SOON we taste the endless sweetness
Of the Tree of life above;
Taste its own eternal meetness
For the heavenly land we love.
In eternal counsels founded,
Perfect now in fruit divine;
When the last blest trump has sounded,
Fruit of God for ever mine!
Fresh and ever new are hanging
Fruits of life on that blest Tree;
There is stilled each earnest longing,
Satisfied my soul shall be.
Safety, where no foe approaches;
Rest, where toil shall be no more;
Joy, whereon no grief encroaches;
Peace, where strife shall all be o’er –
“Holiness and love and joy characterize the land. They are the fruits which grow there spontaneously, as are the thanksgivings that arise in the hearts of those who are there through redeeming power.”
J.N.D.
Various fruits of richest flavour
Offers still the Tree divine;
One itself, the same for ever,
All its various fruits are mine.
Where deceiver ne’er can enter,
Sin-soiled feet have never trod,
Free, our peaceful feet may venture
In the paradise of God;
Drink of life’s perennial river,
Feed on life’s perennial food,
Christ, the fruit of life, and Giver –
Safe through His redeeming blood.
Object of eternal pleasure,
Perfect in Thy work divine!
Lord of glory! Without measure,
Worship, joy, and praise are Thine!
But, my soul, hast thou not tasted
Of that Tree of life on high?
As through desert lands thou’st hasted,
Eshcol’s grapes been never nigh?
Ah! that Tree of life was planted,
Rooted deep in love divine,
Ere the sons of God had chanted
Worlds where creature glories shine.
Love divine without a measure
Godhead glory must reveal;
In the Object of its pleasure
All its ways of grace must seal.
As a tender sucker, rising
From a dry and stony land,
Object of man’s proud despising,
Grew the Plant of God’s right hand.
Grace and truth, in love unceasing,
Rivers on the thirsty ground –
Every step to God well pleasing –
Spread their heavenly savour round.
He the Father’s Self revealing –
Heavenly words none else could tell,
Words of grace, each sorrow healing,
On the ear of sorrow fell.
Yes! that Tree of life is planted;
Sweetest fruit e’en here has borne;
To its own rich soil transplanted,
Waits alone the eternal morn-
Fruits that our own souls have tasted
By the Spirit from above,
While through desert lands we’ve hasted,
Fruits of perfect, endless love!
John Nelson Darby,
Written 1870
Parts of the above are in Hymns for the Little Flock 1962 and 1973 – Nos 50 and 206 and in Psalms and Hymns and Spiritual Songs 1978 – No 387
(Lord, in Thee we taste the sweetness Of the Tree of Life above)
(This letter, addressed by the brethren of the Church of Bourg-du-Four to the above-named pastors, has been discovered in JND’s papers and is entirely in his hand[1].)
Dear brothers and beloved pastors
We desire to assure you, in replying to the setting out of the principles which have had the kindness to give us, that we receive with thanksgiving to our God and Father, and as coming from His goodness, all the gifts that have been given to you. We pray to Him earnestly that, according to His wisdom and this goodness towards His children on which we rest, He will make these gifts grow day by day. The only thing that we have to say to you on this subject is that you also pray that you attend more to the exercise of these gifts, as it is said in Acts 6: 4: “to persevere in prayer and in the ministry of the Word”.
We believe that the burden of all the church’s business that weighs entirely on you hinders you in this regard. And more, dear pastors, while having the full assurance that your intentions and desires have been good and that perhaps a guilty negligence on our part has contributed to it, we believe that the free action of the Holy Spirit has been restricted in the church. We do not seek at all – it would be to hinder our own happiness, and God keep us from it – to put hindrances in the way of free action of the Holy Ghost in our pastors and by our pastors in the midst of the church. But we desire also that His free action in the church should not be hindered, or suppressed, or restricted, but that however if it may be manifested, it should reign freely, acting whether in the pastors or in other brothers, according to His holy power and the sure word of our God.
