Facts and
Theories as to a Future State
CHAPTER
XXXIX
"THE RESTITUTION OF ALL THINGS" - MR.
JUKES
THIS Scriptural expression is the title Mr. Jukes has
adopted for his well-known book, which in its fourth edition lies before me. I
propose now to take up and pursue with Scripture the thread of its argument.
Much we have already looked at, and of course need not look at again; but there
is much needed yet to complete our survey.
We may pass over his
preliminary observations upon the nature of Scripture and begin with his second
section upon its "testimony." This, he tells us, "appears at first sight
contradictory. Not only is there on the one hand law, condemning all, while on
the other hand there is the gospel, with its good news for every one; but
further, there are direct statements as to the results of these, which at first
sight are apparently irreconcilable." He adduces first of all the texts, or
some of these, which speak of eternal punishment and owns as to them "Words
could not well be stronger, but he adds" -
"The difficulty is that all this
is but one side of Scripture, which in other places seems to teach a very
different doctrine. For instance, there are first the words of God Himself,
repeated again and again by those same apostles whom I have just quoted, that
'in Abraham's seed all the kindreds of the earth shall be blessed;' words which
St. Peter expounds to mean that there shall be a 'restitution of all things,'
adding that 'God hath spoken of this by the mouth of all His holy prophets
since the world began.' "
Let us look a moment at these texts 'ere we
pass on, and ask ourselves how far they conflict even seemingly with eternal
punishment. Few would imagine perhaps that the blessing in Abraham's seed to
all kindreds of the earth did that. And by the very fact that all the prophets
have spoken of the "restitution of all things," it is plainly not what Mr.
Jukes would imply. Moreover this "restitution" is of things, not persons, and
(according to what we have seen to be the scope of that Old Testament to which,
of course, the apostle refers), it is upon earth, - and nowhere else.
"Restitution of all (the) things of which the prophets have spoken" is the true
force of the word,* and not a restitution of the universe, as Mr. Jukes seems
to imagine.
*apokatastaseos panton on elalesen o Theos (Acts iii.
21). Mr. Jukes, as will be seen, has actually broken the sentence in two, as if
to get rid of this on, and interpreted as if it were es.
"St. Paul further declares," he goes on to say, "this wondrous mystery
of God's will, that He hath purposed in Himself according to His good pleasure,
to rehead and reconcile unto Himself, in and by Christ, all things, whether
they be things in heaven, that is, the spirit world, where the conflict with
Satan yet is, 'or things on earth,' that is, this outward world, where death
now reigns, and where even God's elect are by nature children of 'wrath, even
as other men."
But this goes no further than heaven and earth, and does
not say one word about fallen angels or lost men; they will be outside the
scene here spoken of. Heavenly things as well as earthly are said in Scripture
to be "purchased," "reconciled," "redeemed," "purified," - sin having been in
heaven as well as earth. A comparison of the passages will show that they
cannot apply to those to whom Mr. Jukes would apply them. In Heb. ix. 21-24,
the tabernacle and the vessels of the sanctuary sprinkled with the blood, and
which the apostle interprets of the purifying of the heavenly things with
better sacrifices, cannot possibly refer to these. In Eph. i. 14, it is "our
inheritance" that is the purchased possession to be redeemed. And in Col. i.
19, 20, in the same way, things are spoken of, not persons, the persons
reconciled being named apart in the following verse: "by Him to reconcile all
things unto Himself; by Him, I say, whether they be things on earth or things
in heaven. And" - in addition to this - "you hath He reconciled." In none of
these passages is hell named or by any possibility included.
"Further,"
he says, "St. Paul asserts that 'all creation, which now groans, shall be
delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the
children of God.' "
But this we have seen to be the lower creatures,
and not even man; and the deliverance takes place at the time of the redemption
of the body," at the first resurrection, a thousand years before the judgment,
which therefore could not take place at all if Mr. Jukes' view were the true
one. It is a mere strain of the "all creation," impossible if we read it with
the context. Again -
"In another place he declares that God was in Christ
reconciling the world unto Himself:"
True, but they refused and
rejected it, and are now refusing the "ministry of reconciliation" by which
Christ's mission, in His absence, has been perpetuated.
"And that Christ
'took our flesh and blood, through death to destroy* [or 'nullify'] him that
had the power of death, that is, the devil;' "
*katargese, "nullify" (Heb.
ii. 14).
