"And in their days, even of those kings, the God of heaven shall set up A KINGDOM which shall never perish, and A DOMINION that shall not be left to another people. It shall grind to powder and bring to an end all these kingdoms, and itself shall stand for ever."—DANIEL.

JOHN THOMAS, Editor. NEW YORK, JULY, 1854—

Volume 4—No. 7

Esteemed Brother—An immortal-soul theorist in this neighbourhood contends for the post-mortem existence of a disembodied soul from the fact of Moses and Elias appearing to Jesus and the three disciples. I told him that in the case of Elias there was no disembodiment; for he did not die: and that I believed that Moses had been raised from the dead at some time previous to that occasion; if not, how could he and Elias appear as "two men talking with Jesus about the decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem?" to this he objected, that, if Moses were raised from the dead, Jesus could not be "the First-fruits of them that slept," —1 Corinthians 15: 20, and be the first that should rise from the dead—Acts 26: 23. I could not answer him. If you can spare a small corner in the Herald, please solve this difficulty.

Also please explain what kind of beings constituted "the legion of devils" referred to in Mark 5: 9, 12—and you will oblige.

Yours in hope of eternal life, J. S.

Cambridge, Ohio, November 1, 1853.

REPLY BY THE EDITOR.

The Bible contemplates man relatively to three states—the present animal state; the death state; and the future spirit state. In the present state he is, as it were, a worm; as it is written, "Fear not, thou worm Jacob:" in the death state, he is as a chrysalis; and in the future, a glorious creature made like unto the Son of God. Moses has stood related to these three, and of which he now occupies the third, and will, doubtless, continue so to do for evermore. That he once existed as an animal man there is no dispute. That he died is equally certain; for the Lord said to him, "Get thee up to Mount Nebo in the Land of Moab, over against Jericho, and die in the Mount whither thou goest up, and be gathered unto thy people; as Aaron thy brother died in Mount Hor, and was gathered unto his people." And so it came to pass; for the compiler of the Pentateuch adds, "So Moses the servant of Jehovah died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of Jehovah. And he (the angel of the Lord) buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Beth-peor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day."

How long Moses remained in the death-state is nowhere testified in the Scriptures.

He is believed by Israelites to be there still; for there is no testimony in the Old Testament declaring that he lives. The present existence of the great Hebrew legislator and prophet is a truth peculiar to the Christian faith, being founded solely upon the declaration of Peter, James, and John. We believe, then, upon their testimony that he is alive. They saw him as a man, with Elijah on a high mountain, the name of which is not recorded. It is supposed to have been Mount Tabor; but the supposition is quite as probable that it was the mountain on which Moses died. Be this as it may, Moses was no longer dead, but alive "in glory" on one of the mountains of Syria. How came the dead Moses to be thus alive? There is but one answer can be scripturally given, and that is, by a resurrection from the death-state. This is "the path of life" for the dead, the only exit from the invisible into glory.

Granted; but then says a sceptic, "If Moses were raised, how can Jesus be ‘the first that should rise from the dead,’ seeing that Moses was raised before him?" He therefore concludes in his own mind that Moses was not raised at all, but appeared as a ghost from "the spirit-world!" If this objection be valid against the resurrection of Moses, it is equally so against the resurrection of the man touched by Elisha’s bones, the resurrection of the Shunamite’s son, the widow of Nain, and of Lazarus, who were all raised before Jesus. This proves too much for our sceptic, therefore in truth nothing at all for him. We see then that the resurrection of others, well remembered by the apostle, did not prevent him saying of Jesus, that he was "the first that should rise from the dead." There must be some other meaning to this saying, as the true one, than that usually attributed to it. Let us then see what it is.

Paul’s words are, protos ex anastaseos nekron; literally, "First out of a resurrection of dead ones." From what has gone before, it is clear, that he did not use protos in a numerical sense, that is, ordinally in respect of "second," "third," and so forth. The doctrine he taught revealed Jesus as the first in dignity or importance, being in all things preeminent. "He is," says he, "of every creature, prototokos, First, or Chief, born: he is the Head of the Body, the church; he is Prince; —chief-born from among dead ones, so that he might become among all—proteuon—the holder of the first rank." John also says of him, "Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the prototokos from among dead ones, and ho archon, the PRINCE of the kings of the earth:" and Paul again, "He predestinates them whom he acknowledges before hand to be of the same form as the image of his Son, to the end that he be the First-born (or chief) of many brethren:" and says God, "I will make him the First-born, higher than the Kings of the earth."