May the church, including the pastors with all their light and their experiences, act in all the business which is necessary for its wellbeing according to their respective gifts. We think that this has been prevented, and that is what we claim, and it is on this principle that we desire to act from now on, and that we want that you act, so that love and confidence, in a word the Spirit of our God may reign and act freely in the midst of us, His poor children. We do not wish at all to trust ourselves or man, whoever he is. We trust only in the free action of the Holy Spirit and having consulted the holy Word, we think that what we say is according to this Word. Let us give therefore full freedom to the action of the Holy Ghost in the church, and everything will go well; and if the flesh acts, in whoever it is, let him be judged as having acted in the flesh.
This is what we feel and answer to your setting out of principles. There are several questions on which we want more coherent and broader scriptural education, and on this we desire in consequence to deepen in this Word even more. It is to this end that we have continued our meetings, so that, if these questions should be discussed in the church, we will be more able to judge and pronounce on them according to the word of God. For now, we only want to tell you of our desires on things which seem to us to be the basis of the peace and happiness of the church.
[1] This letter is part of the story of a division in an independent church in Bourg-du-Four, otherwise known as the l’Eglise de La Pélisserie, with which Mr Darby had associated. Place Bourg du Four is in the old part of Geneva. It is recorded that, on 3 March 1842, about sixty brothers and sisters, sharing the views of Mr Darby, broke off fellowship with this church, and left it. The church, and the three pastors addressed – with others, became part of the Swiss Evangelical Free Church: Emil Guers (1794-1882) was one of two initial pastors (who had been consecrated at ‘Poultry Chapel’ near Mansion House in London in 1823); Henri Empeytaz (1790-1853) was the third.
Your letter followed me to Montpéllier, where I was just about to leave; which has delayed my reply. I have been led somewhat as you have in regard to the Lord’s prayer. That it is perfect is quite certain, because it is the Lord that gave it. But where the Spirit is, there is liberty, and I do not see the smallest allusion made to this prayer in the rest of the New Testament, although we find there a good many prayers, and passages which indicate the subjects of prayers. It would be impossible that a man led by the Holy Spirit in the knowledge of his needs, and of the love of God, should limit himself to a prescribed form. But if one uses this prayer, and prays other prayers at the same time, that is either to say that it is imperfect, or else to say that it does not answer to the needs of the soul.
The fact is that giving directions (however perfect they may be) to persons who had not received the Holy Spirit, and the operation of the Holy Spirit in him in whom He dwells, are two things necessarily distinct; and one who does not understand that, does not know what the influence of the Holy Spirit is. The divine Spirit necessarily acts in the soul in a way that is proper to Him, and while revealing the glory of Jesus, puts the soul in an entirely new relationship with the Father and with our Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord while living on earth could not put the soul into this relationship. Now prayer is the intimate expression of it; and this new relationship gives it an entirely new character. Hence the “groanings which cannot be uttered”[1], where He who searches the hearts finds no forms learnt and enforced in the memory, even though these forms might have been given by the Lord Himself. He finds the mind of the Spirit who intercedes for us according to God. If we want to use the Lord’s prayer as a supplement to the imperfections of our own sighings (while I quite admit that that may be done in good faith), this recital of His words without any heart, to fill up the gaps which are found in our hearts, seems to me a bad use of this precious instruction of the Lord. It is also ignoring the groanings of the Spirit.