But to what end; "and deliver those who through fear of death
were all their lifetime subject to bondage." It is the first death Christ has
"abolished" (or "nullified" - the same word as before) "and brought life and
incorruption to light through the gospel" (2 Tim. 1. 10). For whom? For those
who do not receive the gospel? And has Satan, or had he ever, the power of "the
second death," which is his own doom? But again -
" 'That, if by the
offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace,
hath abounded unto many': that 'therefore as by the offence of one (or by one
offence) judgment came on all to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of
one (or by one righteousness), the free gift should come on all unto the
justification of life'; while 'they which receive the abundance of grace and of
the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ;' that 'as
sin hath reigned unto death, so grace might reign unto eternal life,' yea, that
'where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.' "*
*Rom. v. 12-21.
Surely; but there are "those who receive abundance of grace and of the
gift of righteousness," and by implication, as certainly, those who do not. The
mistake commonly made as to these connected passages is to make the
"overabounding" of grace a matter of breadth, instead of height. But, from the
nature of the case, if it were a question of the number reached, there could be
no over-abounding of grace. Certainly, more could not be reached through Christ
than fell with Adam, and that is how it must apply if in this way at all. But
the real matter is one of depth and height, and not of breadth, as I have said.
One offence brings condemnation; the free gift is of many offences to
justification. By the one offence death reigned; by one righteousness not life
reigns, but they reign in life. As to number, it is on each side "the one" and
"the many": the first Adam and the many connected with him, the "last Adam" and
the many connected with him, with a difference only in the 18th verse, where
the tendency "towards all men" is in contrast with the actual issue in the
19th.
The 18th verse reads literally, Therefore as by one
offence all men to condemnation, so by one righteousness towards all men so
justification of life"
Mr. Jukes goes on: -
"To another church he
states the same doctrine, that 'as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all
be made alive'; and that 'the end' shall not come 'till all are subject to
Him,' that 'God may be' not all in some but 'all in all; for He must reign till
He hath put all enemies under His feet; the last enemy that shall be destroyed
is death.' "*
*1 Cor. xv. 22-28.
This, save the first passage, we
have already had before us. Throughout the chapter the resurrection spoken of
is the "resurrection of the just," and it is only that, or these, that are "in
Christ." As all these die in Adam, they all are made alive in Christ: the "all"
are defined by the connection with the previous verses to be all "those that
sleep," and of whom Christ "is the first-fruits." They are the just only. It is
defined by the connection with the verses following, to be all "those that are
Christ's": "Christ the first-fruits; afterward they that are Christ's at His
coming." Nor does the apostle say one word about the wicked at all.
Again, Christ reigns till He puts all enemies under His feet. Changing
them to friends is the very opposite to this. When this is accomplished He
gives up the kingdom, and there are still enemies, though "under His feet." God
cannot be all in all then, in the sense Mr. Jukes would assume. The connection
in the text, moreover, does not give his thought at all. For if Christ's
enemies had become friends before He gave up the kingdom, His giving it up
would not make God all in their hearts any more than before. But it is the
giving up of the kingdom that makes God "all in all." Evidently then the sense
is that He will be in recognized and immediate supremacy everywhere.
But he goes on: -
So he says again, 'Blessed be the God and Father
of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in
heavenly places in Christ,. . . that in the dispensation of the fulness of
times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in
heaven and which are on earth, even in Him.' "*
* Eph. 1. 8-10.
This is a text Mr. Jukes has already once given, when he translates "gather
together in one" as "rehead." He certainly puts it in a new connection, by
dropping six verses of the original, to bring the third and tenth together.
This he does not however justify or explain.
"To the same purpose he
writes in another epistle, 'that at (or in) the name of Jesus (that is,
Saviour) every knee shall bow of things in heaven, and things on earth,
and things under the earth; and that every tongue shall confess that Jesus
Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father;' 'for to this end Christ both
died and rose and revived, that He might be Lord both of the dead and living.'
"
"Things "is not expressed here in the Greek. It reads "of
heavenly, earthly, and infernal [beings]." In Col. i. 20 on the contrary is
ta kanta Phil. ii. 10, 11; Rom. xiv. 3.
