Sin Against The Holy Ghost.
“Wherefore I say unto you, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” — Matthew 12:31, 32.
It is believed by many that the doctrine of endless punishment is distinctly taught in this portion of Scripture. We therefore ask the candid attention of the reader to the following points:
1. It is maintained by this class of religionists that there are three persons in the Godhead — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one, the true, eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory. If then these three are one, how can a sin be committed against one of the persons of the Godhead, and not be committed against the other? The common sentiment is, that a sin committed against the Father, or the Son, is pardonable, while an offence against the Holy Ghost is never to be forgiven. But how can this be, if the doctrine of the Trinity be true? Is not a sin against the Father or the Son, equally a sin against the Holy Ghost; and if a sin against the latter be unpardonable, is not a sin against the former equally so? And do not those, therefore, who teach the doctrine that a sin against the Holy Spirit can never be forgiven, whilst all others against the Father or the Son may be pardoned, deny in so doing, the doctrine of the Trinity?
2. According to Dr. Adam Clarke, who is good authority among the dominant sects, only a few Jews, who witnessed the miracles of Christ, and ascribed them to the agency of the devil, are guilty of the “unpardonable sin.” He contends that it is not committed at the present day. His language is, “Any penitent may find mercy through Christ Jesus; for through him any kind of sin may be forgiven to man, except the sin against the Holy Ghost, which I have proved no man can now commit.” — Clarke on 1 John v. 16. And again, “No man who believes the divine mission of Jesus Christ, ever can commit this sin.”
The text positively asserts that “all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men,” except the sin against the “Holy Ghost,” and the same assertion is found in all the parallel passages. If, therefore, it be used to prove the doctrine of endless misery, it can also be employed to substantiate the very reverse; for it as positively asserts that all manner of sin and blasphemy “shall be forgiven,” as that the sin against the “Holy Ghost,” shall not. And if, therefore, there be evidence in this and the parallel passages, to warrant a belief that the “sin against the Holy Ghost” shall not be forgiven, there is equal evidence, from the same passages, to believe, that “all manner of sin and blasphemy” besides this “shall be forgiven.” We acknowledge that the sin against the Holy Ghost may not have been forgiven either in the world or age in which it was spoken, nor in that which immediately followed; but we still contend that all Israel will finally be saved according to the promise.
3. The common exposition of the subject cannot be reconciled with the popular view of the phrase, “the world to come,” which it is believed, has reference to the future state of being. But how can the advocates of endless misery account for the Savior affirming that the sin against the Holy Ghost should not be forgiven in the future, eternal world? Had he ever taught that any sin would be forgiven there? They do not believe it, and hence such an affirmation would have been uncalled for, and superfluous. To affirm that a specific sin should not be forgiven “in this world,” plainly implies that other sins could be forgiven, and so in relation to “the world to come.” Hence, the expression must have reference to a time when, and a place where, sins could be forgiven. As orthodox religionists do not believe that any sin can be forgiven in the immortal world, they cannot believe the phrase in question has reference to that world. Then to be consistent, they must interpret the text so that the expression, “this world and the world to come,” will refer to a time when, and a place where, sins may be forgiven.
We come now to an affirmative consideration of the text. In order to understand the subject before us, we will inquire,
1. In what did the sin against the Holy Ghost consist? The context plainly shows that it was attributing the miracles of Christ to the prince of devils. Jesus had wrought a good work, had performed a notable miracle, restoring sight to the blind, and speech to the dumb, “insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.” The Pharisees perceiving that the people were amazed, and that they evidently began to regard him as a divine being, attributed the wonderful deed to the agency of evil spirits. They did not deny the miracle, but they would not confess that Christ was the Son of God, upon whom the spirit of the Lord, the “Holy Ghost,” was poured out without measure. The sin against the “Holy Ghost” consisted in attributing to infernal agency what was effected by the power and spirit of God. It was wilfully resisting the greatest evidence that could be presented, that Jesus was the Messiah of God.
But Christ exposed the sophistry of the Pharisees. They supposed that the kingdom of Satan would remain to all eternity, and therefore could not believe that Satan would employ any means to overthrow himself. He would rather seek the extension of his dominions than their destruction, and by such reasoning, Christ exposed the falsity of this assertion of the Pharisees.