But the difficulty lies in this and in this only, that we have to do with souls who, not being delivered by the Holy Spirit, do not understand the mind of Jesus, nor the fact that in His tenderness He could make provision for the disciples who had not yet received the Holy Spirit. This provision could not be applicable to them in the same way when the Holy Spirit had come down. That is the real difficulty. If they are worldly people, one may very well show them that they cannot use the Lord’s prayer, that they would not really dare to say that they are children of God, nor sincerely desire and call for the kingdom of Jesus to come, since they do not know whether that would be their eternal ruin. I was attacked once on this subject. At that time I gave some sermons on the Lord’s prayer to explain the contents of it. Since then I have heard no more of it. If they are children of God, we must act gently. Is there perhaps a true respect for the words of Jesus, though superstition may be mixed with it? We must attempt to enlighten them about deliverance by the Holy Spirit, and about His presence in those who have yielded themselves to Jesus. Their difficulties will fall away without any reasoning when they are delivered. It would be useless to talk to them about the remnant, they do not know what it is; but they will well understand what the thoughts of Jesus are, His tenderness towards His disciples while they were still fleshly and needing to be led like children – He Himself being on the earth to guide them on the earth. They will understand the difference between that, and the Spirit who gives us to know that we are in Him and He in us. On the earth, I say “who art in heaven”. Now I worship Him as being near to Him, or else I approach the cross as a sinner. But I say “Come, Lord Jesus”, rather than saying ”Thy kingdom come”, although both things are true. “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” is indeed our desire; but this word does not express the needs of a soul which is in conflict with the spiritual powers of wickedness in heavenly places, and which is passing through this earth at a time when it is estranged from God. Such a soul takes its stand as a stranger to this world which has rejected Jesus. It finds its rest in the heavenly delights themselves, and its joy in being in conformity to Jesus up there. The Holy Spirit also greatly develops the desires and wishes of the Lord’s prayer, in a multitude of things of which He gives us the knowledge, and which could not be limited, for the confidence of sonship, to the Lord’s prayer. If we want the Lord’s prayer we ought to use nothing else, otherwise the use of it is only pure superstition. If it is our prayer, it is perfect, it is our whole prayer and our only prayer.
This much is evident. If someone says to me: ‘You shall say this, for you shall not be heard through much speaking’, and then I add ten times more words before or after, this seems to me hardly a real obedience. For the rest, to examine the contents of the Lord’s prayer, and fathom the thoughts of Jesus in it, is a very precious thing.
… It is a little a question of the force of the word conversion. I know that in Swiss it has quite another force than in this country. This is a useless point to discuss, as long as one knows what one wants to say, while the idea given by the word “to convert” is not that which one gives it among French-speaking Christians. It is the same as the word Bekehrung[1] in German. But what is important to notice is that this idea of conversion is not the sense of [….Ω….][2], which signifies a change of view, of opinion, of mind – a reflection made – or after having reflected. In German: Seinen Sinn aendern, daher bekennen[3], – this is why one can repent [….Ω….]. One can repent of a particular fault, one cannot be converted of a fault. Conversion takes place when the will of the moral being is turned towards God, this is the sense of the word. Repentance is the judgment it forms on all its conduct and on its life at the same time. Its new nature is turned towards God; the new nature judges all that is contrary to Him. The state of man, seen from the point of view of the first fact, this is his conversion; from the point of the view of the second, his repentance.
Regeneration[4], in the ordinary sense of the word, is the beginning or the communication of this life which is characterised, as far as it exists, by these two things, conversion and repentance. I do not accept that conversion is “a reversal of the way of seeing, of feeling and of mind as to God”. It is more, as long as it is a state of man, an effect of these things. Conversion is the change of the voluntary direction of life. Man is converted. He turns towards God. Now the judgment which he has on his past life, before he turned, is according to the principles of the new nature (which morally speaking is that of God); but this judgment signifies an element of immense importance. The prodigal son, in forming this judgment, before his father threw himself on his shoulder, repented indeed; that is to say, bore a judgment, divine in its nature, on all his passed life. But before the knowledge of repentance and the love of the Father, the judgment which he bore could not have the character that it had afterwards, because God is not known objectively by the new nature, not at least fully known in the way the judgment is formed after this knowledge. When I say judgment, it is a vital and living judgment and one brings it on oneself in bringing it on the evil.
In the moral order, that is to say in the conscience of man, repentance precedes conversion. Paul (Acts 26: 20) had taught them that they should repent and turn to God. The prodigal son came to himself and judged that he should rise up and go to his father. But it must not be concluded either that the man who repents does it without God acting to communicate life. Regrets are not repentance, μεταμέλομαι signifies regret or remorse. μετάυοι repentance, says the apostle, never to be regretted. One cannot deny that έπιστροφή (conversion) signifies turning oneself towards which is not μεταμέλομαι, μετάυοι; έπιστροφή is to turn oneself (sich umwenden[5]).
