CHRIST, THE COVENANT MESSENGER ONLY.

*

*Read before the Baptist Ministers' Conference, Baltimore, 1885.

"The Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple, even the Messenger of the Covenant."-MALACHI iii: 1.

It had now been something over three thousand years since the people of the earth began to look for this "Messenger of the Covenant," or for "the Seed of the woman" who should "bruise the Serpent's head." He is called here the "Messenger of the covenant" for no other reason, that I can see, than that he was under covenant agreement with the Father, having entered into it before the foundation of the world. And for what purpose did he covenant?--None other, according to the Scripture, than that of the redemption and restoration of man to God's favor. Yes, he covenanted to redeem man from the curse of the Law.

I repeat that Christ entered into covenant with God for the sole purpose of redeeming a lost world and bringing it back again to God. It was for this, and this only, that he came to earth. He never covenanted or agreed to come to earth in human form but once, and he never agreed to come but for the one object, as mentioned above, that of rescuing man and restoring him to God's love and favor. Hence I believe that the long held practice of teaching the people that Jesus Christ often assumed a bodily form and descended to earth in that bodily form, is misleading in its tendency, and therefore wrong. I believe it detracts from the dignity and office of Christ, as held by him before his incarnation. I mean that of 000328the second person in the Godhead, and as coequal and coexistent with the Father.

Now, if this was the office which he occupied, which all will admit, then the doctrine is false which proclaims that Christ assumed a human form again and again, to the number of ten different times, as asserted by many, especially by the late Rev. Dr. W. M. Baker, in his "Ten Theophanies." He might as well have said ten thousand, for I believe it could be asserted with just as much propriety, as that he appeared ten times. If he appeared at all in a human form before his incarnation, as recorded in Matthew, why limit him to ten or ten hundred appearances?

If we are to accept the theory, I see no reason for setting any bounds, especially when there were so many occasions on which his personal presence seemed to be needed far more than at the ten mentioned by Dr. Baker and other writers.

I do not accept this doctrine, because I believe that it not only detracts from the dignity of Christ's office, but because it is contrary to both the spirit and direct teaching of God's holy word. In the first place, Christ never agreed to come but once, and but for one purpose. You will find that agreement in Psalm x1: 7,8, "Then said I, Lo, I come; in the volume of the book it is written of me. I delight to do thy will, O God." You will see in Hebrews x: 7, the purpose for which he came, and that was to take away one covenant and establish another; as it reads, "He taketh away the first that he may establish the second." This purpose is seen to run through all the types and shadows, from the time of the promise in the garden of Eden, that "the Seed of the woman should bruise the Serpent's head," until it is proclaimed to the shepherds on the plains of Bethlehem, that "a Saviour is born who is Christ the Lord."

000429

Again, the Scriptures teach, not only that "the Word was with God, but that the Word was God." Now, God humiliated himself only once, and he agreed to do it only once, and he did not agree to that once until there was "none other" found who could do the work. See Revelation vii. This is the teaching of the Scripture, and those who teach otherwise are in conflict with it. Please read Hebrews ix: 26, "But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sins,"-hath appeared once, not ten times. Also read the 28th verse following, "Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many." You may also read I Peter iii: 18, "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God." You see by these passages that Christ came and therefore humbled himself once; for in Phil. ii: 8, it is said, "He humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Yes, it is contrary to Scripture to teach that he assumed a bodily form more than once; for that would be to say that he humbled himself more than once, which is not true, for I hold that he could not take or assume a body of any kind that was different from his own eternal substance, which would not be humiliating to him, whether it were the body of an angel or any other created being.

Turn to Job iv: 18, where it says, "And his angels He charged with folly." Therefore, to take the form of any being capable of committing folly, would certainly be humiliating to Christ. A created being, no matter how holy, must be inferior to himself, because it was created.

Some persons say, that it was only humiliating to him to assume our sinful nature, but I think the line is not to be drawn here between humiliation and no humiliation, but between a greater and lesser humiliation, and that is the difference that exists between a created angel and poor fallen man, which is very great; for if Gabriel 000530were to change his place and become a worm, the contrast would not be half so great. Consequently if Christ had assumed the body of Gabriel or Michael, and come to earth, it would have nevertheless been an astonishing humiliation.