Mark 3:30, shows conclusively that the sin against the “Holy Ghost” consisted in ascribing to infernal agency the work of God — “Because they said, he hath an unclean spirit.” Dr. Adam Clarke says, after quoting this passage, “Here the matter is made clear beyond the smallest doubt — the unpardonable sin, as some term it, is nothing less nor more than ascribing the miracles Christ wrought by the power of God, to the spirit of the devil.”
Dr. Clarke thinks that no man can now commit the sin against the Holy Ghost. In his comments on 1 John 5:16, we find the following: “Any penitent may find mercy through Christ Jesus; for through him every kind of sin may be forgiven to man, except the sin against the Holy Ghost, which I have proved no man can now commit.”
2. What is to be understood by the expression, “shall not be forgiven unto men?” Evidently Jesus did not intend to affirm that it was absolutely impossible for the Pharisees, who committed this sin, to turn from their wickedness, and obtain forgiveness of God. He neither taught that it was impossible for them to repent, nor for God to pardon, for man is called upon to repent of his sins, and is recognized as being capable of complying with the requisition, and Deity is ever exhibited as as a sin-pardoning God, as ready always to forgive the returning prodigal.
This expression may be easily understood by reference to the mode of speech common among the ancients. When one of two things was much more difficult to be done than the other, it was common for the Jews to say that one should be, and that the other should not be. And as it would be more difficult to turn the Pharisees from the sin of rejecting Christ than from any other, hence came the expression of Jesus, “should not be forgiven.” They had rejected the highest and strongest evidence that could be presented in favor of Christ being the Sent of God, and it was improbable therefore, that they would ever be convinced.
Grotius, a learned orthodox divine says:
“This form of speech is a common Hebraism; the Jews often said this shall be, and that shall not be; not intending, however, to affirm absolutely that the first should be, but merely to show that the last was much more unlikely or difficult than the first. The sense is this: any crime which may be committed, even all calumnies (or blasphemies,) which hold the first rank among crimes, may be forgiven more readily than the calumny (or blasphemy,) against the spirit of God.”—See Paige’s Selections.
Bishop Newton says:
“It is a common figure of speech in the oriental languages, to say of two things, that the one shall be, and the other shall not be, when the meaning is only that the one shall happen sooner or more easily than the other.”
Obviously, then, the meaning of the phrase is simply this: that other sins and blasphemies would be more readily forgiven than the sin and blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, because he who should commit this sin would manifest a degree of depravity that would render it more difficult for him to repent of this, than of any other sin.
3. What is meant by the words, “this world and the world to come?” The word here rendered “world,” is the same in the original as is elsewhere in the Scriptures, translated “ages,” and very properly might have been also rendered “age.”
Hebrews 9:26: “Now once in the end of the world, hath he [Christ] appeared to put away sin [sin-offering,] by the sacrifice of himself.” Christ appeared eighteen hundred years ago, at the end of the Jewish age, and offered himself once for all, a sacrifice for sin. Here the end of the Jewish economy was called the end of the world.
1 Corinthians 10:11: “Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples; and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.” Here again the word “world” should have been rendered “age,” as every one will perceive.
Dr. Adam Clarke says:
“‘Neither in this world,’ etc. Though I follow the common translation, yet I am fully satisfied the meaning of the word is, neither in this dispensation, viz., the Jewish, nor in that which is to come, viz., the Christian.” Dr. Pearce comments on this expression as follows:
“‘Neither in this world,’ etc.; rather, neither in this age, nor in the age to come; i.e., neither in this age, when the law of Moses subsists, nor in that also, when the kingdom of heaven, which is at hand, shall succeed to it. This is a strong way of expressing how difficult a thing it was for such a sinner to obtain pardon.”
Here the following objection may be raised. Admit that “world” means “age,” the sin is then not to be forgiven, neither under the Jewish nor the Christian age; hence, it will never be forgiven.
The error of the objection lies in considering the Christian age to embrace the whole of the Messiah’s reign, which is both unnecessary and untrue. There were ages under the Jewish dispensation, there are ages under the Christian economy. Calmet informs us that the time preceding the birth of Christ, was divided into six ages; and under the Christian dispensation we know there will be more than one age, as we read of “ages to come,” in Ephesians 2:7, where the same word in the plural form is used in the original that is employed in this passage, the one however being rendered age, the other world. So if the Pharisees did not repent in the succeeding age, they might afterwards. There is no evidence that the Pharisees or any of the Jews were to suffer endless misery; on the contrary, they are included in the arms of redemption, for all Israel shall be saved. (Rom. 11:26, 32.) All are to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
The language “hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation,” employed by St. Mark, furnishes no objection to our exposition of the subject. A more correct rendering would be — “hath not forgiveness to the age,” [Paige] and would be in danger of “eternal punishment,” as Dr. Campbell translates it. The word rendered “eternal,” is eónion in the original, an adjective derived from the Greek word eón, which signifies “age.” It is applied to that which is limited in duration, as also to that which is endless in its nature. We can determine nothing in reference to duration, simply by the use of this term. An indefinite period of time is here meant by it, and it would be more correctly rendered “age-lasting.” They were in danger of age-lasting punishment.