… μετάυοι (repentance) alone is a change of mind, or moral judgment. I do not believe that, in fact, one precedes the other. When God communicates life, all really goes together. If you speak of the consciousness that one has of a thing, I have no objection to it being said that repentance precedes, but that in fact conversion of the will towards God being the essence of the first movement of heart, seems to me to be a truth of all importance. These words “my father’s house” expressed this in the prodigal son. But the judgment that takes knowledge of all, by the entrance of the light and of the life of God is too importance, – the Sinnesaenderung[6] on everything, so that I accept that the word [….Ω….] is turned round in its true force which does not signify conversion.
November 1858
To Mr B R
Dear Brother
… Conversion is not the same thing as repentance. Without a discussion over words, I would remark that one could by the grace of God and the quickening work of this grace in us, turn to God and seek Him, drawn towards Him by His grace, not wanting to perish where we are, and yet repentance could remain very superficial, to the great damage of the soul. True repentance is the review that, in the consciousness of grace, the soul makes of itself, of its motives and its ways, the way of judging them in the light of God whom it knows in grace. It is the opposite of the will, for in repentance, one judges all in relation to the nature and the will of God, because one partakes in fact in His nature and one is submissive to His will. It is opposed to passions which are the tendencies of nature, united to the will and, as to these tendencies also, all is judged according to our new relationships with God. Repentance is above all a judgment of oneself, which makes the thing real and true and substitutes, by grace, God for me in us – what makes the essential difference in life.
In the details, there were always be a work to be wrought, but there is an entire difference in the state of the soul who is fundamentally repentant. I believe that many brethren, whether among us or among other Christians, have not really submitted to this powerful work. There is always repentance in a converted man, without telling himself: “I have sinned against heaven and before thee” . But it is quite another thing to judge ways and springs of the way; the spring, in selfish principles and selbständig of heart in the way of relying really on the Lord as dependent upon Him.
This is why, morally, I hold to the word repentance. Naturally, the translation depends on the sense of the word, but I answer now to your moral motives to change the word repentance and replace it by the word conversion – motives which I believe are excellent.
______________
Your letter of 8th March has reached me at last. On the subject of Hebrews 3: 1, I understand you perfectly, at least I think I do. There is some truth in what you say[1], but I doubt whether you have taken into consideration all the points of view which the word furnishes to us on this subject.
Firstly, it seems to me that there are some expressions even in the chapter itself which show that the apostle was thinking of persons who, at least as far as their profession went, had accepted Jesus as Lord, acknowledging Him as Messiah and putting their trust in Him. I say this because the apostle speaks of the beginning of their faith, and of what they were to hold firm to the end; also of the fact that we are His house, if at least we hold fast the beginning of our faith and the boast of hope firm to the end[2].
When he makes the comparison with Israel, it is with Israel redeemed, who had entered into the wilderness. See also: chapter 6: 9-10; 4: 14; 6: 18; 10: 22 and the verses following, then verse 34; 13: 8-9, and many other passages, which imply that the position of those whom he was addressing was that of Christians.
Now here, as it seems to me, are the important points of the epistle, which are peculiar to it, and must be taken into account. Christ died for the nation, to sanctify the people by His own blood. Thus all those who recognised Jesus as Messiah were supposed to be sanctified, and supposed at the same time to form part of the people still. On the other hand, being written shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem and the cessation of all relationship between God and the people, the epistle invites the Jews to go forth outside the camp (not forth from the world, but forth from the camp of Israel), and to acknowledge the Christ as rejected by Israel and ascended into heaven, outside of the people. But the fact that he thus invites them to go forth outside the camp, is a proof, is it not, that he is concerned with the remnant, as distinct from the mass, although this remnant had up till then been in relationship with the unbelieving mass and forming part of it?
It seems to me that the epistle to the Hebrews is fundamentally a development of the heavenly character of Christianity (not of the church, which properly speaking we find only in chapter 12), intended, on one hand, to prevent the believing Jews from slipping back again into the old order, and, on the other hand, to prepare the way for this exhortation, so terrible for a Jew, and only found right at the end: that is, to leave the Jewish system and camp. This exhortation is founded on the fact that Christ (according to the type of the perfect sacrifice for sin) had suffered outside the camp as far as the world is concerned, and that His blood had been carried into the sanctuary; that it was necessary to be in heaven, as regards His true position before God, and outside the earthly system down here.
