from it. But this is scarcely tenable, for, when we look at the fortyeighth chapter of Ezekiel, which enumerates the tribes afterwards to be settled in the land, we find the tribe of Dan included. Perhaps the simple solution is this, that, after the division of Joseph into two, when the tribes are mentioned seriatim, one is generally suppressed; for instance, Simeon is omitted in the blessings of Moses (Deut. xxxiii.), as Dan is here; while Levi, which is inserted here, is omitted in Numbers xiii; but still, in every list, the integral number twelve is always maintained. At the same time it should not pass unnoticed, that in this final enumeration of the tribes, the list is so adjusted as to merge those tribes which were formerly signalised by idolatrous associations; as though to indicate, that now all their sins and iniquities were remembered no more. And this principle of the Divine dealings, if recognised here, enables us to account precisely for the omission in this chapter, not only of the tribe of Dan, but of Ephraim, for whom the name of Joseph the father is substituted. For both these tribes were rendered ignoble by their participation in Micah's idolatry under the Judges-see Judges xviii. 2, 30, 31; and afterwards by Jeroboam's-see 1 Kings xi. 26, and xi. 28-30;-Jeroboam, an Ephrathite, having devised the idol-insignia of the golden calves, whilst the tribe of Dan, in their territory gave entertainment to the abomination. In the light of this vision, thus considered, how expressively is the glorious truth commended to us, that "the gifts and calling of God are without repentance," that is, change of mind. There is no fickleness in God. "God is not a man, that he should lie: nor the son of man that he should repent; hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" (Num. xxiii. 19.) "God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew." Their worthlessness, indeed, shall be demonstrated to their own experience, and the observation of all intelligent creatures; but, when this end is achieved, God will effectually vindicate his own faithfulness. That assertion of his character" I change not, therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed," (Mal. iii. 6,) will then be understood to the enlightenment of mankind at large. It will be revealed in Israel, in illuminated letters, so that all the world will read it; and-" the Lord hath done great things for them," i. e., his people Israel, will be reverberated unto the ends of the earth. And, oh! what interest ought we to take, if believers, in the contemplation of this glorious issue; for, what are we but poor changing creatures, and whence our preservation unto the better inheritance than even Israel's-the inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved for us in heaven-but in the immutable love of our God, from which, in Christ Jesus, we may exultingly say with the apostle :-" Neither death nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us." But, if that love shall have failed in Israel's case, as some would teach, why not in ours? Christian reader! see how practical in its import to yourself, is the literal interpretation of Jewish prophecy.-The Apocalypse Interpreted in the light of "The Day of the Lord." By Rev. James Kelly, M.A. Vol. i. pp. 379-396, (London: James Nisbet and Co.) 19 THE SEPARATE STATE. F popular belief has gone to one extreme in giving life and activity to theppirit of the Christian in the separate state, is there not a danger that our zeal against this error may carry us too far in the opposite direction, when we sweep away the belief in a separate state altogether? Such, at least, has been my fear when reading some very ably-written papers upon this important question; and, as a firm believer hitherto in the separate state, I am anxious not too quickly to give up that belief, until, indeed, it can be shown that it has no foundation in the Scriptures. Hitherto my belief has been that, when the Christian dies (namely, when his body returns to the dust, and his soul, or life, ceases to be), that his spirit still exists, and, under the especial care of God, is preserved in an "unclothed" state until the day of resurrection. Not that I have looked upon this spirit as a separate entity, or as being capable of any activity when "absent from the body" (unless, perhaps, in some peculiar and exceptional cases), nor considered it to be inherently immortal or indestructible, nor that this existence, in absence from the body, is a natural state of things, but that God causes it so to exist for the special purpose of uniting it to a new and glorified body on the day of resurrection. Personally, I have never felt any degree of dread or dislike when thinking upon this separate state, because, should it be my privilege to fall asleep in Jesus (as I hope it will be), I will commit my spirit into his hands, feeling confident that there will be no consciousness of a long period of waiting, because, so perfect and unbroken will be the sleep, that there can be no knowledge of any time whatever elapsing between the moment when the eyes close in death, and the sudden joyful awaking at the sound of his voice, who is "the resurrection and the life." But the belief in the separate state is swept away entirely by a view of the case that seems now entertained by many, and which (as far as I at present understand it) teaches that man has no spirit at all that can properly be called his, but that the spirit which animates him while living, and is withdrawn from him at death, is an emanation from God; indeed, is essentially God's Spirit, lent, so to speak, to man while living, but not in any case to be considered as belonging to, or as part of, man. One of the strongest passages in support of this view seems to be Job xxxiv. 14: "If he gather unto himself his Spirit and his breath, all flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto his dust.' This passage seems plainly expressed, and, no doubt, is correctly given, as the opinion of Elihu, son of Barachel the Buzite; but, however much we may respect him as an ancient philosopher, surely we may be pardoned if we take some exception to his theology. Does not the one hundred and fourth psalm express a somewhat different idea in verse 29?