The recent peaceful gestures and conciliatory moves of Russia toward the West may have caused some people to assume that the voracious bear has suddenly been transformed into a gentle lamb. This, alas, is not true. Russia's aim is still the domination of the world by communism directed and controlled from Moscow, and her present attitude is but one phase of the drive to attain her goal. We are reminded of the words of Peter the Great of Russia: "Peace is made subservient to war, and war to peace, in the interest of the aggrandizement and increasing prosperity of Russia." If a peaceful appearance will gain more for her than a bellicose attitude, then it will be used, and vice versa.
Perhaps another statement of Peter the Great may throw some light on the present moves: "No opportunity must be lost of taking part in the affairs and disputes of Europe, especially in those of Germany, which from its vicinity is one of the most direct interest to us." The prospective rearmament of Western Germany, and integration into a Western alliance a n d Western army, might well cause war to be made subservient to peace so that Russia might have a voice in determining the final outcome of that strategically important country.
We make these observations so that our readers may not get their hopes on "peace on earth" at this time. That pronouncement was made when the Lord Jesus came into this world (Luke 2:1414Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. (Luke 2:14)), but when He was rejected and about to be cast out of it, the disciples said, "peace in heaven" (Luke 19:3838Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest. (Luke 19:38)). This difference is not without significance T h e "Prince of Peace" has been crucified, and when He returns it will be to first cleanse the world by sore judgments.
World statesmen would do well to remember Isa. 33:11Woe to thee that spoilest, and thou wast not spoiled; and dealest treacherously, and they dealt not treacherously with thee! when thou shalt cease to spoil, thou shalt be spoiled; and when thou shalt make an end to deal treacherously, they shall deal treacherously with thee. (Isaiah 33:1): "Woe to thee that spoilest, and thou wast not spoiled; and dealest treacherously, and they dealt not treacherously with thee!" There is very good reason, from the context of the portion, to believe that Russia is being described in those words: spoilest and dealest treacherously. Here is a summary of the connecting portions:
Isaiah 31 gives the destruction of "the Assyrian" (vv. 8, 9), also called "the king of the north." He will be the implacable foe of the Jews; his territory will lie immediately to the north and east of Palestine. He will come against the Jews and their false king in Jerusalem just before the Lord comes out of heaven, and he will fall before Him.
Isaiah 32 Then declares, "Behold, a King shall reign in righteousness, a n d princes shall rule in judgment." This follows the overthrow of the Assyrian-Messiah sets up His kingdom and calls the dispersed of Israel back to their land.
Then Isaiah 33 tells of another foe who has made a practice of spoiling and dealing treacherously. We know from Ezekiel 38 and 39 that this last foe of Israel is none other than Russia, who with her satellites will come down against the Jews in their own land when they are dwelling safely after having been "gathered out of many nations." One of our readers wrote to us regarding our recent re view of the new Revised Standard Version, saying that he did not feel we had attacked it strongly enough. Perhaps there may be others who feel the same way; hence, a few words of explanation. We hope that we have not encouraged anyone to procure a copy of this work in which there is evidently an insidious attack against the Person of our Lord and Savior. On the other hand, we felt that what was needed was a careful analysis and fair appraisal of this R.S.V., and not merely some name-calling. To hurl epithets at the revisers or make acrimonious charges against either them or their work would not enlighten anyone.
We have seen some writings against the R.S.V. that are regrettable, for in them charges were made that were unfair, and some were untrue. Such attacks only serve the enemy, and tend to bring any criticism of the revision into disrepute. These pitfalls, we sedulously sought to avoid.
Another question has also been raised concerning whether one should or should not make a study of Greek and Hebrew in order to understand what is intended in the original writings of Scripture. We readily admit that it is the privilege of anyone who feels clear before the Lord to do so, to study German, French, Spanish, Hebrew, Greek, or any other language, ancient or modern. This is not the point at issue in the question raised. The proposition posed is: Does a casual knowledge of the original Hebrew or Greek put one in a position to take the place of a textual critic, either as to the correct text, or the meaning of the same? Now we know and acknowledge that only by men of understanding of these ancient languages could we have a translation of the Bible into our own language, but the little Greek or Hebrew that most of us would have time to acquire would be of limited value. We know what a tedious and endless task it is to acquire a fair working knowledge of English, and that is nothing to be compared with the attempt to make a thorough study of Greek or Hebrew. Anything less than a mature understanding of either of these languages might be injurious, for with only a superficial knowledge of a language one could easily make very serious mistakes. There is always lurking in the superficial knowledge of anything the danger that one may think he has mastered the subject, whereas a more complete understanding would make him know how little he really knew.
Then there is another point to be considered: if one acquired a very complete knowledge of either Greek or Hebrew, would he have access to the multitude of manuscripts and renderings that exist? or would he have to accept one text which may in itself be in error? And if one had access to all manuscripts, would he have the mature judgment to be able to weigh the evidences for and against certain renderings?
God has raised up men who had both the educational and spiritual qualifications to undertake this work, and they had access to the necessary manuscripts. In our judgment it is far wiser to read the regular King James Version, and compare it with such translations as J. N. Darby's and W. Kelly's for any variations. In that way we shall come to a more accurate understanding of the text as given by God than were we to attempt our own examination of the originals. We shall also save much time that would be spent on the study of these languages, and which may more profitably be used in reading the Word of God in our mother tongue. O that we all would read and meditate more upon the Word of God, and in more simplicity! This is a crying need of the day.
In closing we shall quote a few words from the pen of W. Kelly which may be appropriate here. He was a master in Greek and could speak from experience and observation:
"My experience, beloved friends—and I know a little about what these men [scholars] have said and written—is this, that there are no men less to be trusted than mere scholars, because, being scholars, they are naturally apt to be proud of their scholarship; and whatever we are proud of is always the very thing in which God will humble us. There is a mistake that Christian people often make. They very often overvalue the knowledge of a little Greek or less Hebrew. Depend upon it, that to know the English Bible well is far better than to know somewhat of Greek or Hebrew; and I have rarely found that knowing a little of these languages has any other effect ordinarily than to give a good deal of conceit. It enables persons, of course, to talk about knotty points, especially to those that do not understand them; but I do not think that really profitable for either party.
"However, I will not expatiate upon this, although no doubt it has its practical lesson because, among active minded Christians, such as those who are present, there is very often a strong desire to know accurately the things that God wrote. Now, if He gives means and opportunity, I would not say a word to discourage; but I do advise you, before you begin, not to expect too much from it. Whatever may be the opportunities that you can look to for learning, you are never likely to be great scholars. You may learn a little; but you must remember that as those of old who translated the Bible were men of real learning, so you are never likely, in this respect, to compare with them; nor can you hope to get by such study beyond what you have already got in the English Bible.
"Is there no means then of getting further light? Certainly, and here we have a little help in the margin; for God takes care, in His grace, to raise up persons who, perhaps, spend a great deal of a long, laborious, and uninterrupted life in many of these pursuits; but even this would enable them, you may depend upon it, only to speak with considerable moderation. I think you will find that persons who know most are apt to speak most moderately. They are diffident, after all, as to their own judgment; and although they would give it where it is called for, they would not pronounce so dogmatically as a learner.
Through such helps God corrects mistakes for His people."
From "Daniel's Seventy Weeks, A Lecture at Seymour Hall, London," 1876, pp. 13, 14.