 |  |
remaining. By what system of controversies do men seek to explain the Bible when the
object of perishing is the sinner? Why should perishing in this special case mean
remaining or enduring in conscious suffering? Dean Alford is responsible for the
following statement:--
"A canon of interpretation which should be constantly borne in mind is that a
figurative sense of words is never admissible except when required by the context."
To this all will heartily agree who believe that God's Word is His revelation, and to
this we seek to adhere. When we read in Heb. 11: 31, "By faith, the harlot Rahab
perished not with them that believed not," we do not understand the word "perish" to
signify living in agony or remorse, but that Rahab was saved from the fate which awaited
the inhabitants of the city of Jericho. Let God be true, though it makes every man a liar.
Let Scripture tell us what "perishing" in Heb. 11: 31 means:--
"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and
old, ox and sheep and ass, with the edge of the sword. . . . and they burnt the city with fire,
and all that was therein. . . . and Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive" (Josh. vi.21-25).
Here inspired comment is absolutely opposite to the orthodox teaching concerning this
word "perish."
In Luke 6: 9 the Lord Jesus, speaking with reference to healing on the Sabbath Day,
says, "Is it lawful. . . .to save life or to destroy it?" Here the word "destroy" (apollumi) is
used in its simple primary meaning, and is contrasted with "save." A reference to
Matt. 12: will show, further, that the Lord used as an illustration the case of saving the
life of an animal. In Luke 17: 27 the same word is used of the flood which "destroyed
them all," and in verse 29 of the effect of the fire and brimstone which fell upon Sodom
and "destroyed them all." When we read Luke 9: 56, "For the Son of man is not come to
destroy men's lives, but to save them," why should we distort the meaning of the word?
why not believe that the Lord used a fit and proper word, indeed the most suitable word
which the language provided?
It is the same word translated "perish" that occurs in that oft-quoted passage
John 3: 16, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Here the
subject is lifted to the highest level. Here is no ambiguous phraseology, neither figure,
nor parable, but plain gospel spoken in solemn earnestness by the Lord Jesus Himself.
He says that there are two alternatives before men, the one - life everlasting, the other -
perishing, utter destruction (Heb. 9:, Josh. 6:), and from this doom He came to save
those who believed in Him. Hence we read in Luke 19: 10, "The Son of man is come to
seek and to save that which was lost (apollumi). Man by nature was on the road which
leadeth to destruction.
The primary meaning "perish," or "destroy," becomes changed in the transition of
language to the derived and secondary meaning "lost." Thus we read of the "lost" sheep,
and the "lost" son in the parables of Luke 15:, and in the "lost" sheep of the house of
Israel in Matt. 10: The fragments left over after the miraculous feeding of the five
thousand were gathered so that nothing should be "lost" (John 6: 12). It is pitiable to