-viz.: "Thou takest away their breath (ruach), they die, and return to their dust." The word m, ruach, is used as a noun about three hundred and eighty times throughout the Old Testament. It seems often used for simply "breath," "wind," "tempest," &c., and also as spirit in such phrases as "spirit of prophecy," of wisdom, anger, jealousy, &c., as well as for "spirit," in what appears to be quite a different sense in the passages quoted below. This diversity of sense in the same word presents (to my mind, at least) a serious difficulty in the study of this question; but this paper is written in the hope that there may be found some believer in the separate state who may take this view of the subject, and, with a knowledge of the Hebrew language, discuss the question more deeply than I am able to do. In the passages quoted below, I have endeavoured to select those only that use the word ruach in the sense of a living, personal spirit, in order to show that in this sense it does not appear to be used exclusively for the Spirit of God. For the same word, translated "spirit" in the following instances, Gen. i. 2: "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters ;" and also "the Spirit of God" and "the Holy Spirit" in many other places,-is also used when speaking of subordinate spirits, viz., Ps. civ. 14: "Who maketh his angels spirits," &c. The same word is used even when speaking of evil spirits; viz., 1 Sam. xvi. 14, 15, 16: "An evil spirit from the Lord;" 1 Kings xxii. 22: "A lying spirit in the mouth of the prophets." So also, when speaking of man, we read Zech. xii. 1: "The Lord . . . formeth (y) the spirit of man within him." The Greek word vɛμа is used in the New Testament in much the same way: while it is used when speaking of πνευμα ἅγιον, "the Holy Ghost," and Tò TVEDμa, "the Spirit" of God, it is also used in speaking τὸ πνεῦμα, of subordinate spirits, viz. Luke xxiv. 37: The disciples "supposed that they had seen a spirit," &c.; Luke xxiv. 39: "A spirit hath not flesh and bones," &c.; Acts xxiii. 8: "The Sadducees say, There is neither angel nor spirit;" Heb. i. 14: "Are they not all ministering spirits?" Also when speaking of " evil," "unclean," and "foul" spirits, in many places. Also when speaking of man, viz., 1 Cor. v. 5: "To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus;" 1 Cor. ii. 11: "For what man knoweth the things of man, save the spirit of man which is in him ?" 1 Thess. v. 23: "And your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless," &c.; Heb. xii. 23: "The spirits of just men made perfect;" Jas. ii. 26: "For as the body without the spirit is dead;" 1 Pet. iii. 19: He "preached unto the spirits in prison " (which, I believe, are generally thought to be human spirits). From these passages, I gather that, so far from there being only one spirit, the Spirit of God, there are many spirits, differing much from each other in some cases, and yet all truly ruach, spirit; and that "God is a Spirit" (John iv. 24), "the Father of spirits" (Heb. xii. 9), also "the God of the spirits of all flesh" (Num. xvi. 22); that all other spirits are made by, and dependent upon, him, but no more part of himself than our bodies that die, and "turn again to their dust." If this be correct, then I think it will follow, either that the Christian's spirit dies with his body, or that there is a separate state. Hitherto, I have not been able to find Scripture implying that the spirit dies with the body, while there are Scriptures that, I think, imply its existence afterwards, viz. :-What are we to understand by "the spirits of just men made perfect," if those spirits did not exist before they were made perfect? So also when the disciples "supposed that they had seen a spirit:" our Lord did not tell them that the idea of a disembodied spirit was an absurdity, but said, "Handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have." Again: Death is spoken of as "yielding up the ghost" (i.e., spirit), and returning to life as the spirit coming back; viz., in Luke viii. 55, speaking of Christ raising the ruler's daughter from the dead, we read: "And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway," &c. Is not the natural inference from this that the spirit does not cease to exist at death, but only "departs," to return at the command of the "Father of spirits ?" Once more is not the doctrine of the intermediate state taught in the 2nd Corinthians v. 4? viz.: "For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life." If it be objected that perfect inactivity (as my belief concerning departed spirits has been) is incompatible with the existence of a spirit, may I ask, What becomes of the spirit, in this present life, when rendered inactive through some injury of the brain that proves only temporary? A short time since, I received a severe shock, that caused me to be perfectly unconscious for a little while. Some of us have known instances where such unconsciousness has lasted a considerable time what becomes of the spirit during this interval ?-does it not still exist ?—but in an inactive state, because the organisation through which it usually acts is impaired, and it will continue to be inactive till the organisation be to some extent restored; and even then the manner and measure of that activity will much depend upon the measure of this restoration. How distorted does the whole of the intellectual man become through a physical defect of the brain ! What, then, if this organisation be destroyed altogether, and return to dust? On the one hand, must the spirit perish with it? or, on the other, will it, by some new law, prove suddenly independent altogether of that medium which seemed so indispensable before, and rise (as some teach), like a bird uncaged, to a higher and more perfect life? Is there not another alternative yet?—a middle line between the two?—one that does not consider this intermediate state to be a "life" at all, pointing forward to the resurrection for the time to "live again," when the spirit will be "clothed upon" with a new organisation, which, by so far as it excels this poor dying body, will become the medium through which the renewed activity of the Christian's spirit will find wider scope for loftier and more perfect service to render unto him, through whom may it be ours to sing, "O death! where is thy sting? O grave! where is thy victory ?" ERNEST A. UNDERHILL. Oxford. A 22 ON THE NEW YEAR. S on the dial of thy life, Time's finger Points that another year hath passed away, Art thou, from poisoned sources, madly drinking Awake! awake from this thine idle dreaming; Whose silent voice proclaims that "God is love !" There is a stream, from God's own presence flowing, And Christ will cleanse thee from thy deepest stain. Then he to whom thou wert so long a stranger, Whose voice, though often heard, thou didst not heed; That Saviour will be thine in every danger, A Friend omnipotent in time of need. Yes! when within the fold, with Jesus near thee, And when the archangel's voice, the world confounding, Then shall be death no more, nor sin, nor sorrow, S. |