The word rendered “damnation” is the same in the original as is often translated “judgment,” and sometimes “condemnation” and “condemn.” Those threatened were to suffer damnation or condemnation. Theirs was the condemnation that light came into this world, and they loved darkness rather than light. Their minds were filled with doubt and darkness and unbelief, therefore were they damned: “for he that doubteth is damned.”
In Danger Of Hell-Fire.
“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill, shall be in danger of the judgment; but I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell-fire.”—Matthew 5:21, 22.
The object of the Savior in uttering these words, was to exhibit the superiority of his religion over the teachings of Judaism, inasmuch as that took cognizance of the thoughts and motives of the heart, and judged man according to his intentions. Jesus looked beneath the outward forms, at the thoughts and purposes of the soul, and before his judgment-seat man stood condemned if he were actuated by impure motives. In the passage we now consider, Jesus alludes to the awful crime of murder, and to the prohibition given to the Jews in regard to the sacredness of human life. After referring to the legal tribunal before which the guilty should be brought for trial, he points out the difference between his religion and Judaism, and illustrates the principle upon which the laws of his spiritual kingdom are enforced. He came to erect his throne in the human heart, to govern the affections, and hence he judged man according to the motives by which he was actuated. Unlike the teachings of Judaism, Jesus taught that it was not absolutely necessary to commit the overt act, to be guilty before God, but if a man wickedly gave way to temptation, and harbored vile passions and purposes, he was guilty before God and amenable to the divine law. He who hated his brother was a murderer. Jesus also taught that punishment under his rule was proportioned to criminality, as under the legal dispensation. He refers to three distinct modes of punishment recognized by Jewish regulations. Each one of these exceeded the other in severity. They were, first, strangling or beheading; second, stoning; and third, burning alive.
The lower tribunal or court, referred to in the passage before us, by the term “judgment,” was composed of twenty-three judges, or as some learned men think, of seven judges and two scribes. The higher tribunal, or “council,” was doubtless the Sanhedrim, the highest ecclesiastical and civil tribunal of the Jews, composed of seventy judges, whose prerogative it was to judge the greatest offenders of the law, and could even condemn the guilty to death. They were often condemned to gehenna-fire, or as it is translated hell-fire. In this place, which bordered on the south of Jerusalem, criminals, it is said, were burnt alive. No allusion is made here to the immortal world, as many have erroneously supposed. Dr. Adam Clarke, the Methodist divine, comments as follows on the phrase “hell-fire:”
“Our Lord here alludes to the valley of the son of Hinnom. This place was near Jerusalem; and had been formerly used for these abominable sacrifices, in which the idolatrous Jews had caused their children to pass through the fire to Moloch.”
In the Old Testament, there are many allusions to this gehenna of fire, but there is not a single passage where any reference is made to the immortal world. It is used in a figurative sense to portray temporal calamities and severe national judgments, but never employed to represent endless misery and woe. This phrase occurs twelve times in the New Testament, and is invariably applied to the Jews, the Gentiles never having been warned against it, nor threatened with it. It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude that they were not exposed to it.
Jesus did not intend to say, that under the Christian dispensation, men should be brought before the different tribunals referred to in the text, to be adjudicated, but he designed to show that under the new economy of grace and truth, man was still a subject of retributive justice, but was judged according to the motives of the heart. “But I say unto you, whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment.” According to the Christian principle, man is guilty if he designs to do wrong. Some learned divines think that the following would be a better rendering of the original: “I say unto you, that every one who is vainly incensed against his brother, shall be obnoxious to the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, [i.e., thou worthless fellow,] shall be obnoxious to the Sanhedrim; and whosoever shall say Moreh, [i.e., thou wretch,] shall be obnoxious to the gehenna of fire.” Dr. Campbell, a learned orthodox divine, regards this as the correct translation.