This is enough to prove that "the First" has respect to dignity, not to his being numerically first, so as to prove that Moses was not raised; to affirm which, the objector thinks, would make Jesus a second-born from the dead! It is to be observed also, that Jesus is first in dignity of a resurrection—of some particular resurrection. The unjust are to rise as well as the just. But he is not the First-born out of a resurrection of unjustified dead ones. He came not from their class; but from among the righteous dead ones, who are to rise—from among these, "the Kings of the East," who are to be "the Kings of the Earth;" and of whom he will be the Prince, or Chief King; wherefore he is named "the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords," who in the aggregate are styled by the apostle, ecclesia prototokon, "an assembly of First-borns."

The First-born among the Hebrews, as amongst most other nations of the old world, enjoyed particular privileges; and wherever a plurality of wives was recognised by law, it was highly necessary to define them. In relation to this matter, Moses says, "If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have each borne him children; and if the first-born son be hers that was hated; then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, he may not make the son of the beloved first-born before the son of the hated, who is the real first-born: but he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the First-born, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the First-born is his." From this law, the possibility of a son born after another son by another wife being constituted a first-born, is admitted. But though both First-borns in relation to their individual mothers, only one of them is the First-born of their father; and in favour of him is the enactment made, that his rights may not be prejudiced by his father’s feelings towards his mother. The father’s First-born, among many other first-borns of different wives, was to be "acknowledged" by the father’s bestowal upon him of a double portion of the estate. The reason given is, because he is the beginning of his father’s strength; —physical and industrial, laying the foundation of his future house.

The right of the First-born belongs to the father’s, not to the mother’s, first-born; though it was not always given to the first-born in numerical order, but to a younger son, constituted such by his father’s will. Hence, it is written, "Hosah had sons; Simri, the chief; (for though he was not the First-born, yet his father made him the chief;) Hilkiah the second, Tebaliah the third, Zechariah the fourth." Jacob also transferred the right of the First-born from Reuben, the real first-born, to Joseph. "Reuben shall not excel;" he shall not have the excellency over Israel’s tribes. But "I, Jehovah, am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my First-born"—even Joseph’s younger son; whose father was "separate from his brethren," and therefore made representative of "the Shepherd, THE STONE of Israel." Also Solomon, though younger than Adonijah, was made the First-born of David’s house.

"The form of the knowledge and of the truth," saith Paul, "is in the Law;" which, in another place, he declares is "a shadow of good things to come, not the very image of the things," for "the substance is of Christ." Therefore, as it was the form, shadow, or outline of an image or substance, it was indispensable that the lines should be traceable with the greatest exactness into the substance from which the shadow was cast. A strict injunction was consequently laid upon Moses, that he should "make all things according to the pattern shown to him in the Mount." This he did; for it is testified, that "he was faithful in all God’s house." The "knowledge and the truth" are the substance concerning Christ; who said, "All things must be fulfilled which are written concerning me in the Law of Moses," "who wrote respecting me." Surely this is enough to convince us, that the statutes and ordinances of the Law have a deeper signification than appears in their primary application.

This is true of the statutes concerning the First-born and the First-fruits. Jehovah claimed the First-borns of Israel as his—"Israel is my son, even my First-born. And I say unto thee, Pharaoh, Let my son go, that he may serve me; and if thou refuse to let him go, behold I will slay thy son, even thy first-born." But Pharaoh would not let them go; so "out of Egypt Jehovah called his son," and did unto the first-borns of Egypt as he had threatened. In slaying Egypt’s he redeemed his own First-born from the enemy; and as a memorial claimed all the first-borns in Israel as his, to be purchased for him by their fathers. Their number was 22,273. These were hallowed to the Lord. But instead of retaining them for Aaron’s ministers, to do the service of the tabernacle, he accepted the tribe of Levi in their stead: and as there were 273 more first-borns than Levites, he permitted their redemption at 1,365 shekels, or five shekels apiece, which amount was given to Aaron and his sons.

The First-borns are for Jehovah, not for the High Priest under the law. They are his redeemed, his purchased people, and therefore entitled to all the rights and privileges of first-borns. Jesus holds the first rank among them, having been "called out of Egypt," and redeemed from oppression and death. The redemption of the first-borns in Israel was not without blood under the law; neither was the redemption of Jesus and his brethren a bloodless purchase—it was "a purchased possession," redeemed by "the precious blood of Christ," whose price, at which he was valued by the children of Israel, was thirty pieces of silver. Spiritually, sin and the fear of death are the taskmasters from which all Jehovah’s first-borns are redeemed; politically, the "Dragon, that old Serpent," the spoiler of the First-born nation, in whose deliverance and restitution the first-borns from the grave will receive, with their glorious Chief, "a double portion of all the Father hath" promised to Israel.