But the fact that the church does not come into the reckoning, except where the whole scene of millennial glory is presented, gives rise to another peculiarity of this epistle: namely, that in the hopes it presents to us and in the prospect of rest and glory which it opens up to us, even while using expressions applicable to heavenly blessedness, it does not go beyond what can be applied to earthly rest. It leaves room for this application of its expressions: ”There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God”. Where?[3] This partly comes back to your way of viewing it. But then suppose in time to come an Israelite should use this epistle in view of that rest of the people of God – an Israelite still attached to his nation after the rapture of the church – he will have to understand that it was only a remnant; that there had been a heavenly hope in which he had no part; that in order to enjoy it definitively, they had had to go outside the camp of Israel, which he himself had not done. That is to say, he will have to be aware that although God has reserved a rest on earth for the remnant of His people (and thus for His people, Romans 9: 7, 27; 11: 26), there had been another rest into which those who had gone outside the camp had entered, which he himself had not done. Now even though it allows a glimpse of an earthly rest for the people, the objective of the epistle is to lay it on the believing Jews, as partakers of the heavenly calling, not to attach themselves to this earthly rest, but to look higher, that is, look to Jesus who has entered in as Forerunner within the veil. The remnant was still in relation with the people, it formed part of them – always a dangerous position, and more than dangerous at the moment when the epistle was written. It acknowledges the fact of what belongs to the people, but it is addressed to the believing part of it, so that this part should no longer form part of the people but should cling to what is its own – the hope that enters within the veil where Jesus has gone in. The sitting of Jesus at the right hand of God was the condemnation of the Jews (compare Acts 7, where He has not yet sat down), and the right to enter the heavenly sanctuary was assured to the sinner as his present and eternal portion.
It is nonetheless true that this position of Jesus is the foundation of all hope for the Jew in the last day, and the apostle leaves this hope subsisting. But it is the hope of the remnant, and he invites this remnant – [which was] at that time in the bosom of the nation – to come out from the midst of it, in virtue of its heavenly calling founded on the fact that Jesus is sitting within, in heaven.
The reasonings on the sacrifices confirm these views, it seems to me. Christ died for the nation, and thus each one of those who acknowledged Him was deemed to have part in Christian privileges without leaving the nation. But in this epistle, though taking this ground, the apostle, it seems to me, addresses those who had acknowledged Him, to invite them to separate themselves from the nation; showing that, whether as regards the sacrifices or as regards the priesthood, another system superior to the old was destined to replace it. I do not say that the replacement of the system is the setting aside of the nation, for Christ died for that nation; but that in fact (the great subject being the replacement of the system) the principle of the new system was a Christ crowned with glory and honour in heaven, and that only those who had attached themselves to Him by faith are found included in the category to which the apostle is speaking. Compare particularly chapter 6 already quoted. This requires patient attention to the contents of the epistle, not in order to profit by the rich resources that it includes, but to do justice to the work for the nation [of Israel], at the same time distinguishing it from the relation formed by faith with Him who, having accomplished this work, had ascended again into heaven. In a word, we must distinguish between what was valid for that nation and the relationship formed by faith. The work and the position are valid for the remnant in the last days, in order that it should enjoy earthly blessings; but the apostle is addressing those who were partakers of the gifts by faith. I do not know if I am making myself understood. I have written this letter in several instalments.
Except for a part of the Revelation, left incomplete last year, our translation[4] will be finished tomorrow, by God’s help, but we shall re-read it.
[1] According to a footnote in the original, Mr B R had stated that Heb 3: 1, and indeed all the epistle, was not addressed only to those of the Hebrews who had faith in Christ, but to the whole body of the people that was then in Judæa.
