If it were only Dr. Bonar's returning to his vile and miserable thought of Christ being banished, or the persevering insolence, of mind with which he changes scripture to suit his own purpose, I should take no notice of his book, “The Rent Veil.” Christ has directed us what to do with the blind leaders of the blind—to let them alone. But the book is written with another object. Dr. Sonar resists truth in every shape. In another book he mocked at the conflict of two natures in us, and that in a way which makes it mocking Paul's own words on the subject. Here the object is to set aside the sure settled standing of the believer before God. Dr. Bonar is evidently not in the liberty wherewith Christ sets us free, and he naturally teaches from the ignorance in which he is as to it. Only it is a sorrowful thing when ignorance is taught. He gives no sort of heed to the statements of scripture. He invents views of his own, and sets them forth as truth, with entire neglect of the word. Happily this enables us to detect how utterly groundless his statements are.
Two things alone occupy me here—his view of the Hebrews, which in every particular is the opposite of the truth, and the, effort to continue on the first Adam by uniting Christ with him, instead of basing all the first Adam being judged and rejected—on the last Adam, Him risen from the dead, when redemption is accomplished, with whom alone, when glorified, there is union. These two are vital points at the present day. Dr. Bonar is seeking to destroy what the Spirit of God would press on the heart especially now. I shall, however, show that his statements on all connected with these points are wholly unscriptural, that godly souls may distrust his statements, and be on their guard. He seems to allude to perfectionism of Mr. Pearsall Smith's class. This I have met and answered in its place; and not only in print, but have had much to do with it where it is current. I should not notice it here, but to remark that, what is one great source of their errors, Dr. Bonar equally fails in the knowledge of the use of water for cleansing in scripture. They are really, on the same ground: for both, if there be failure, there must be a re-application of the blood; of the water, the washing of the feet, they are alike wholly ignorant. It forms no part of their system.
But, to pursue our inquiry into the statements of the book, Paradise is treated as the place of God's dwelling, which there was no veil to hide. Man could go in to speak with God. God came out to speak with man. It was not till after man had disobeyed that the veil was let down which separated God from man, which made a distinction between the dwellings of man and the habitation of God. All this is a fable. There is no hint of paradise being the dwelling-place of God. “The Lord God took man, and put him into the garden of Eden, to dress it and to keep it.” (Pp. 39, 40.) You may see a still more definite statement, that God was there even when man was turned out, “Both the veil and the flame said, we guard the palace of the great King, that no sinner may enter, yet they said the King is within.” All this is a fable. One has only to read Gen. 3:22-2422And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. (Genesis 3:22‑24) to see it is pure invention. The cherubim and the flaming blade of a sword, turning on itself, were set at the east of Eden, to keep the way of the tree of life, with this express and only object. Dr. Bonar slyly leaves out the cherubim.
Now for him they are always the church; but to make the church keep the way of the tree of life against man, as God's judicial watcher, would not have done; so it is left out. “God's first words to man were those of grace,” page 16. There is not a word of grace addressed to man at all-temporal judgment, and that only indeed. In the judgment on the serpent it is declared that the Seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head. But Adam was not the Seed of the woman. His faith may have laid, I trust did lay, hold of it; but it was laying hold of another, not grace addressed to himself: a difference of all importance, because it brings forward the Second Man, in whom all the promises of God are yea and amen, and is no setting up of the first again. We are told that (p. 17) man was allowed to build his altar, and worship at its gate. At the gate of paradise the first altar was built,” &c. But man must remain outside meanwhile; he was not allowed to enter the place as holy, only he sacrificed at the gate of it. All a fable.