As the Levites were given to Aaron and his successors as High Priests of the nation, in lieu of the first-borns of all the tribes, so the "First-borns registered in the heavens," are given to Jesus, Israel’s future High Priest, in lieu of all Israel, to be kings and priests for God in the New Economy. Hence, it is said of him by the prophet, "Behold, I and the children which God hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel." He is Zadoc, or the Just One; "higher than the heavens;" and "the children," like him first-borns from the dead, are given to him for brethren and sons. Hence, Ezekiel styles them "the sons of Zadoc," or sons of the Just One, who, being above the Levites as He is above Aaron, the people’s priests, minister to God as first-borns, hallowed unto him by a redemption-price, much more costly than such corruptible things as silver and gold.

But to return to our correspondent, "J.S." The sceptical opponent to his position objects that, "if Moses were raised from the dead, Jesus could not be the First-fruits of them that slept." That is, if he admits that Moses was a resurrected man, and not a disembodied ghost, he is bound to deny that Jesus is the First-fruits of them that slept; and vice versa, that if he confess that Jesus is the First-fruits, he must deny the resurrection of Moses, and believe that it was Moses’ ghost in company with Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration. These are the horns of his dilemma. He cannot admit that Moses and Jesus are both resurrected men; for if they be, he cannot tell which to acknowledge as the First-fruits! This comes of "not knowing," or understanding, "the Scriptures;" that is, "Moses and the prophets." In other words, because he is ignorant of the Scripture doctrine of the First-fruits, he is under the necessity of adopting a Pagan refuge of lies to save him from point-blank denial of the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, which are comprehended in the idea of his being the First-fruits of them that slept! But the admission of the resurrection and ascension of Moses and Jesus, by no means invalidates the claims of Jesus. A simple question, scripturally answered, will decide between them. Whether did Jesus or Moses arise from the dead and ascend to heaven during the Feast of Weeks, beginning on the 16^th of Nisan, which was the "morrow after the Sabbath," or second day of the feast of the Passover, when the wave-offering of the First Sheaf was made; and ending the morrow after the seventh Sabbath, which was Pentecost? In the absence of this, therefore, nothing can be affirmed respecting him, with this exception, that Moses did not prophesy of himself in his institutions, but of Christ; and that consequently the First-fruits did not signify Moses, but the prophet he represented. But with Jesus the case is different. He rose on "the morrow after the Sabbath," and doubtless ascended on that day, after he spoke with Mary, when the priest in the temple was waving the First-fruits before Jehovah, to be accepted for the nation. This identifies Jesus as the First-fruits, waved before the Lord on his ascension on that day, according to the words which he spoke, saying, "Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to my God and your God." But of the doctrine of the First-fruits I shall write more at large hereafter.

As to the nature of the six thousand devils supposed to be referred to in Mark, I hardly know what answer to give. If by "devils" are meant the ugly bottle-imps and hobgoblins supposed to be the "angels" of the great Devil of Gentile theology, Latin, Greek, Protestant, Pagan, and Mohammedan, I have to confess that I know nothing about their nature, having no acquaintance with them, and finding nothing upon the subject in the Bible. "J.S." had better apply to some of the priests or clergy who deal in theological mysteries, and have so much to do with "devils in hell" and out of it, in converting sinners from their evil deeds to the errors of their clerical ways, and in keeping them loyal and piously adherent to their traditions. They, of course, can tell him all about their nature, which must be extraordinary, seeing that they can live in fire and brimstone for five thousand years, without being consumed, or manifesting the least compunction for their wickedness and unmitigated cruelty upon the poor ghosts, whom the avarice of priests keeps locked in for ages, because their relations on earth are not lavish enough of their "filthy lucre," (so little prized by sacerdotals!) to make them willing to open the gates of hell, or purgatory, and to set them free. I rather think, that the nature of the priests who profess to hold the keys of purgatory is more devilish than the imps or hobgoblins themselves; for these make no pretensions to mercy and good fruits, which the priests do. These add hypocrisy to ferocity—ferocious hypocrites, who, by masses said or sung, profess to have the power of emptying all purgatory into paradise; yet refuse to do it, unless they are gorged with the wealth of the living relations of the dead! Such is the system, miscalled Christianity by fools; and glorified by them in those incarnations of knavery and superstition, the Ninth Pius, and his archiepiscopal representative in New York! Such priests and devils are but different names in my vocabulary for the same abomination.

But I suspect that it is because "J.S." has no faith in orthodox diablery, that he turns hitherward to see if any light can be thrown upon the passage, by which his difficulties, whatever they may be, may be removed. The subject there presented is intricate, but not inexplicable. It has a solution; but whether that which is about to be presented be the right one, the reader must decide for himself.