In response to your question about 2 Cor 5: 19, I believe that the beloved Saviour was “reconciling”, acting to this end during His life. He had been rejected. God knew that redemption by His blood was necessary for reconciliation; so that, as a result, He has been made sin so that He could commit the ministry of reconciliation to the apostles. And when it is said “God was in Christ, reconciling”, it is not a question of the necessary basis on which the thing could be effectuated (this is what is said straightaway afterwards) but the ways of God as to men, through Christ, during His life. If Christ has been received without death and a new creation, the result would have shown that the evil was reparable. Now we know that it is quite otherwise. But God presented the thing to man’s responsibility, before manifesting this impossibility. Those whom He called, He called according to the knowledge He had Himself of what they would do. I have yet my Son: “They will have respect for my son”[1] – that is who has been presented to man. The object of faith is the Person of Christ. In believing on Him, the efficacy of His death is enjoyed, in ignorance during His life, later with intelligence.
There is a governmental pardon which could only take place in virtue of expiation, it is true, but which is something else however. Besides, pardon was accorded in detail in view of the offering of Christ. Christ gave it fully during His life down here in view of the ways of God in grace. The effect was shown, if need be, by a healing as proof. But grace, at all times, has its application in view of the work of Christ (see Rom 3: 25, 26).
… I believe that the beast will put his foot on countries other than those that form his body. I do not believe that Ireland will make up part of the body of the beast. The positive blindness which will weigh and influence England to be spared him, but it will probably be under the judgment which will come on those who live in recklessness on “the isles”. I think that God will use it as testimony, that it is England’s own error which will blind it, and that Ireland will be to a certain degree an oasis, albeit that the yoke of England, which favours Popery governmentally, will weigh on it. It will be a shelter, but I prefer to trust God, whatever it may be, than Ireland or the United States. Nothing will be decided enough, or powerful enough, to make it a counterweight to “the woman riding the beast”, for Russia is outside and has its own way. God will be infallibly enough for all those who confide in him. He makes all things work together for the good of those that love Him.
As to C and H at Lausanne, it is no doubt sad; and I believe that G has in fact troubled the brethren by his way of acting. The sisters noticed this spirit in G and made him feel it. They are right and wrong as to faith. C has, I accept, something to say, and his silence tends to restrict the limits of the good which might be done in Lausanne. On the other hand, as for those who were excluded, I assure you that they do not feel a lot of regret, save for themselves. They are members of Christ, and God keeps from the sin of despising them, but the mixture of spirituality in forms, together with the effort to please the world, and conformity to the world, will be the ruin of the brethren and of the testimony. It is good that dear G has had this humiliation, for he is very thorough and others go as he hears it, but in the long run, if he learnt what God teaches him, God would become outside it and the brethren with him in a condition where they belong to the narrow way, so as to bring them into a broad field of blessing. Dear C, if he had had a little more faith, could have been very useful. In fact, in Lausanne, nobody has confidence in him. Hearts that he wins by his amiability only harm him. I have put before him what I could, but he takes it a bit haughtily. If there was still somebody who exercised an independent ministry there, so that it was not always G alone who acted, the difficulty would disappear, but it is God alone who can send this. In waiting, the brethren have the consciousness of their integrity, and the flesh in G is not fully put to death, and by his character and decision, it is he himself who leads more or less. Co, who does not enjoy the confidence of the brethren, feels his wrongs, and this has been so in the sense that he has been offended without this being intended. The desire to serve the Lord with integrity is found with the brethren, but they have this without the flesh, which always harms, being mortified enough so that it does not become a stumbling block. I hope that they will bring their case enough to God so that, having exercised and humiliated them, He can bless them in spite of their flesh. This is where I was when I left Lausanne. G was not completely happy; I have left the matter to God. It is a matter of the state of all, not of one decision to take, especially since I could not stay there any more. The sisters think that I do not judge things thoroughly; they make a mistake, but I do not have my feelings involved like them. Only I can leave things to God, because I think that at the bottom the brothers seek the glory of God with integrity. I bear with the malcontents more than the brethren would like, perhaps, for in accepting the grievances of the brethren as to them, and there is a lot of this, I think that their flesh partly gave opportunity to this discontent, and that they can never justify the flesh. But I have confidence in God.
As to brother H, my relations with him are good, and I leave it there. I do not believe that he has enough faith to be a testimony under certain conditions. The old dissidents have their character in them. In the way of faith, they have been recognised, as God always does. The world has deceived them.