These texts have
already received their meaning. For Christ's enemies being put under His feet
implies that they own Him Lord; and that they find Him, or look to Him, as
Saviour, is only said by Mr. Jukes.
"He further declares that 'for this
sake he suffers reproach, because he hopes in the living God, who is the
Saviour of all men, specially of them that believe'; that this God 'will have
all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth'; that
therefore, thanksgivings as well as prayers should be made for all, because
there is a 'ransom for all, to be testified in due time'; and lastly, that 'God
hath concluded all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all.' "§
§1 Tim. iv. 10; ii. 1-6; Rom. xi. 32.
These texts, except the
last, we have also looked at. Mr. Jukes unites them together after his own
fashion, omitting or supplementing as suits his argument. Thus in the first
passage he omits, "For therefore we both labor" from before "and suffer
reproach, because we trust in the living God," etc., words which show us the
connection with God as the Preserver. . . especially of those who believe, so
that in the face of persecution, etc., he could labor. Again he quotes, "
'thanksgivings, as well as prayers should be made for all' because there is 'a
ransom for all, to be testified in due time.' " Here he joins words five verses
apart, and in a very different manner from the apostle, who writes, "I exhort
therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and
giving of thanks be made for all men; for kings and for all that are in
authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and
honesty; for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who
will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For
there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,
who gave Himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time." This is the
whole passage. Mr. Jukes unfairly mutilates it, especially by representing the
ransom for all as if to be testified of in a due time yet to come; whereas the
apostle's words, which are literally "who gave Himself a ransom for all, the
testimony for its own time,"* by no means convey this, but in the sentence that
follows the very opposite: Whereunto I am ordained a preacher," etc.
*to
marturion kaipois isious .
As for the last text quoted, it is an
entirely different one in a different connection, and refers to Israel. It
reads with the previous verse literally thus: "Even so have these also now not
believed in your mercy" - in mercy to Gentiles - "that they also may be objects
of mercy. For God hath concluded (or shut up together) all in unbelief
that He might have mercy upon all." The Jews refusing a mercy which took up
Gentiles, lost all claim upon God, and became as much as the Gentiles
themselves objects of mere mercy. But thus God could show mercy to them, when
it was demonstrated to be merely that. This mercy is to be shown in a fast
coming day, and all Israel saved, i. e., the nation as such. The words have
nothing to do with universal restoration.
outokai outo nun
upeithusan to umeter o eleei kai autoi electros.
Mr. Jukes turns
now from Paul's testimony to John's -
"The beloved apostle St. John,
repeats the same doctrine, that 'the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of
the world'; 'for God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but
that the 'world through Him might be saved."'
But why not go on to the
next verse, which assures us of how alone this could be realized: "he that
believeth on Him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned
already because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of
God."*
*John iii. 17, 18.
"Further he teaches that the only
begotten Son 'is the propitiation, not for our sins only, but for the sins of
the whole world; that He 'is the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the
world,' and 'was revealed for this very purpose, that He might destroy the
works of the devil'; and that, as a result, there shall be no more death, nor
sorrow, nor pain, because all things are made new, and the former things are
passed away.' "
1 John ii. 2; John i. 29; John iii. 8; Rev.
xxi, 4,5; and see Rev. v. 13.
Here again various and disconnected texts
are brought together. No one, I should trust, that believes in Christ, doubts
His being the world's Saviour, but what is more than doubted is His being the
actual salvation of those who refuse Him. And if His being a 'propitiation
for the whole world,' means that all will be saved by it, how is this to
be reconciled with the fact that for some there "remaineth no more sacrifice
for sins"? Again Christ's taking away the sin of the world will yet be
displayed, as Mr. Jukes rightly foresees, when in the new earth it and all its
consequences, death, sorrow and pain, are passed away forever. But that is
strictly in the new heavens and earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness, and Mr.
Jukes cannot make that language apply to hell.
"The sins of," should
be omitted, as is well known.
While as to the devil's works, as I have
before said, they may be undone, and man even loosed from his bondage in this
respect, and yet share through his own will the devil's portion. The lake of
fire is not the devil's work: it is his punishment. Finally Mr. Jukes adduces:
-
"For 'the Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His
hand': and the Son Himself declares, 'All that the Father giveth me shall come
to me, and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down
from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me. And
this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which He hath given
me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.' And
again He says, 'And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto
me.' "*
*John iii. 35. vi 37-39; xii. 32.