Allusion is here made to the different courts among the Jews that administered different kinds of punishment. And the object of Christ was to show that in the administration of his kingdom, punishment was proportioned to the nature of the offence. Christ did not design to teach that an individual would be tormented eternally for saying “Thou fool;” for both he and the apostles used the expression. Christ said: “O fools, and slow of heart.” “Thou fool,” says Paul, “that which thou sowest cannot be quickened except it die.” It is recorded twice in the 23d chapter of Matthew, that Jesus called the Jews “fools,” and hence we cannot suppose that he would condemn a man to endless pain for using the term. No allusion is made to the immortal world.
Dr. Campbell, an orthodox divine, remarks as follows on this passage:
“In the common translation of the verse there is a confounding of things present and future — of things human and divine — that badly comports with the wisdom and dignity of the speaker! What affinity exists between judges, a council and hell-fire? Why should an expression of anger, only subject a person to human judges, and another subject him to hell-fire in the usual sense of those words? Now if the terms in the verse conveyed the same meaning to us, which they conveyed to the audience, which the Savior at that time addressed, we should discover a propriety and beauty in them which is not manifest in the common translation of them. The fact is, the allusions in this verse are all to human institutions or customs among the Jews, and the judges, the Sanhedrim and the hell-fire here introduced, are all human punishments!”
This language evidently cannot be understood literally. Jesus did not design to teach that those who were angry without a cause, were really in danger of the “judgment,” or liable to be brought before the lower courts of the Jews, that whoever shall call his brother Raca, that is, “shallow-brained,” or “blockhead,” was really in danger of the “council,” or the higher court of the Jews, called the Sanhedrim. No one supposes that this is to be understood literally, that an indulgence of these passions really subjected an individual to these Jewish courts. Neither can we rationally suppose that our Lord designed to teach that if an individual called another a “fool,” or apostate, or miscreant, or wretch, that he was really in danger of gehenna-fire, translated hell-fire.
But Jesus referred to these different offenses and grades of punishment among the Jews, to show that under the new dispensation punishment should be proportioned to the offence, and an adequate retribution would be visited upon the transgressor.
We ask the reader’s attention to the opinions of several learned commentators upon this passage.
Dr. Adam Clarke says:
“It is very probable that our Lord means no more here than this: ‘if a man charge another with apostacy from the Jewish religion, or rebellion against God, and cannot prove his charge, then he is exposed to that punishment (burning alive) which the other must have suffered, if the charges had been substantiated. There are three offenses here which exceed each other in their degrees of guilt. 1. Anger against a man, accompanied with some injurious act. 2. Contempt, expressed by the opprobrious epithet raca, or shallow brains. 3. Hatred and mortal enmity, expressed by the term moreh, or apostate, where such apostacy could not be proved.
Now proportioned to these three offenses were three different degrees of punishment, each exceeding the other in severity, as the offenses exceeded each other in their different degrees of guilt. 1. The judgment, the council of twenty-three, which could inflict the punishment of strangling. 2. The Sanhedrim, or great council, which could inflict the punishment of stoning. 3. The being burnt in the valley of the son of Hinnom. This appears to be the meaning of our Lord.”—Com. in loc.
Rev. Mr. Parkhurst, in his Lexicon, referring to this passage, says:
“The phrase here translated hell-fire, (literally gehenna of fire) does, I apprehend, in its outward and primary sense, relate to that dreadful doom of being burnt alive in the valley of Hinnom;” he adds (for what reason he does not inform us) “that this, as well as the other degrees of punishment mentioned in the context, must, as Dr. Doddridge has remarked, be ultimately referred to the invisible world.”
Wynne. — “This alludes to the three degrees of punishment among the Jews, viz.: civil punishment inflicted by the judges or elders at the gates; excommunication pronounced by the great Ecclesiastical Council or Sanhedrim; and burning to death, like those who were sacrificed to devils in the valley of Hinnom or Tophet, where the idolatrous Israelites used to offer their children to Moloch.”—Note in loc.
The meaning of the passage seems to be this: under the old economy all transgression was adequately punished, so under the new dispensation of grace and truth, punishment was proportioned to guilt, and would be inflicted, according to the degree of criminality.
Scarcely Saved.
“For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear.”—1 Peter 4:17, 18.