But let us examine the passages on the subject that seem hard to be understood. It is said in Genesis xviii: 1, that "the Lord appeared unto Abraham as he sat in the tent door," and at the same time it is stated that "three men" appeared, who are generally supposed to be angels. This seems to be a coincidence, but it does not appear on this occasion that they came to leave any message with Abraham, but Abraham tells us what they came for, and that was to rest and refresh themselves, and then go on their way to Sodom, as we may well suppose, for the purpose of delivering Lot out of it. But they did not say anything to Abraham about it, or about the birth of Isaac, for this does not seem to have been their business. Their object was that Abraham might give them something to eat and let them rest themselves, as he himself says, in the fifth verse of the same chapter, "for therefor are ye come unto your servant." It is true that Abraham addressed one of them as "my lord," but this was a familiar mode of salutation among the Eastern people, for Sarah, Abraham's wife, used the very same words, and spoke of Abraham as "my lord."

While they sat eating, the three men asked for Sarah, and Abraham told them that she was in the tent; and just at this time the Lord began to speak and to predict the birth of Isaac, or rather to reaffirm his previous covenant with reference to that event, made with Abraham at the same time the covenant of circumcision was made, found in Genesis xvii: 16, which reads thus, "And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her; yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her."

000631

I believe that the same divine Person who made this promise to Abraham was the same who spoke with him in the tent. Scott says of this occasion, in his comment on Genesis xvii: 3, "And Abraham fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying, As for me, behold my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations." He says that Abraham fell on his face and that God continued to talk with him in an audible voice, and so I hold that he talked now in an audible voice, so much so that Sarah heard him in the tent, and he promised to return again, which will make the third time he meets them about the same event.

Having finished eating and resting, the three men rose up and went toward Sodom, the place to which it seems they intended to go. Abraham went with them to show them the way, and while they were journeying, the Scripture states that the Lord said, "Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do?" Now, you see, the Lord said this, not the three men, or any of them, but the Lord; and he told Abraham that he was going down to see if things were as bad as the cry that came up to him indicated; if so he would know. So the men turned their faces and went toward Sodom; but Abraham stopped to talk with God about this matter; and he made his many pleas for Sodom, and for the righteous; and when he was through, the Lord withdrew himself, as he had done at other times.

The next passage we turn to is Genesis xxxii: 24. There we have the narrative of Jacob wrestling with the angel, who is said by some to be the Son of God. Now, if they will show me anything in the Scripture to be done, or that was done, that required the presence of Christ, I will be able to see it in that light. Jacob's name is to be changed, and he is to receive a blessing, which he does receive. But could not an ordinary angel change Jacob's 000732name, if authorized to do so? If Christ must leave the Godhead on all these occasions and come to earth, what can Gabriel and Michael be doing?

Rev.J. Newton Brown, in his Encyclopedia, speaking on the subject of angels, their rank, office, duties and powers, says, that there are different orders of angels, known under different names, led by Michael, Gabriel, and others of the same rank as they. He also adds, (on page 82,) that nothing is more frequent in Scripture than the mission and appearance of good and bad angels, whom God employs to declare his will, to correct, teach, reprove and comfort. Also, God appeared to the patriarchs of old by the medium of angels, who represented him, and spoke in his name. Paul, in Galatians iii: 19, has this to say of angels: "That the law was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator,"--not by the Angel, but "by angels." Now, if angels could decree, order, appoint or establish the Law, in the hand of a mediator, whether the mediator refers to Moses, the priesthood, or to Christ, is it not reasonable to suppose them capable of fulfilling this office of meeting with Jacob? To suppose that Jesus Christ, the second person in the Godhead, must leave it, and assume a body, and come to earth, to perform so small a part of the plan of redemption as that of meeting Jacob, wrestling with him, changing his name and thus blessing him, is absurd! No, a reasonable mind properly exercised will not so conclude. It is true that Jacob said he had "seen God," but he is speaking of how it appeared to him. Let us take the reasonable side of this question and not make an easy Scripture hard to be understood.