Here again it should be
no difficult matter to see that all things being given into Christ's hand is a
different thing from people being given to Him as His own. And in that sixth
chapter of John's gospel from which Mr. Jukes quotes, the limitation is so
clear and precise, and so close to the very place he quotes, that it seems
impossible it should have escaped him. The next verse to his last but one runs
thus: "And this is the will of Him that sent me, that every one which seeth the
Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life, and I will raise him up
at the last day." Does that apply to all? Will they who do not believe have
ever-lasting life alike? Is that what these texts point out?
The last I
have before spoken of, and need not return to it.
Mr. Jukes finds
therefore an "apparent contradiction" in these sayings of Scripture which the
"approved teaching of Christendom" still leaves an unsolved mystery. Indeed it
must be confessed his version of it does leave much unsolved, but having given
my own, I need not follow it
The truth 'which solves the riddle, lies,"
he says, "in the mystery of the will of our ever blessed God as to the process
and stages of redemption: -
"(1.) First, His will by some to bless and save
others; by a first-born seed, 'the first-born from the dead,' to save and bless
the later-born: -
"(2.) His will therefore to work out the redemption of
the lost by successive ages or dispensations, or, to use the language of St.
Paul, 'according to the purpose of the ages'; and -
"(3.) Lastly, His will
(thus meeting the nature of our fall) to make death, judgment, and destruction,
the means and way to life, acquittal, and salvation; in other words, through
death to destroy him that has the power of death, that is, the devil, and to
deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to
bondage."
The second and third of these statements we have pretty well
considered. We have seen that the "purpose of the ages" has not in Scripture
the meaning Mr. Jukes alleges. We have seen, too, that the death of the soul or
its destruction is never the appointed way of its salvation: the terms are
opposed. As when James says: "there is one lawgiver who is able to save and to
destroy," who would suppose that these were convertible terms after all? And
when the apostle speaks of Christ by death destroying him that had the power of
death, - it is by His own death He does it, and not by the death of those whom
He sets free.
It is mainly then his first proposition we have to
consider now: "God's purpose by the first-fruits or first-born to save the
later-born." And here at first sight two dissimilar ideas seem to be confused.
What has the first-fruits to do with producing the harvest? It is the pledge
and assurance of it; but that is quite a different thought. However, we will
let Mr. Jukes state his argument.
"This," he says," which is in fact
the substance of the gospel, like all God's secrets, comes out by degrees.
Scarcely to be discerned, though contained, in the first promise of the Woman's
Seed, it shines out brightly in the covenant made with Abraham: 'In thy seed
shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed'; for the Seed in whom all the
kindreds of the earth are blessed, must be distinct from, and blessed prior to,
those nations to whom according to God's purpose in due time it becomes a
blessing."
It may be we are blind, but we confess we cannot see this.
Is it the fact that Christ was born as Abraham's seed before any of those blest
through Him as such, were born? Was not the blessing through Him reflected back
as well as forward? It should seem so. And then Mr. Jukes' argument is void.
Why does he apply the blessing of all kindreds of the earth only to what was
future when Christ died? Moreover, the seed" in whom all kindreds of the earth
are to be blessed, is expressly asserted by the apostle Gal. iii. 16) to be
Christ alone, and not true of others: "he saith not, And to seeds, as of many,
but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ" Argument, of course, is easy,
if we may assume the basis of it at our will. But, we are told: -
"This
purpose is then revealed with fuller detail in the law of the first-fruits and
the first-born, though here the veil of type and shadow hides from most the
face of Moses. But in Christ the purpose is unveiled forever, and the mystery
by the first-born to save others is by the Holy Ghost made fully manifest.
Christ, says the apostle, is the promised Seed, the First-born, and in and
through Him endless blessing shall flow down on the later-born.
"Now
Christ, as Paul shows, is first-born in a double sense. He is first-born from
above, first out of life, for He is the only* begotten Son of God, begotten of
the Father before all worlds; for by Him were all things created, which are in
heaven, and which are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones
or dominions or principalities or powers, all things were created by Him and
for Him, and He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.' But He is
more than this, for He is also 'first -born from the dead,' first out of death,
'that in all things He might have the preeminence;' and it is in this relation,
as First-born from the dead, that He is Head of the church, and first-fruits of
the creature. All things are indeed of God; but it is no less true that all
things are by man; as it is written, 'since by man came death, by man
came also the resurrection of the dead.' Therefore as by one first-born death
came into the world, so by another first-born shall it be forever overthrown."