In examining this passage, let us first attempt to ascertain what is meant by judgment beginning at the house of God? This point, once understood, will aid us in our subsequent investigations. “For the time is come,” says Peter, “that judgment must begin at the house of God.” Allusion evidently is here made to a “time” and “judgment,” in relation to which, the author of these words had been previously instructed. A brief reference to the circumstances under which the text was uttered, will essentially aid us in arriving at the truth originally designed to be set forth. Before the introduction of Christianity into the world, man had long been groping in darkness and unbelief; he had become blinded by sin and prejudice, and wedded to long established opinions. He had received error for truth, darkness for light, and become extremely superstitious and conservative, and madly resisted the light and knowledge which Jesus furnished for the instruction and salvation of the world.
When Jesus came to earth to bless poor, erring humanity, in the execution of his divine mission, he called to his aid a number of apostles to be co-workers with him in establishing his kingdom of grace and truth, and in spreading abroad the glorious doctrines of the new dispensation, which were hostile to the teachings of the Jews, and designed to supercede them.
Peter, the author of these words, was one whom the Savior employed to go forth in defence of his truth, and encounter the opposition which a wicked world would bestow upon the disciples of the cross. The Master clearly portrayed the difficulties with which his friends would meet in the execution of their mission. He informed them of the awful woes and terrible calamities which were about to come upon the people with whom they mingled, for their sinfulness. The Savior looked forward to the time when those temporal judgments would come upon the Jewish nation; but before Jerusalem itself was to be laid in ruins, the disciples of Christ would be persecuted, and this should be one of the signs that would precede the overthrow of that ill-fated city, over which the Savior wept. Jesus said to his disciples thus: “Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you; and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.” Having then such a personal interest in the matter, the disciples could not easily have forgotten this sign. “But,” says Jesus, “when they persecute you in this city, flee ye to another.” See Matt. 10:22, 23; and 24:9, etc.
When the disciples of Christ went forth to preach the gospel of the kingdom of God, they met with the persecution which was foretold; the wrath of a perverse generation was aroused against them; and Peter then remembers the language of the Master in relation to the signs that should precede the destruction of the Jewish nation. Jesus told them that they would be hated of all men, and be delivered up to be afflicted and killed; and that they must flee from city to city; and when the persecution foretold commenced, Peter exclaims: “The time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God,” etc. As though Peter had said: “The time predicted by our Master has arrived; persecution has commenced against us; that time which Christ foretold has come.” By the “judgment beginning at the house of God,” reference is made to the persecution which the followers of Christ received.
But, is there any scriptural proof to justify the assertion, that Christians are referred to by the expression, “house of God?” Most certainly, we answer. In Hebrews 3:6, Paul says thus: “But Christ as a Son over his own house: whose house are we,” etc. Here faithful believers are called God’s house; and it was with this “house” that judgment was to begin; or, in other words, that persecution was to commence. Again, in the 2d chapter of Ephesians, Paul informed the brethren that they were of the “household of God.” That this is the meaning of Peter, seems further evident from the language he employs, before and after the expression we are now considering. He says: “Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed,” etc. “For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God; and if it first begin at us,” etc. Those who were to suffer as Christians, composed the house of God; and these Peter calls “us.” Persecution was to begin at the house of God. Jesus foretold that Christians would first suffer affliction, before vengeance should be taken on those who obeyed not the gospel of God. Many Christians did suffer at the hand of wicked persecutors; they were in distress and affliction, consequently the day was nigh at hand when temporal calamities and awful judgments were to come upon the “ungodly and the sinner.”
We are prepared to inquire now what is meant by the expression — “If the righteous scarcely be saved?” Christians are referred to by those called “righteous,” who are also mentioned by the term “us,” with whom persecution was first to begin. Such, by a diligent observation of the signs which Jesus foretold should precede the destruction of the Jewish state, would be able to make their escape. The Savior told them to flee to the mountains, and when the time came they barely escaped the hand of the enemy; or, were scarcely saved.
Many learned orthodox divines have given a similar interpretation to this scripture. Dr. Macknight gives the following reading to, and comments on the passage:
“Indeed the time is come, that the punishment to be inflicted on the Jews as a nation, for their crimes from the first to last, must begin at you Jewish Christians, now become the house of God. And if it begin first at us, who are so dear to God, what will the end be of those Jews who obey not the gospel of God? And when God thus punishes the nation, if the righteous Jews, who believe in Christ, with difficulty can be saved, where will the ungodly and sinful part of the nation show themselves saved from the divine vengeance?
