MARCO TEÓRICO

In the Expositor for June is an article with the heading, "On the Knowledge of a Future State Possessed by the Ancient Hebrews," and signed by A. Roberts. After showing that the more enlightened Hebrews from the earliest time certainly possessed a knowledge of a future state, the writer comes to the question why nothing was said of it in the legislation of Moses; and from this part of the essay I quote the following:

Let us now revert to the words of Mr. Gladstone, quoted at the beginning of this paper: "The religion of the Jews in no way rested upon future rewards and punishments." If this statement is accepted without any modification, as I suppose it must be, it brings us face to face with a very strange, if not unaccountable, phenomenon. We have seen, on the very highest authority, that the ancient patriarchs, and pre-eminently Moses, lived under the power of the world to come. But now we are confronted with the fact that the great Jewish lawgiver, in the religious system which he established, took no account whatever of a future state. Such is the position occupied by those who believe (as the present writer does) that Moses was the author of the legislative code contained in the Pentateuch. I may remark, however, in passing, that many in our day do not assent to this. We are told by Wellhausen and his followers that Moses had little or nothing to do with the system of laws which bears his name. That code, it is said, must be relegated to post-exilic times. With this theory I am just now in nowise [283] concerned, beyond expressing my disbelief in it, and pointing out that, if adopted, it simply intensities the difficulty which has been suggested. For, by general consent, the Jews as a nation had come firmly to believe in a state of rewards and punishments hereafter before their return from the exile, and yet it is believed that their law was then for the first time promulgated without the slightest reference to a world

beyond the grave. That, however, as has been already said, is a point with which I have at present nothing to do, and which must be left to be dealt with by Wellhausen and those who adopt his views. I have here only to consider the position of those who hold that Moses was the human author of the Jewish religious system, and yet that, while himself a steadfast believer in immortality, he made no reference in any of his enactments to the doctrine of a future state. Some explanation of this singular fact must be attempted.

The first theory at which we may glance is that of Bishop Warburton. Warburton's bold and original idea was to change what was thought a formidable objection to the Jewish religion into a conclusive proof of its supernatural character. Let me endeavor to state the argument as briefly as possible. Warburton rests his theory on the two following principles: First, that no religion could, in ordinary circumstances, be established in the world without a reference to future rewards and punishments; and, secondly, that no doctrine as to recompense or retribution hereafter is to be found in the system instituted by Moses. From these premises his inference is that the Jewish dispensation must have been set up and sustained by "an extraordinary providence;" i. e., it must have had a superhuman origin, and been attended by constant miraculous interpositions on the part of God. The divine mission of Moses is thus thought to have been proved, and the author regards his demonstration as "very little short of mathematical certainty."

Another solution which, although accepted by some, appears to me far more paradoxical than that of Warburton, has been proposed by the late Dean Stanley. In his "Lectures on the Jewish Church" (I., 135), the Dean says: "The fact becomes of real religious importance if we trace the ground on which this silence respecting the future was based. Not from want of religion, but (if one might use the expression) from excess of religion, was this void left in the Jewish mind. The future was [284] not denied or contradicted, but was overlooked, set aside, overshadowed by the consciousness of the living, actual presence of God himself. That truth, at least in the limited conceptions of the youthful nation, was too vast to admit of any rival truth, however precious." [Mr. Roberts easily refutes this theory by reminding us how far the early Israelites were from entertaining such an idea of God. The Dean when propounding his theory was forgetful of their conduct in the wilderness and in the period of the judges.]

This leads me to state in conclusion what I humbly regard as the true reason why Moses did not include in his legislative code any reference to a future state of rewards and punishments. The people of the Jews were not

then prepared for such a revelation, nor would they have profited by it.

upon them. Everything leads us to regard the Israelites of the Exodus as having been in the most debased condition. They were, in fact, little better than a barbarous horde, having no noble aspirations and capable only of being influenced by the most sordid motives. [Here the writer brings forward many facts in support of this assertion which I omit.] What cared they about the invisible world? Rewards and punishments in this life they could understand, but in the language of Scripture they were too "brutish" to feel the influence of what was future and unseen. And hence it is no reproach to the Mosaic law that it limited its sanctions to the present world. That was the only discipline which could have any good effect upon such a people.

The reader will not fail to see that the theory here briefly propounded by Mr. Roberts stands at the opposite extreme, as respects the people for whom Moses legislated, from that of Dean Stanley, and that it is the more plausible of the two; but I think the last word has not yet been said on this interesting subject. I am glad it has been called up again for consideration in such a magazine as the Expositor, and I trust that the result will be the production of a more satisfactory explanation than any yet given. I have some thoughts of my own on the subject which I may yet publish, and which, [285] whether correct or incorrect, may contribute to its final elucidation.

[SEBC 283-286]

[March 19, 1898.]

WHY OMITTED BY MOSES?

I begin to-day the writing of my weekly contribution to the Standard under very solemn circumstances. J. B. Skinner, president of Hamilton Female College, has just been called away from his arduous responsibilities on earth to his rest in the spirit world. This is no place for the tribute that is due to his memory, but it is an hour for solemn reflection and sorrow. This is also the last day in the sixty-eighth year of my own life, and to- morrow I enter upon my sixty-ninth. Very appropriately I am called on by a brother in Indiana to discuss a phase of Bible teaching in regard to a future life. This brother has a theory by which to account for the oft-mentioned fact that Moses, or rather that God through Moses, made no mention of rewards and punishments after death. I am not sure that I exactly understand his theory, and he does not write for publication; so I will content myself with stating briefly my own opinion on the subject.

Notwithstanding the silence of the Pentateuch, there can be no doubt on the part of those who believe in the New Testament that the future state of existence was known to the patriarchs and to the saints under the Mosaic economy. This being so, they must have passed their lives in anticipation of it, and they must have known that their conduct here would, under the rule of a righteous God, have much to do with determining their future

condition. The way in which they could live and please God here, was clearly revealed, and they could but infer that if they pleased God in this life, they would be [286] blessed by him in the future life; but the exact conditions of future happiness were not revealed to them. Why? I think it was because it was then impossible. These conditions involved the death of the Son of God for our sins, and his resurrection for our justification. These events had not yet taken place, and it would have been impossible in advance of their occurrence to impart to the human mind an adequate conception of them. Moreover, this condition is unavailing without belief in it on the part of man, and loving obedience to him who died and rose again. These conditions could not have been complied with under the old covenants. Seeing, then, that the true and only conditions of obtaining eternal life were not known, and could not be known, before the death of Christ, silence in regard to the rewards and punishments belonging to that state was a necessity. To have offered men eternal life on the condition of keeping the law of Moses, would have been deceptive; for God knew then what was revealed afterward, that by works of law no flesh can be justified before him. To have threatened every man with eternal punishment who failed to keep the law of Moses, would have driven every man to despair; for every man was conscious of shortcomings. Nothing that was then required of men, or that then could be required with intelligence on their part, could secure eternal life, and it therefore became a necessity to omit all references to it in the law that was given. If this law had been a final expression of God's will, this omission would have remained an enigma; but as the law itself was but a stepping-stone leading up to Christ, the way of God in the matter is vindicated.

While this is true, we must not forget that in the mind and purpose of God during those preparatory ages there was connected with the sacrifices then offered the [287] complete and final sacrifice yet to be offered; so that, in the language of the Epistle to the Hebrews, "a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance" (9:12). This all agrees with another statement in this Epistle, "that the way into the holy place was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was standing" ( 9:8).

[SEBC 286-288]

[Apr. 2, 1898.]