The objection as to Thyatira is all a delusion, as to the principle of the addresses. The churches are addressed as churches and in the character of churches; that is, as standing on the principles on which Christ had placed the church, though noting to the church thus responsible the evils that were coming in. The address is not to Balaam or Jezebel, but to the church, and therein to such as had ears to hear—to the church in character, and in fact to those who had the consciousness of the responsibility in which a Christian stood in that character: the character then, not necessarily the extent of the evil or state, whatever it might be, is noticed. If that state was general deadness, that of course is noticed; if seduction of false doctrine, that is, not to what extent it has acted; the principle of the church being the birth-place of children to Jezebel, and of her adulteries—not the number of her children, but that true saints accepted this condition of things—all this leading to the Lord's coming. In the first church it had left its first love; it is not said how far: that remains true up to Laodicea, but does not characterize the evil which those who have ears to hear have to judge (at the beginning it did), it was the evil with Jezebel allowed: it would have been out of place to say so, though of course it was true. The churches give the distinction of the character of evil, and those in whom good is found, as specially manifested and directed in respect of the state described. No doubt it literally applied to Thyatira at the time, and was to be so received; while for him that has ears to hear it has a voice in all times—what voice? something not applying to a church state at all. For the direct proofs we must go over the general arguments and details, such as the promise to Philadelphia. (Rev. 3:1010Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. (Revelation 3:10).)
Lacking of love, tried faith, persecution, succeeded it—not how many were persecuted. Satan's seat. Then there was infidelity as regards evil in the professing church, and faith was called to look on to the Lord's coming and be faithful: given those who had not mixed themselves up with Jezebel, the rest would be chastened if not cut off. I do not think Protestants are the synagogue of Satan: they are much more Sardis—those who insist on traditional successional religion, religion of ordinances, the modern Judaizers—these are the synagogue of Satan as to the spirit of the thing; and that they thoroughly are, though saints, and Barnabases may be ensnared by them.
As to Rev. 17:1212And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. (Revelation 17:12)—the question is a wider one than the texts cited can decide, not that they are not to the purpose: ᾡραν in John 4:5252Then inquired he of them the hour when he began to amend. And they said unto him, Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him. (John 4:52) is the object of "inquired," as in the form `inquired the hour at which'—as well as at what hour. So Rev. 3:33Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. (Revelation 3:3), οὐ μὴ γνῷς ποίαν ὥραν. Whereas λαμβάνουσι has its object βασιλείαν and in Acts 10:33He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. (Acts 10:3) ὠσεὶ marks it as a point. But all this is somewhat beside the mark. I apprehend it is as used to be said, κατά left out; and the idea of period, a point, depends on the context in the nature of the word: κατὰ τὸ μεσονύκτιον [Acts 16:2525And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God: and the prisoners heard them. (Acts 16:25)]—a point evidently: κατὰ δὲ ἑορτὴν, during, at the time of [Matt. 27:1515Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would. (Matthew 27:15)]: ὤραν ἐννάτην points to the epoch evidently [Acts 10:33He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. (Acts 10:3)], which ὤσεὶ confirms. But with μίαν [see Rev. 17:1212And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. (Revelation 17:12)]—not πρώτην—it is a period. Indeed ἑορτήν is not exactly time, but the time having that character. In general it is a known rule, the time at or in which a thing happens, genitive during which, accusative. As to this I see no great difficulty: it would be merely technical. In Rev. 17:1212And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. (Revelation 17:12) I do not see the smallest doubt. I have nothing to uphold here, for the kings receiving the kingdom at the same time with the beast is equally true: the other mode only determines the equal duration also. Acts 10:3030And Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing, (Acts 10:30), we have at the (ἐννάτην ὥραν—there also it is evident) ninth hour: with μίαν, it is not so, it could have no such sense. See Matt. 20:1212Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. (Matthew 20:12); Mark 14:3737And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, Simon, sleepest thou? couldest not thou watch one hour? (Mark 14:37). Matt. 26:4040And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour? (Matthew 26:40). Whereas κατὰ μίαν σαββάτων, 1 Cor. 16:22Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. (1 Corinthians 16:2), has necessarily the sense of the first, because it is after the sabbath. There is no μίαν ὥραν by itself but for during one hour. The view of the temple is a mistake. The temple or house is always God's house and always the same house. "The latter glory of this house" is Haggai's 9) word, not "the glory of the latter house;" and whoever sets up in it or has built it, it has never ceased to be God's house. So 1 Kings 9:33And the Lord said unto him, I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication, that thou hast made before me: I have hallowed this house, which thou hast built, to put my name there for ever; and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually. (1 Kings 9:3), "I have hallowed this house which thou hast built to put my name there forever; and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually." It will be built as God's house, much more truly than Herod did it. So Christ calls it "my Father's house;" not in reference to who built it (nor did God in fact dwell there—in that sense He was the temple), but because it was by God's original declaration, at all times, God's house. Further, I do not believe in the vast power of Antichrist, though I do in the vast mischief, spiritually speaking. I believe he is the second beast. (Rev. 13)
As to life, it is all captious (though true souls may be troubled by such) from using life in two senses. When I lay down my life I live still with the very same soul I had before. Now I may use life for the state of living, and as living in that state. I live in flesh and blood, and that could not go to heaven: I lose my life, but that only in the state in which I had it—I am just as much alive as ever, "for all live unto him:" "He is not a God of dead but of living." But if it was said that I had the life I had before, it would be wretched and false; because before, or laying down, refers to the state I had it in. Yet I have the life I had before if I speak of my soul, and of the life of Christ I have received. I use this to show it is merely a false quibble by using life in two senses. I never die if I take what my life is—I do, if I take its status and condition; I die and take, or am given at least, my life again. I say this, not that there is no difference in Christ, but to show the point of the fallacy. But Christ clearly never ceased to exist if we take Him in His human soul, to say nothing of His divine nature. But when He laid down His life and took it again, it is not taking again the existence of His soul or His divinity, but the fact of reuniting His soul and body as a living Man. What was essential to Him as His life, He could not take again. It was a living status of soul and body united; as in dying He had given up a living status: but the living status He took up was not the same living status He laid down. This last is distinguished as "the days of his flesh." He has now as risen a different condition in manhood than that He had, neither can He die any more.
But I have no wish to enter on these questions with objectors: [difficulties] produced in minds I may meet, but reasonings on them I am not disposed to meet, because I do not believe in the sincerity of the motives of those who do so. And there is no good in reasoning with such, unless to confound them personally where forced to do it. Half and much more of the cavilers I meet are best met by silence. It is the proof that you do not account that they really desire the truth. It is well to let some things die out, and not give importance to them by combating them. One may have to meet such in individual cases, and then may count on God's help, but positive truth fully taught best meets error. Heretics are generally unsound on something beneath, and deeper than their motives.
I am at this moment doubting about arousing Maurice by a tract on annihilation, and resuscitating one who is evidently to me dying out. Yet he has exposed himself by the greatest effrontery of blundering and done mischief. My conviction is—God has raised up a standard against it (annihilation), though mischief has been done, and it has got into the churches (so called).... I should hardly think a person who took οὐ μὴ...εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα for 'not forever' worthy of replying to; it is evident perverseness. The Greek evidently would be...οὐκ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, etc., at any rate, not μή
[1861.]