That the apostle is not speaking here of the difficulty of the salvation of the righteous, at the day of judgment, will be evident to any one who considers 2 Peter 1:11….. What he speaks of, is the difficulty of the preservation of the Christians, at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem; yet they were preserved; for so Christ promised. (Matt. 24:13.) But the ungodly and wicked Jews were saved neither in Judea, nor any where else.”
Dr. Adam Clarke, the Methodist commentator, says thus:
Verse 17. Judgment must begin at the house of God. “Our Lord had predicted that, previously to the destruction of Jerusalem, his followers would have to endure various calamities. (See Matt. 24:9, 21, 22; Mark 13:12, 13; John 16:2, etc.) Here his true disciples are called the house or family of God. That the converted Jews suffered much from their own brethren, the zealots or factions, into which the Jews were at that time divided, needs little proof, and some interpreters think that this was in conformity to the purpose of God. Matt. 23:35: ‘That on you may come all the righteous blood shed from the foundation of the world.’ ‘That the Jewish Christians were to be involved in the general punishment; and that it was proper to begin at them, as a part of the devoted Jewish nation, notwithstanding they were now become the house of God; because the justice of God would, thereby, be more illustriously displayed.’ (See Macknight.) But probably the word kríma [κρίμα], which we here translate judgment, may mean no more than affliction and distress; for it was a Jewish maxim, that when God was about to pour down some general judgment, He began with afflicting his own people, in order to correct and amend them; that they might be prepared for the overflowing scourge. In Bava Kama, fol. 60, 1, we have the same sentiment, and in nearly the same words as in Peter, viz.: ‘God never punishes the world but because of the wicked; but He always begins with the righteous first. The destroyer makes no difference between the just and the unjust; only he begins first with the righteous.’ See Ezek. 9:1-7, where God orders the destroyer to slay both old and young in the city; but, said he: ‘Begin at my sanctuary.’
And if it first begin at us, Jews who have repented and believe on the Son of God, what shall be the end of them, the Jews who continue impenitent, and obey not the gospel of God? Here is the plainest reference to the above Jewish maxim; and this, it appears, was founded upon the text which St. Peter immediately quotes.
Verse 18. And if the righteous scarcely be saved. If it shall be with extreme difficulty that the Christians shall escape from Jerusalem, when the Roman armies shall come against it, with the full commission to destroy it, where shall the ungodly and sinner appear? Where shall the proud Pharisaic boaster in his own outside holiness, and the profligate transgressor of the laws of God, show themselves, as having escaped the divine vengeance? The Christians, though with difficulty, did escape every man; but not one of the Jews escaped, whether found in Jerusalem or elsewhere. * *
I have, on several occasions, shown that when Cestius Gallus came against Jerusalem, many Christians were shut up in it; when he strangely raised the siege, the Christians immediately departed to Pella, in Cœlosyria, into the dominions of King Agrippa, who was an ally of the Romans; and there they were in safety; and it appears from the ecclesiastical historians that they had but barely time to leave the city before the Romans returned under the command of Titus, and never left the place till they had destroyed the temple, razed the city to the ground, slain upwards of a million of those wretched people, and put an end to their civil polity and ecclesiastical state.”
The meaning seems to be, that the Christians had barely time to make their escape, before divine judgments came upon the ungodly Jews; they were with difficulty preserved; or, were scarcely saved from those severe temporal calamities. Where did the ungodly and wicked Jews appear? What was their condition? Lamentable beyond description. After they had persecuted the Christians, and filled up the measure of their iniquity, the judgments of God came upon them, and they were miserably destroyed as a nation, swept away by the sword of the conqueror. Victorious armies came against them; terror was without, and pestilence within; and their noble city was laid in ruins. The people were visited by famine and war, and the ungodly and sinner appeared in distress, being crushed beneath the terrible judgments that were poured out upon them. Having refused to listen to Christ, they lifted the hand of rebellion against God, and were punished as a nation; banished from the presence of the Lord, and the glory of his power. When the severe calamities which Jesus predicted came upon them, then there was great tribulation, such as there had not been since the beginning of the world, and such as should never be again. The struggle was fearful; thousands were slain; blood ran down the streets; and when nothing more could be done in defense of their city, the inhabitants fell to slaughtering one another. The mother even ate her own child, so destitute were the people. And it was in this lamentable condition that the sinner and ungodly Jew appeared. The Christians barely escaped — were scarcely saved; but yet they were preserved, while the wicked were cut off by the judgments that came upon them. They appeared humiliated — clothed in shame and degradation — a by-word among the nations of the earth.