Page 19: “God then began to teach man by means of sacrifice. This method of teaching him concerning grace and righteousness widened and filled up age after age. For this fuller education the tabernacle was set up Not till man, the sinner, should master the profound and wondrous lessons contained in that book (Leviticus), could the veil be removed, and access granted.” Was this so? There was no growth, but the whole thing established according to the pattern showed in the mount. There was no such education. The apostle (2 Cor. 3) declares that, from the very origin, they could not, and never did, see the purport of this, in truth, most instructive system when we have the key. What the world learned of it Dr. Bonar must tell us. The whole thing is clean contrary to scripture. The importance is that it is, in Dr. Bonar's scheme, bringing on and educating the first man, and so bringing in blessing. The apostle is proving, on the contrary, the impossibility of this with man; that is, he teaches the exact contrary of Dr. Bonar's teaching.
We are told (p. 22) “The second veil allowed any one to look in.” Not only is this untrue as a fact, they could not see through the veil at all, nor is there any trace that the ordinary Israelite ever went beyond the brazen altar. The brazen laver was for the priests only, but the word declares the contrary in the strongest possible way. If the most privileged class of Levites saw anything inside of the tabernacle, it was death to them (Num. 4:2020But they shall not go in to see when the holy things are covered, lest they die. (Numbers 4:20), and what precedes). That is, scripture carefully teaches, as to the essence of the position, the contrary of what Dr. Bonar teaches, and what he teaches as giving its character to the state of things, his whole system, of which this is a part, is the exact contrary of the truth.
I turn to the cherubim. “Doubtless,” we are told, “Abraham, &c., knew about them.” All, this is to carry on the alleged teaching of man. It is naught; no trace of it in scripture; a false conception of the position of Abraham, the root of promise, not of law. The cherubim wore in the pattern on the mount. “The cherubim and the M (p. 28) are all of one; the church is represented in the tabernacle as one with Christ—members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones. Israel was taught that the church in the wilderness (Acts 7:3838This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: (Acts 7:38)) was as truly the body of Christ as the church at Pentecost.” “These cherubim symbolized the church of the redeemed.”
Page 55, where it is said, “He that sanctifieth, and they that are sanctified, are all of one,” “there is no thought of the unity of the body; indeed the assembly, as the body of Christ, is never spoken of or thought of in the Hebrews; “They are all of one, for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren; saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the assembly will I sing praise unto thee.” All is carefully individual, even when the assembly or church is spoken of. Priesthood for men walking on earth, while the high priest is in heaven, is the subject of the epistle, not union with the head on high. But of this anon.
But the statement of page 28 has Dr. Bonar's authority, but not even an attempt is made to found it on scripture. That there was an assembly in the wilderness no one in his senses denies; but what assembly? The nation of Israel, and nothing else; a body which excluded Paul's account of the founding of the church. That assembly in the wilderness was based on the middle wall of separation being strictly kept up; the assembly of which Paul speaks is based on, its being wholly thrown down. “The church is represented in the tabernacle as one with Christ, members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.” “Israel was taught that the church in the wilderness (Acts 7:3838This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: (Acts 7:38)) was as truly the body of Christ as the church at Pentecost.” Paul tells us the mystery had been wholly hidden-hid in God. But Dr. Bonar does not tell us how Israel was taught it, or how it was represented; how even it was in the cherubim, and “they symbolized the church of the redeemed.” Would my reader take a Concordance, and trace the word cherub? The cherubim are the seat of Divine authority in the exercise of judicial power. They are found when God judicially excludes man from the tree of life. They constituted the throne of God in the tabernacle. “He sitteth between the cherubim.” “They were made out of one piece with the golden cover of the ark.” There God judged and had His throne; therefore blood had to be brought to make propitiation. See 2 Sam. 22:88Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations of heaven moved and shook, because he was wroth. (2 Samuel 22:8), and following. There the cherub is in the strongest way the seat of judicial power. “The Lord thundered from heaven, and the most High uttered His voice. And He sent out arrows, and scattered them by lightning, and discomfited them,” &c. Let my reader turn to Ezek. 1 and x., where the judicial and throne character of the cherubim is displayed in so solemn a manner. If chapters 1-10 be read, the judgment of Jerusalem at that time will be clearly seen.