*Mr. Jukes sees no difference between "first" and " only." How can an
"only begotten" be a first?
Where is this taught?
But if this
be the New Testament doctrine of the firstborn, as he holds it, Mr. Jukes
allows it does not prove his case. Very remarkable it is, after his having told
us just before, that "in Christ the purpose is unveiled forever, and the
mystery by the first-born to save others is by the Holy Ghost made fully
manifest," he now tells us that nevertheless it is not in the clear revelations
of the New Testament that we are to find the unveiling of this purpose, but we
must go back to the law to find it! "The law of Moses is most instructive here;
for while it is true that the letter of that law cannot be explained but by the
gospel, it is no less true that the gospel in its breadth and depth cannot be
set forth but by the figures of the law, each jot of which covers some blessed
mystery"!
We have usually thought that the letter of the law was plain
enough, and that the figures were what the New Testament explained. On the
contrary, Mr. Jukes asserts the figures of the Old Testament alone fully set
forth the gospel of the New!
He confesses then that his full gospel cannot
be found in what we style, by way of eminence, the "gospel"! Let us still go on
with him, however: -
"What then does the law teach us of the First-born
from the dead?. . . According to the law, the first-born had the right. though
it might be lost, of being priest and king, that is, of interceding for, and
ruling over their younger brethren; on him devolved the duty of God or
Redeemer, to redeem a brother who had waxen poor, and sold himself unto a
stranger; to avenge his blood, to raise up seed to the dead, and to redeem the
inheritance, if it were at any time lost or alienated. To sustain these duties
God gave him a double portion. Need I point out how Christ fulfils these
particulars; how, as first out of the grave that 'barren womb that cries, Give,
give,' He is the First-born through whom the blessing reaches us? In this sense
no Christian doubts that God's purpose is by the First-born from the dead to
save and bless the later-born."
The first-born under the law were never
priests. It is well known there was one special family. The nearest of kin
redeemed the inheritance, etc., not necessarily the firstborn. And Christ's
doing this does not yet present Mr. Jukes' gospel, but he must dig deeper down
to find it.
"But the truth goes further still, for there are others
beside the Lord who are both 'first-born' and 'Abraham's seed,' who must
therefore in their measure 'share this same honour with and under Christ, and
in whom, as 'joint-heirs with Him,' the promise must be fulfilled, that in them
'all the kindreds of the earth shall be blessed.' This glorious truth, though
of the very essence of the gospel, which announces salvation to the world
through the promised 'seed of Abraham,' is even yet so little seen by many of
Abraham's seed, that not a few of the children of promise speak and act, as if
Christ and His body only should be saved, instead of rejoicing that they are
also the appointed means of saving others. Even of the elect, few see that they
are elect to the birthright, not to be blessed only, but to be a blessing; as
first-born with Christ to share the glory of kingship and priest-hood with Him,
not only to rule and intercede for their younger and later-born brethren, but
to avenge their blood, to raise up seed to the dead, and in and through Christ,
their Life and Head, to redeem their lost inheritance."
This then is
how the Old Testament figures set forth the gospel of the New! But the blessing
of all nations is through the "one seed," Christ, alone, as we have seen. In
what "measure" then can others share in it? And what has being "joint-heirs
with Christ," to do with "saving others"? What does avenging the blood of those
who have died for their sins and in them mean; and how are these the
"later-born"? That the risen saints are priests and kings with Him who is
Priest and King is of course true, and rule and intercession for others are
implied in these terms. But over whom and for whom are these offices? "Their
younger and later-born brethren," says Mr. Jukes. Then these should be, and
will be, doubtless, millennial saints. They can hardly be the wicked, without
we ASSUME the latter birth (new birth, of course) of these. Mr. Jukes at
present has at least given us no evidence at all of this.
