called "the deceiver of the
whole world" (cf Rev. xx. 10); and in that book he is represented as the leader
in the great coming struggle between faith and unfaith, between the
acknowledgment of God and the denial of Him. There is no need to quote the many
passages which indicate his malignant hatred of God and of His people, but if
he be the obscene monster of Christian tradition, how is it that, from cover to
cover, the Bible is silent on the subject? In his "devices" upon men the Satan
of Scripture is the enemy, not of morals, but of faith.
And if in view of
the mass of testimony leading to this conclusion we turn back to the two
passages above cited, we shall be prepared to read them in a new light. In i
Tim. v. we shall read verse 15 in the light of verse 12. The "turning aside
after Satan" there referred to is "the setting at nought their first faith."
And the Christian will not hesitate to follow Calvin in understanding the
"faith" here intended as the faith of Christ. The word (Greek)occurs two
hundred times in the Epistles; and in this sense only is it used, with the
solitary exception of Tit. ii. 10. There is the very strongest presumption
therefore against the suggestion that here it means no more than a woman's
"troth" to her dead husband. Such a suggestion, moreover, makes the apostle
contradict himself. It makes him say that young widows "have condemnation"
because they wish to marry again; and yet he ends by expressly enjoining that
they are to marry again! (ver. 14 R.V.). Verses 1-13 give his reasons for that
injunction. The passage is incidentally an overwhelming condemnation of
nunneries, but the usual construction put upon it is an outrage upon Holy Writ
and a gross libel upon women. And I may add that if that construction were the
true one the limit of age at which widows were to be provided for would
certainly have been fixed much earlier than sixty.
The expressions "waxing
wanton against Christ," and "turning aside after Satan," are to be explained by
reference to the Scriptural standard of spiritual life and the Scriptural
theology of Satanic temptations. So also of 2 Cor. vii. 5. The solemn practical
lesson there to be learned is that any departure from prudence and propriety
may give Satan an advantage-an occasion to undermine or corrupt the Christian's
faith.
As for Ananias, his story is so misread that the lesson of it is
lost to the Church. He was not a bad man, but a good man. In the enthusiasm of
his zeal he sold his landed property that he might devote the proceeds to the
common fund. But here the suggestion presented itself to him to put aside a
portion for his own use. His wife was in the plot, and boldly lied to conceal
it. But Ananias spoke no lie, he only acted one, as people are used to do
nowadays. If he lived today he would be held in the highest repute. Indeed
there are few to be found in these selfish days who could compare with him. The
moral is not the wickedness of man but the holiness and "severity" of God, and
the subtlety of Satanic temptations. Satan tempted him, not to a vicious or
"immoral" act, but only to do what, as the apostle said, he had an
unquestionable right to do. He did not lie to men-so the Word expressly tells
us-but he lied to God, and swift judgment fell on him. If God were dealing thus
with men in our day, the number of the burials would be a serious difficulty!
To the case of Judas I have not expressly referred, because it so obviously
falls within the category of temptations aimed directly against Christ
Himself.
NOTE VII. (page 123).
The exegesis here offered of John viii.
is not based on the grammar of the Greek article. The Revisers have adopted an
unsatisfactory compromise between exposition and translation. "To speak a lie"
is not English. In our language the proper expression is "to tell a lie." But
no one would so render the Greek words and by inserting in the margin the old
and discarded gloss, the Revisers only betray their dissatisfaction with their
own reading. The words must mean either some definite lie, or else in the
abstract sense the whole range of what is false. (See Psa. v. 6 LXX). In this
view of the passage all speech would be regarded as divided between truth and
falsehood - God-speech and devil-speech. But this is somewhat fanciful here,
and, in regard to the words which follow, somewhat forced. And if, as I venture
to urge, it is not the false in the abstract which is here in view, but a
concrete instance of it, the question of grammar is no longer open. And, thus
rendered, the connection is clear between Satan the liar and Satan the
murderer. He is not the instigator to all murders, but to the murder there and
then in question, the murder of the Christ; he is not the father of lies, but
the father of the lie of which "the murder" is the natural consequence.
In
Rom. i. 25, where both words (" truth" and "lie ") have the article, I suppose
both are used in the abstract sense. In Rev. xxi. 27 and xxii. i5 the word
"lie" is anarthrous. But in 2 Thess. ii. I i it is again the lie of John viii.
44. The Lawless One who is yet to be revealed, is described as he "whose coming
is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders." God
does not incite men to tell lies or to believe lies. But of those who reject
"the truth " it is written, "He shall send them strong delusion that they
should believe the lie." Because they have rejected the Christ of God, a
judicial blindness shall fall upon them that they shall accept the Christ of
humanity, who will be Satan incarnate.
In these pages I have kept clear of
prophecy, for they are addressed in part to those who have no belief in
prophecy. But if the prophetic student will shake himself free from the Satan
myth he will find the Divine forecast of the future become radiant with new
light. Terrible wars are yet to convulse the nations, bringing famine in their
train. But the coming Man will bring peace to the world. He will command
universal homage not merely by reason of his Satanic miraculous powers, but
because of his splendid human qualities. The adherents of "the truth" will,
alone of all the race, have cause to mourn his sovereignty. His reign will be
the era of man's "millennium," a time of order and prosperity unparalleled,
when the arts of peace shall flourish, and the utopias of philosophers and
socialists will be realised. And that the Satan cult which will then prevail on
earth will be marked by a high morality and a specious "form of godliness," is
plainly indicated by the warning that, but for Divine grace, it would "deceive
the very elect." It is also, I venture to think, plainly foreshadowed by
current events.
Christians are trifling with sceptical attacks upon
Scripture. But the real issue involved in these attacks is the Divinity of
Christ; and I venture to predict that those of us who shall live for another
quarter of a century, shall yet witness a widespread abandonment of that great
truth by many of the Churches. The decline of faith during the last
five-and-twenty years has been appalling, and we are already within measurable
distance of a more general acceptance of the Satan cult - a religion marked by
a high morality and an earnest philanthropy, but wholly devoid of all that is
distinctively Christian. "Free from dogma" is the favourite expression: and
this "freedom" means the ignoring of the great truths of Christianity.
APPENDIX TWO
Literature | Photos | Links | Home