I am unable to walk, having sprained my right foot, but God, in His great goodness, has given me to profit much from my time with the Word.
Here is what has seemed to me as to your second volume. I think that others, having the beginning, would like to have what follows. When you have it printed, you will be able to notify the subscribers that you are not putting it on public sale on account of the difficulty felt by several brothers, but that the volume will be sent to those who want it. I do not see why you should not sell to others who seek it, without however putting it on commercial sale. If the subscriptions are not yet paying, the thing will rest there; if they have already been received, you will find, no doubt, a means of rendering them. I say this out of voluntary deference to the brethren, a thing which never does any harm when the conscience is not concerned. If it is so, it is quite another matter. There are indeed brethren with whom I am not in agreement on various points, and with whom however I am much more linked than with people who accept all that I say. For the rest, love does not depend on this, although unity of feeling is a desirable objective.
I believe that God in His grace acts in goodness in His church and especially among the brethren. Here, there is truly much good, conversions especially, numerous even for our times; the brethren encouraged, revived and renewed so to say, and this at the same time with a need more felt to realise His presence as a reality in the midst of His own. When God is there, difficulties and even sorrows evaporate. There are also some new workers who are blessed, and this is a great subject of joy. One sees the action of God. There are equally quite large open fields, without there being workers to visit them. Here in Montpéllier, where all was quite dead, the Holy Spirit acts in several souls. I have been to Vigan[1], where the Lord has given His blessing. One must recognise the good hand of God and seek to conserve as much as possible this grace which He grants to us.
I have a letter from Mr F, where he speaks of you with much affection. He has been happy at V; he only says, without insisting on it, that you have a ‘hang-up’, a hobbyhorse, about the new Jerusalem, but he is always reserved and perhaps he would like better not to discuss it. I believe that, while rejecting certain views, and in being sometimes tired with mental work, one has found very good things, spiritual too, in your numbers on the Revelation.
I hope to see you all soon, if it please God. I think of leaving from here in ten days, and I will probably spend ten or fifteen days getting to Geneva, spending several days with the brethren on the way, but I do not want to delay my reply. Greet all our dear brethren affectionately.
Yours very affectionately
It is unnecessary to take decisions too far in advance about your course after the second volume. God knows what will suit you. I believe that more occupation with grace towards souls, and less work in the study, would set you more at liberty, but God knows what you must do. I must say to you that I have not the least concern about your publication. It is very probable that I am not in agreement with you on every point, for that is rare. To hold within the limits of God’s teaching is what I seek to do, and I hope more all the time, but I am not calling for different ideas to be rejected, to be aggressive. There is the case where it is better not to arouse before the world or before those weak in faith questions which they cannot resolve.
[1] Le Vigan is a commune in the Gard department in southern France
154
Montpéllier – 20th December 1848
To Mr B R
I make some remarks as they present themselves. There are other interpretations which, while not being yours, do not encounter the difficulties which you suppose.
In the first place, I do not doubt that the Assyrian, or at least a power which is not the Antichrist, is the desolator (Dan 9: 27). I think that it is the “king of the north”, but this does not imply your explanation of this verse, even though it will be the Antichrist who confirms
the covenant. But there is quite simply: “because of the protection of abominations, a desolator”, that is to say, “there will be a desolator”. The Antichrist having led them into idolatry, the desolator will be released against them (cf Isa 28: 14-18).
In the second place, I do not at all assert on Hebrew grammar, but regularly speaking, [chapter] 11: 31 would be: “the armies or forces will stand, will rise up from him, and they will profane … and they will remove, etc”. I would not know that there is an example where the verb accords regularly with the masculine plural already expressed, for which ‘one’ could be substituted.
Then you have confounded the idea of the one who re-establishes the sacrifice with the one who is the object of it, or rather to whom it is presented, the function which he attaches to it.