He now passes
on to the "first-fruits," rightly referring the Passover first-fruits to
Christ, the Pentecostal leavened cakes to the saints: " 'Christ, the
First-fruits,' and 'we, a kind of first-fruits': Christ 'the First-born,' and
we 'the church of the first-born'; words which carry with them," he says,
"blessings unspeakable, 'for if the first-fruit be holy, the lump is also
holy,' the offering of the first-fruits to God being accepted as the
sanctification and consecration of the whole coming harvest."
Does Mr.
Jukes mean, of the "tares" as well as of the wheat, or of the wheat alone? If
the latter, it will not be questioned; but neither will it serve his turn. He
seeks to apply it thus: -
"First, the Jew is Abraham's seed, - the people
that dwell alone, and are not reckoned among the nations, and although 'all are
not Israel, who are of Israel,' Scripture will indeed be broken, if. Israel is
not again grafted in; when, if the casting away of them has been the riches of
the world, the receiving of them, as St. Paul says, shall be life from the
dead. 'Israel is my son, my first-born, saith the Lord.' All nations therefore,
shall yet be blessed in them."
Here again is the constant twist, the
many seeds substituted for the one. And while Israel will be fruitful in the
earth, this is not the fulfilment of the Pentecostal first-fruits. The other
application more concerns us now.
"The church is also Abraham's seed;
for, as St. Paul says, 'if ye be Christ's ye are Abraham's seed, and heirs
according to the promise.' To the church, therefore, belongs the same promise,
as first-fruits with Christ, not to be blessed only, but to be a blessing, in
its own heavenly and spiritual sphere. For if the Jew on earth shall be a
'kingdom of priests,' what is our hope but to be also heavenly 'kings and
priests'? As kings, for the Lord shall say, 'Be thou over five cities,' to rule
and order in the coming age what requires order; not only with Christ to judge
the world,' but to be 'equal unto the angels.' and to 'judge the angels';* as
priests, for a priest is 'for those out of the way,' to minister to those who
are yet out of the way. . . . Christ barely entered on His priestly work till
He had passed through death and judgment; so with those who are Christ's,
their death and resurrection shall only introduce them to fuller and wider
service to lost ones, over whom the Lord shall set them as His priests and
kings, until all things are restored and reconciled unto Him."
*Judgment
is with Mr. Jukes a mode of salvation, and we are to save the fallen angels
so!
He did not enter on it at all till then: "for if He were on earth
He should not be a priest" (Heb. viii. 4).
Priesthood is not for "lost
ones." Christ as a priest, in contrast with the Jewish priests, is "separate
from sinners." Even they ministered only within the limits of the chosen
people, and our priesthood must conform to this. Here Mr. Jukes' interpretation
ends. The shadows of the law, that were to preach the perfect gospel unpreached
by the gospel, are utterly silent as to the "wider hope." After this long
argument the only result is a question, and an unanswered question, as far as
Mr. Jukes is concerned.
"To whom, I ask, shall the church after death
be priests? Shall it be to that great mass of our fellowmen, who have departed
hence in ignorance? Shall it be to 'spirits in prison,' such as those to whom
after His death Christ preached? Shall not His saints, made like Him, do the
same works, still following Him, and with Him being priests to God? Will not
their glory be to rule and feed and enlighten and clothe those who are
committed to them, even as Christ has fed and clothed them?". . . .
And
THAT is the argument. I have given it really at superfluous length, but it was
well to see the whole, if only for the satisfaction of seeing how simply
impossible it is to make Scripture contradict Scripture. Mr. Jukes calls it
reconciling, of course; but there was nothing to reconcile. And reconciliation
which can only be accomplished by sinking Great Babylon into the water of life,
as he does a little further on, most people will after all think
exemplifies one of his own principles in a rather startling way. But none who
know what Scripture is will thank him for a salvation of it wrought by its
destruction. As they do not believe in the process, so neither will they accept
the result.