It is evident that the cherub is the judicial throne or power of God. That the members of the church may come in as instruments of that power when they reign is very possible, as the angels may in their own time and place. But to make what kept the way of the tree of life—what fills the first scenes of Ezekiel's vision—the throne in the tabernacle, or the careering judgments of 2 Sam. 22, the church, as such, evidently is duality, endowed with liberty and intelligence like every human individuality He was, by virtue of this humiliation, enabled to enter into a human development similar to our own.” Can we—we at the age of twelve years, and that without having received a divine and entirely new life—say, “I ought to be [occupied] in my Father's business?” M. Godet is not even satisfied with that, but goes yet farther. Being unable to deny that He said, “My Father” at the age of twelve years, he takes pains to testify to us that that “in no wise involved a precise dogma in the thoughts of the child; a moral relationship was all that was in question.” (p. 144.) “At the hour of His baptism” it is “a revelation which He received from the Father,” or (p. 145) it is “here again, a fact of intimate life, by which Jesus is rendered conscious of the relationship of love, which united Him to Him who spake to Him thus.” Also, in speaking of Jesus entering into glory, M. Godet says, page 132, “Here, then, is human nature elevated in its normal representative to the possession of divine life.” Is this, then, He of whom John spoke, when he said, “The Word was God. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness apprehended it not.” The Christ presented to us by M. Godet is another Christ than that of the Word, whom they alone have received who were born not of the will of man, but of God. Also, when M. Godet (p. 151) quotes the beautiful passage of Phil. 2:6-86Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. (Philippians 2:6‑8), he entirely falsifies, it, and then, at the close, adds, “being found in all things as a man.” Notice well that the Christ of M. Godet's system is a man who begins His exaltation in order to advance on to the glory. In the passage quoted from the word, the Christ descends lower and lower, till God exalts Him, and places Him in the glory.
It is important to notice the bearing of some other remarks of M. Godet in this matter. Page 101: “Before Christ's advent, it could be said, ‘that which is born of the flesh is flesh:' since His appearing, the true meaning of history is expressed by, that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” This is thorough nonsense. I have another object than showing it to be such, in now quoting it. I desire to ask, are we really born of God?
At page 150 we get Christ who made Himself of no reputation, rendering Himself poor, and living in indigence, just as a king would who became a simple citizen. This comparison has no sense whatever. Christ has ever remained King. We read, page 153, that the very moment of His abasement was for Jesus the starting-point of the lifting up again. In proportion to His development as a child, a relationship of the most intimate and tender nature was formed between Himself and God.... it terminated in the spontaneous utterance of that expression, “My Father.” Then at page 160, “Christ having been the first to supply the glorious career [of from innocence on to glory], invests with His power to supply it after Him.” At pages 112, 113, the “sanctification of man life, which He accomplished in His person, He, in fact, purposed to reproduce later in all those who were linked to Him by faith.” At page 94, “He makes Himself worker together with every man in the realization of his supreme destiny:” At page 98, “His life is the realization of the normal development to which every human being is called in principle.” At page 101, “The normal development of humanity, interrupted by sin,” has recommenced. The thought of the new birth is excluded from M. Godet's system. “That which is born of the Spirit is spirit” is but the history of that which has taken place since Jesus came. That “the Son quickens whom He will” has no place in this system. There is “a moral obligation,” and in that domain (p. 94) Christ is the “genie” which becomes the mainstay to the work of all others. He groups around His person all those worthy of that name. It is man as he is a sinner—aided by Christ, who can attain this absolute perfection. Man's natural condition is presented in a manner totally contrary to the word, as well as to the glorious person of the Savior. That there is none who seeks after God—that we must be born again—that thenceforth Christ becomes our life—that it is no longer we who live but Christ who lives in us—that in us, that is to say, in our flesh, no good dwelleth—that the flesh lusteth against the Spirit—that to be without law is to be without restraint to such a degree as to have required that God should send the deluge to cleanse the defiled world—that the flesh, the nature of fallen man, does not submit itself to the law of God, even when that law is given to it—that that which has crucified the Lord of glory, when He came in grace, cannot be subject to it—that it lusts against the Spirit in the Christian—that it seeks to puff up with pride a man who has been in the third heaven—that no fresh grace delivers it from its pride and its egotism—that even to an apostle a thorn is needed, a messenger of Satan, to buffet it;—all these teachings of the word are utterly set aside.