You ask who removes the continual sacrifice (Dan 8: 11). One has to look to Keri which gives: “it was removed”. The passage says nothing more or less. It must still be previous letters relate these notebooks to notes for the Lausanne translation project ‘let it have effect’
Keri signifies the marginal note of the Massorites, indicating their idea of how the text should be read. All the oldest and best manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible contain on every page, beside the Text lines of smaller writing, distributed between the upper and lower margins. The word Massorah is from the root masar, to eliver remembered that, in Daniel, Israel is always considered as the people of God , a very important remark for understanding the book which goes to the root of some of your reasonings. God speaks in grace and Jerusalem is treated as Daniel’s holy city. For it seems to me that one will not manage to see in the Prince of princes the prince of the army.
Remember also that this is in the hands of the little horn of chapter 7, that the seasons and Jewish ordinances are given up (chap 7: 25). It is that one who changes them, who blasphemes and exalts himself. As to “cast down the truth to the ground” (chap 8: 12), I really think that it is horn of chapter 8, that is not the Antichrist but the Assyrian or the king of the North. As head of the army, Christ is not seen as accomplishing Hebrews 9 and 10, but as Head of the Jews in the last day. In this character, it is to Him that the sacrifices belong, as – as a matter of privilege – they belong to the Jews. Many of the Psalms speak of the sacrifices of righteousness; these are not the same as the sacrifices for sin; the “Thamid” was a burnt offering; without this the Jews had no altar, no public relationship with God.
The remark that I have made as to the way of envisaging the Jews in Daniel sets aside your interpretation of [chapter] 8: 10; as to [chapter] 8: 11, I have already spoken. You say that the “prince who will come” (chap 9: 26) is the same as the desolator (v 27). Why? “On the top of abomination” (chap 8: 27) does not present any idea to me. The abomination is an idol, a profane thing and defiled in God’s eyes. What would the top of an idol signify?
Your heir of Titus, a desolator who follows the prince that shall come (chap 9: 26-27) is nothing; for me, I do not believe there has been one. The Antichrist will be his heir is a sense, as being flesh, or at least the principle horn of the Beast, although effectively it is another, according to me as well as you, who will act as Titus in attacking the city, although not in the destruction at the same time. Titus “ estroye ” the city (chap 10: 26, the king of the North or the Assyrian “overthrows it” (chap 8: 11).
The Assyrian is not therefore the desolator. On this we are agreed. On the other hand, you have not considered enough that Israel is called (chap 8: 24) the holy people, and if God cannot call His people that, He answers to Daniel’s heart in recognising His prophetic faith,
and calls them “thy people” (as He did to Moses). That is to say, that He takes knowledge of them by the intervention of a mediator. For verses 11 and 12 are relevant to Daniel’s view (speaking, it goes without saying, by the prophetic Spirit).
As to your “Summary”, I accept it, without the difficulties which do not exist for me. It seems to me that it is neither Jesus, nor the Antichrist, who will restore sacrifices in this time.
I think that the Jews will have done it themselves. It is very possible that the king of the North will remove his false worship of the Antichrist (but he takes Jerusalem). But can you something into the han of another, so as to commit it to his trust. The name is given to the small writing referred to, because it contains information necessary to those to whose trust the Sacred Text was committed, so that they might transcribe it, and hand it down correctly. The Text itself had been fixed before the Massorites were put in charge of it. This had been the work of the Sopherim (from saphar, to count, or number). Their work, under Ezra and Nehemiah, was to set the Text in order. This work lasted from Nehemiah to Simon the first, 410-300BC. The Sopherim were the authorised revisers of the Sacred Text; and, their work being completed, the Massorites were the authorised custodians of it. Their work was to preserve it. The Massorah is called “A Fence to the Scriptures,” because it locked all words and letters in their places. It does not contain notes or comments as such, but facts and phenomena. It records the number of times that several letters occur in the various books of the Bible; the number of words, and the middle word; the number of verses, and the middle verse; the number of expressions and combinations of words, &c. All this was, not from a perverted ingenuity, but for the set purpose of safeguarding the Sacred Text, and preventing the loss of misplacement of a single letter or word.
A footnote to this verse in JND’s English Bible says that it might be rendered: ‘and the abomination (idols) of the desolator shall be on the pinnacle (ie of the temple)’