P. 41.
Mr. Jukes urges in another part of his
book that -
"the precepts which God has given are in their way as strong a
witness as His direct promises Hear the law respecting bondmen, and strangers,
and debtors, and widows, and orphans, and the punishment of the wicked, which
may not exceed forty stripes, 'lest, if it exceed, then thy brother should seem
vile unto thee;' yea, even the law respecting asses fallen into a pit: hear the
prophets exhorting to 'break every yoke,' to 'let the op pressed go free,' and
to 'undo the heavy burdens': hear the still clearer witness of the gospel, not
to 'let the sun go down upon our wrath,' to 'forgive not until seven times, but
unto seventy times seven,' 'not to be overcome of evil, but overcome evil with
good'; to 'walk in love as Christ has loved us,' and to 'be imitators of God as
dear children': - see the judgment of those who neglect the poor, and the
naked, and the hungry, and the stranger, and the prisoner; and then say, Shall
God do that which He abhors? Shall He command that bondmen and debtors be
freed, and yet Himself keep those who are in worse bondage and under a greater
debt in endless imprisonment? Shall He care for widows and orphans, and Himself
forget this widowed nature, which has lost its Head and Lord, and those poor
orphan souls, which cannot cry, 'Abba, Father'? Shall He limit punishment to
forty stripes, 'lest thy brother seem vile,' and Himself inflict far more upon
those who though fallen are still His children? Is not Christ the faithful
Israelite, who fulfils the law, and shall He break it in any one of these
particulars? Shall He say, 'Forgive, till seventy times seven,' and Himself not
forgive except in this short life? Shall He command us to overcome evil with
good, and Himself, the Almighty, be overcome of evil? Shall He judge those who
leave the captives unvisited, and Himself leave captives in a worse prison
forever unvisited? Does He not again and again appeal to our own natural
feelings of mercy, as witnessing 'how much more' we may expect a larger mercy
from our Father which is in heaven? If it were otherwise, might not the
adversary reproach, and say, Thou that teachest and judgest another, teachest
thou not thyself? Not thus will God be justified. But, blessed be His Name, He
shall in all be justified."*
*Pp. 93, 94.
In that assurance we
shall all, I believe, unite. But Mr. Jukes can scarcely thus turn the questions
that he puts into the affirmations that he fain would make of them. He
confounds things widely different. He forgets or omits what is in the highest
degree essential to the argument. Who would suppose that according to him the
law had any heavier penalty than the "forty stripes" referred to? Dr. Farrar
can make the execution of a criminal, and the casting forth of his unburied
corpse amid the flames and worms of the valley of Hinnom the figure of
corrective and remedial punishment. Mr. Jukes seems to forget that the penalty
of death ever existed for malefactors under the law. For if it did exist, he
could hardly say that God enjoined for all offenders either continual
forgiveness, or temporary punishment merely. Is death the figure of either? If
not, of what is it a figure? Surely, as I have before argued, a punishment
inflicted by man which, as far as he is concerned, has no end and cannot be
reversed, must be the figure of that which if divine has not forever end or
reversion. I know Mr. Jukes says that death is the way to life, and destruction
but a process of salvation; but no criminal executed by a government ever
believed that these were one and the same thing to him, or intended as such by
those who sentenced him.
Again, what would mercy to an unrepenting
criminal involve? Mr. Jukes forgotten that of some even in this life it is
said, "it is impossible to renew them unto repentance"? Does he not understand
that the mercy which with us as individuals may be right and good, may be the
reverse of both if practised wholesale by a government? He confounds these
things as if he did not understand it. Nay, he speaks of God's remission of
imperative judgment as "letting the oppressed go free"!
But I do not
think it needful to argue further. We have it confessed by Mr. Jukes himself
that "the gospel in its breadth and depth cannot be set forth but by the
figures of the law." When these figures are appealed to, we find not the
slenderest evidence to show that the "later-born brethren" to whom God's
"first-born" sons are to be kings and priests are those in hell. The ages of
torment, instead of being limited and temporary with an eternity of universal
blessedness beyond, are limited only by the life of God Himself. And lastly,
the destruction which he would have to be a method of salvation, is everywhere
in Scripture defined as its opposite. These are the fundamental principles of
his interpretation, and with these it necessarily falls; while in our
examination of the Scriptures proof upon proof has been given of the contrary
view. Mr. Jukes himself confesses that, from his stand-point of universal
salvation, "taken in the letter, text clashes with text, on this subject."* But
that gives up the whole question, except letter and figure are at issue. If
they are, who shall decide between them? Nay, how shall the figure be
interpreted if not by that letter, which it seems is discordant with it? I
leave then Mr. Jukes in the self-contradiction in which he has involved
himself. Our account with him is virtually closed, although statements of his
may yet come up for examination. We must turn to other advocates of universal
restoration.
*P. 117.
Go To Chapter Forty
Home | Links | Literature