Christ, says M. Godet, recommences the development of the innocent man (p. 191). “On the one hand, He [Christ] has perfected the development of humanity which had remained unfinished by the sin of the first man; on the other, He has re-established fallen humanity, and reinstated it on the path where it can henceforth reach its destiny.” He had (p. 192) to “re-knot the thread of the normal development of humanity at its point of severance, recommence the moral work which was to conduct man from innocence to holiness, accomplish that series of acts of obedience, each of which was a sacrifice of natural life, and attain that elevated sphere of existence which scripture calls spiritual life.” Christ, then, had no spiritual existence till He had attained it. “This is what Jesus has done.” (Ibid.)
“Now,” adds M. Godet (p. 193), “Christ has not only perfected a humanity which had been arrested in its development, but has re-established a fallen humanity.” This is the second part of the work He has accomplished for us, “Then (p. 159), taking possession of the condition to which it [human life] was destined [holiness], He, from the heights of heaven, works towards His own, through a daily Pentecost, the miracle of sanctification, which He has perfected in Himself, and thus prepares their elevation to the position He Himself occupies in the glory.” “God all in one, and by Him, one day, all in all; this is the means, this the aim.” Will you know more of this? Read page 160: “He desires nothing less than to make each of us another self, a representative of this supreme type, the man—God.” Compare page 159: “Why should not human nature, created in the image of God, have been destined from the first to become the free organ of the life of God, the agent of His omnipotence?” “The man—God would in that case have been nothing but true man, that is to say, that which God had eternally conceived and intended him to be.” And immediately the author presents these imaginations as the expression of Rom. 8:2929For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (Romans 8:29), from whence it would result that we are all men—God.
We shall be all like Jesus, all conformed to the image of God's Son. I must leave to the appreciation of each Christian a teaching which states that the union of the divinity and humanity, such as they exist in Jesus, is a purpose of God which ought to be realized in every Christian. Now this is systematically the anther's plan. Thus, at page 204, “After having, during His sojourn down here, completely appropriated the divine Spirit, and made it His own personal life, as God Himself, He has become the sovereign dispenser of it towards His brethren.” Then, at page 160, “What matters it if our life be a pathway of suffering, passing by Gethsemane and Golgotha, provided it terminate at the Mount of Olives and the ascension?” Not that M. Godet thinks the flesh does not exist, or that it improves. At page 208 we read, “Christ being born, and growing in us to such a degree as to fill our heart, and to gradually banish our natural selves—our old man—which never improves, and has nothing else to do but to perish.” At page 191, it is “the result of a series of completely voluntary decisions in the sense of goodness.” Then, page 205, “This work (that of realizing perfect holiness in a flesh like ours, once accomplished in Jesus, His Spirit emanates from His, glorified person, like a quickening power, gaining in us the same victory that Jesus gained in His person, and which realizes in our life, as Jesus did in His, the righteousness demanded by the law..” The thought of being born anew completely and systematically fails throughout. It is progress in sanctification by the power of the Spirit, in gaining the victories Jesus gained in His person. At page 208 we have, “a free and moral process.” “The process in Jesus and ourselves is identical.” (p. 209.) Is this, then, a work perfectly resembling that accomplished in the sinner, to change innocence into holiness? In order to make these two so very different things meet, M. Godet says that Jesus has conquered sin in His person, and that He reserved it to Himself to conquer it in humanity. But in fallen humanity sin dwells in the will. To Christ sin exists outside Himself. How, then, can there be room for a work perfectly similar in Him and in us?