Next, we notice the incident that occurred at the burning bush on Horeb. I would say just here, that I make no attempt at trying to explain satisfactorily all there is 000833about some of these passages, for that I am unable to do, but simply to state how I view them. Exodus iii: 2, reads, "The angel of the Lord appeared to Moses, in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush." There are those who hold that by speaking of him as the angel of the Lord, thus using the definite article, Jesus Christ must have been meant, and that the word "Lord" of the Old Testament is the same as "Jehovah," and that this word "Jehovah" means the Christ of the New Testament. I think "Lord" here refers to God the Father, and "the angel of the Lord" refers to one of the commissioned beings of his presence; which Christ had not yet become, but will become in the fullness of time; for Paul says, "When the fullness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the Law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of children." This was his mission and this only. I do not understand the words "angel of the Lord" to signify divinity, but that the mission on which he was sent made him "the" angel or messenger of the Lord to Moses, because there was no other angel present at the time.

Luke, in Acts vii: 30, tells us that it was " an angel ." So you see, according to Luke, there is nothing mentioned that would define this angel to be uncommon, excepting the mission he is on. As to God speaking to Moses out of the bush, I understand the angel to be the same as the mouthpiece or voice of God in the bush. I believe, also, that wherever the word Jehovah occurs in the Old Testament in connection with these angelic appearances, it does not mean Christ, but refers either to God himself or to a commissioned being acting in the name of God. For instance, in giving the law, which the Scripture tells us angels did. (Gal. iii: 19.)

I consider the pillar of cloud described in Exodus xiii: 21, to be a beautiful manifestation of God's presence 000934and protecting care of his covenant people. They needed the cloud for two reasons--to ward off the burning sun, and to stand between them and the Egyptians. The pillar of fire served to lead them by night, when the sun was gone down, so that they could travel by night as well as by day, and lose no time in getting to Red Sea. I believe the angel that went before them was the same as he who is called "the destroying angel," who passed over Egypt, and destroyed the first-born of all the Egyptians, and who is not mentioned again until now. If this were he, and I know of no proof to the contrary, then this could not have been Christ who went before the Children of Israel, for that would not be in keeping with his office work, which was that of Mediator between God and man. He says himself that he came to save men's lives and not to destroy them. Yes, this is the very nature of his office, and has always been; and Jesus must first lay down his own life, and die for man, before he can ever destroy one.

If this be not the same angel as the one who passed over Egypt, then I believe still that it was simply an ordinary angel, because there is nothing about the event to lead me to think otherwise. There is nothing said, and nothing done, that puts it beyond the duty and power of an ordinary angel when commissioned by God to act, for he simply goes before them at times, and behind them at other times. Nothing else is said to be done by him. It is true, the Scripture says, Christ was with them and followed them all through the wilderness, but he followed them as a spiritual rock and not as a visible angel. Is it reasonable to suppose Christ to be both type and antitype? both shadow and substance? I have always taken these appearances to be a part of that great providential plan appointed by God to keep before a lost and darkened world his promise to save them by "him who was to come."

001035

The angel is not seen again until he makes his appearance to Joshua, before Jericho. (Joshua v: 13,14.) Read it, and you will find nothing said about Joshua worshiping the angel and nothing implied in the passage to lead to such a conclusion, that I can see. It says Joshua fell on his face and worshiped, not the angel, for the passage distinctly says that Joshua saw, standing over against him, a man with a drawn sword in his hand, and there seems to be nothing unusual about his appearance except the fact that he is a soldier, probably in strange dress. To show that there is nothing particularly startling or dazzling about the man, Joshua went to him, entered into conversation with him, and is not yet struck with any great awe; he inquires whether he is for them or the enemy, and now for the first time, Joshua seems to be struck with reverence and awe, when he hears the name of the Lord pronounced: "I am captain of the Lord's host," said the angel. At that name Joshua fell on his face. He bowed down because of the name of God, not because of the title captain. He fell down and worshiped whom? not the captain of the Lord's host, but the Lord himself; and Joshua now asks: "And what sayest my lord unto his servant?" using the term "my lord" as a respectful mode of address, such as Sarah had used to Abraham. The captain tells him to take off his shoes, for the place where he stood had become holy ground, holy, of course, because of the presence of the Lord, not of the captain. The angel tells Joshua to take off his shoes, and then he has performed his duty.

He has called the attention of Joshua, who is now on his face before God, with feet bare, and in a state of humiliation, waiting for God to communicate with him, which he does. In the 2nd verse of the sixth chapter of the same book, it reads: "And the Lord said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thine hand Jericho, and the king 001136thereof, and the mighty men of valor." The captain did not say this, but the Lord himself. Now this angel is to be captain to lead the armies of Joshua, and to deliver them, as he had delivered Moses and Israel out of Egypt, on the night he destroyed the first-born in every family of the Egyptians, and as he had done afterwards in going between them and the enemy while on their march to the Red Sea.

Moses is dead, and Joshua is to take the lead; and he will need the same Divine guidance and protection as did Moses, and it is here vouchsafed to him by God himself. God speaks to him in an audible voice, as he did to Abraham. Again I ask for one passage, only one, in prophecy, type, shadow, vision or dream, directly or indirectly stating or implying the personal appearance of Christ on earth before his incarnation as Jesus.

How is it that an angel could fulfill so high and dignified and office as the predictor of the birth of John, and of Christ himself, and yet not be worthy to foretell that of Isaac. Could not an angel, who came to the relief of Christ in the wilderness, and gave him strength in the time of his temptation, have wrestled with Jacob all night or told Laban to say nothing to Jacob, either good or bad? If an angel could perform so high and mighty an office as to come from heaven, guard the tomb of Jesus, make the Roman soldiers fall as dead men, and the earth to quake, and strike all around with terror, by his wonderful power and shining brightness, could not this same angel have met Joshua and told him to take off his shoes?

Angels have yet mighty works to perform in this world's affairs. I think one chief cause of much of the conflict between writers on the subject of Christ's personal appearances on earth before his incarnation is the lack of a proper understanding of the design and purpose of God's prophetic words. To get this wrong is like 001237beginning the wrong way with a mathematical problem. You can never work it out correctly, if so begun. The plan of redemption is a divine problem, and it will not do to attempt its solution with an improper understanding of the prophecies and their design, for they set the problem before us, and all through them we see the promised Messiah. If it is he who is making all these appearances, what can be the meaning of the words of Moses, when he says, "And the Lord your God shall raise up unto you a prophet like unto me." Now, if Christ came to Abraham, Jacob, Joshua, Gideon and others, as a man, is he not already raised up?

What, then, I say, can the wordes of Moses to Israel mean? surely, nothing at all; for why talk about raising him up as a man, if he be already raised up?

The next passage that presents itself is Judges vi. If flies in the hand of God could conquer all the hosts of Egypt, and frogs could cause the hard-hearted and wicked Pharoah to cry out that Moses should plead to God for their removal, why should Christ leave heaven and come to earth as an angel, simply to give courage to Gideon, that he might fight a battle for God? It is truly out of all reason to so construe these Scriptures. This is another coincidence, where God and his angel spoke at the same time, for Gideon says that the Lord spoke to him, and at another time states that an angel of the Lord spoke; so they spoke alternately. Gideon said he had seen an angel of the Lord, and he cried out, as is stated in Judges vi: 22-"And when Gideon perceived that he was an angel of the Lord, Gideon said Alas, O Lord God, for because I have seen an angel of the Lord face to face.'

Great stress is laid upon the fact that the angel caused fire to come forth out of the rock and consume the flesh that Gideon had laid on it for a sacrifice. Now this does not seem as great a miracle as that performed by Elijah, on Carmel, when he called down fire from heaven, which consumed not only the sacrifice on the altar, but burned the stones of which the altar was built. If a staff in the hand of a sinful man like Moses, could touch the hard and flinty rock of the desert and bring forth cool, fresh water, could not an angel burn up the small piece of flesh that Gideon had laid on a rock?

It is held by those who teach this doctrine, that the giving of the law to Moses on Sinai, was an appearance of Christ; but as we are considering only the assumed personal appearances of Christ before his incarnation, I do not see that we need spend time here, for nothing is said about a bodily appearance in the entire narrative. Read Exodus xxiv. It is true the text states that they saw the Lord God of Israel, and so they did, but it was manifest in his glory, majesty, power and might, and not in a visible shape; for it is stated positively in Deut. iv: 12, "And the Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire. Ye heard the voice of his words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice." How any candid mind, seeking for truth pure and simple, can take these words and wrest them from their true meaning, I cannot understand. Note also a part of the 15th verse of that chapter, "For ye saw no manner of similitude on the day the Lord spake unto you."

The appearance of the angel who predicted to Manoah the birth of Samson is so much like that mentioned in Genesis xviii, where the birth of Isaac is foretold to Abraham, that we will simply call attention to it; find the passage in judges xiii. The fact that the angel, on the occasions mentioned, does not forbid worship, does not prove that he was any thing more than a created being, although the person to whom he appeared, bowed and 001339worshiped, in almost every instance; the worship was not offered to the angel, but to God, in the presence of the angel. It is further contended that if it were not a divine being that made these appearances, when the men fell before him, he would have forbidden their worship, as did John, in Revelation xx: 8. There John says, "And I fell at his feet to worship him, and he said unto me, "See thou do it not, for I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren, that have the testimony of Jesus; worship God." Here you will see it is distinctly stated that John bowed to worship the angel, but in none of the other passages to which I have had reference, does it so read, nor is it stated in any of them, that the worship was intended for the angel, but for God, therefore the angel did not forbid it. There are too many angels who surround God's throne, who watch and wait to do his bidding, for him to have to send Jesus Christ off again and again, to fulfill these ordinary missions. It has been proven sufficiently, to my mind, that any one of them could have performed these duties. Truly, the more one thinks on the doctrine of repeated theophanies, the weaker it grows, and here is a wonderful array of facts which present themselves against it. Moses in Egypt could turn a rod into a serpent, and dust to flies, and change water to blood, and thus make Pharoah release the Children of Israel, but after they have gone, and are well on their journey, even to Succoth, then according to this doctrine, Jesus Christ must assume the body of an angel and come down from heaven to lead them the balance of the way to the Red Sea! And why? No reason whatever is given.

Elijah, by prayer, could shut up the heavens for three years and six months, and then open them again; and he could call down fire from heaven upon two bands of soldiers sent to arrest him; and he was worthy enough to 001440anoint two kings; could cross the Jordan by performing a miracle, and leave his last blessing upon the school of the prophets, and ascend to heaven in a chariot of fire; and yet we are told that Christ must come from heaven to tell Joshua to take off his shoes! Yes, the Father, Son, and Spirit could remain in heaven, and with a few ram's horns in the hands of the priests, led by Joshua, cause the walls of Jericho to tumble down, and take the city, but Christ must come to tell Joshua that the ground on which he stood was holy! Who can believe this?

The epistle to the Hebrews opens thus: "God, who at sundry times and in divers manner, spake in times past unto our fathers by the prophets, in these last days spoken unto us by his Son." Now, if God has been speaking to us all this time by his Son, what is the meaning of the passage just quoted? Certainly nothing.

But, finally, the greatest reason why I do not believe this teaching, is because it is contrary to the whole plan of redemption, which was to be manifested to us by types and shadows. Then was the Son of God to come and fulfill them.

Lastly, why is it, if these appearances were a part of the great and wondrous plan of redemption, that none of the prophets ever told us so? I hold that there is not one word of prophecy, from Genesis to Malachi, that states or implies that Christ was expected to make a personal appearance on the earth previous to his incarnation as recorded in the New Testament; and again I ask, if Christ's visits to earth were to form a part of the plan of redemption, in types and shadows, why were we not told so by some of the prophets? and if Christ made those appearances, why is there no passage in the New Testament so stating the fact? And if Christ has already appeared ten times, how can we with any sense of propriety speak of his next coming as a second advent?

0015

PRAYING TO SEE GOD'SGLORY.

001643

PRAYING TO SEE GOD'SGLORY.

"And he said, I beseech thee, show me thy Glory."-Exodus xxxiii:18.

A STRANGE prayer, this of Moses! Indeed, as one thinks on it, he is led to feel that it is vain and out of place on the part of Moses, and it is so, if the popular view taken of the text is the correct one, for if there was a being on earth, at that time, who had seen the glory of God manifested, that being was Moses. Having seen, as he had, that great and beautiful display of God's glory on Mount Horeb, in the burning bush, and having had made known to him at the same time, the particular and proper name of God, "I am that I am,"--and having been so mysteriously called of God, and commissioned to go and deliver Israel out of Egypt, he could not be ignorant of the glory of God. Then, he had seen the glory of God's power made manifest in Egypt in signs and wonders, while contending with the magicians; and in the plagues that followed. And he had seen what had transpired on that awful night of the institution of the Passover and the death of the first-born of the Egyptians; also that triumphant deliverance that saved them from the hand of the destroying angel, with all of its attendant wonders and mysteries. Nor could he have forgotten that night of encampment at the foot of Sinai, when the mountain shook, the thunder roared, and the lightning 001744flashed, and the darkness came down, and rested on the mount. No, he could not have forgotten that he had seen all of these, and recognized them as displays of God's glory.

Who will, after stopping and thinking on all these facts, say that Moses, in the passage quoted as a text, was praying to see God's glory? I think no one, for Moses cannot be asking God to do what he has already done, and is at the very time of the offering of this prayer, still doing. Yes, he had displayed the glory of his goodness in that he had heard the prayers of the children of Israel, and had sent him to save them. He had also shown the glory of his goodness in that he did not suffer the enraged king of Egypt to harm him while he did his will and work. And he had shown the glory of his goodness by not suffering the destroying angel to enter any home of the children of Israel, on that memorable night of the Passover. And he had shown the glory of his power by raising up an army of deliverance from among the dust and insects of Egypt, and by turning their pools and rivers of water into blood. He had seen the glory of his justice in the punishment of the wicked Pharoah and the rulers of Egypt, in the destruction of their first-born, both of man and beast, by smiting them in field and house, and showing that he will not acquit the guilty. The glory of his wisdom was plain before him, as seen in planning and creating this world of ours, for in writing the history of the creation, he said, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and God formed man out of the ground." Can any one read all this, and still contend that Moses was praying to see God's glory, either in the sense of a further display of it, or in the sense that he had not seen it at all? I cannot think that Moses was praying to see the glory of God in either sense. It is certainly not found in the text, and 001845the context teaches otherwise. What, then, is the true meaning of this prayer?

To my mind, it is this: God had declared that he would not go with them to the land of Canaan. (Ex. xxxiii:3.)

"For I will not go up in the midst of thee, for thou art a stiff-necked people, lest I consume thee in the way." The succeeding verse reads, "And when the people heard these evil tidings, they mourned, and no man did put his ornaments on." The fifth verse throws further light on the subject. God declares that not only will he not go to the promised land with them, but that he is incensed at their strange conduct toward him, but that he is going up in the midst of them to consume them. "For the Lord said unto Moses, Say unto the children of Israel, Ye are a stiff-necked people. I will come up in the midst of thee, in a moment, and consume thee, therefore put off thy ornaments from thee that I may know what to do unto thee." He commands the tabernacle to be removed out of the camp, and taken afar off from it, to show that he was so displeased that he would not let his dwelling remain in their midst. To the Israelites this was a sore trial and a great disgrace, for the tabernacle, with the ark of the covenant and the mercy seat upon which God condescended to sit, was the great distinguishing feature between them and the heathen nations around them, in that God was thus ever present to hear and answer their prayers, and thus honoring them with his personal presence made them great indeed in the eyes of all the other nations. But now he has removed and left them.

The 12th verse shows that Moses also felt this act very keenly, and he calls God's attention to the command he had given him, in the first verse, and to what he had declared in the fifth verse, that he threatened to destroy them in a moment of time. Therefore, Moses wanted to know how the command in the first verse could be carried 001946out if his threat in the sixth verse should be fulfilled. "And Moses said unto the Lord, See, thou sayest unto me, Bring up this people, and thou hast not let me know whom thou wilt send with me." I understand Moses to say, that there will be no people to bring up, if God consumes them all. Moses also called the Lord's attention to the fact that he said he had found grace in his sight. But within the last five days the faith of Moses had been somewhat staggered and he prays, (thirteenth verse,) "Now, therefore, if I have found grace in the sight, show me thy way that I may know thee," that is, understand thee and the manner of thy dealing with us. For God had surprised Moses and all Israel by the manner in which he was then dealing with them. He had ordered the tabernacle to be pitched without the camp, and had threatened to consume them, hence Moses desired to know what this meant, and continued, in the same verse, to request God to consider that this nation is his people. This was not presumption in Moses, because he was only doing what God intended all men should do. "Come," said God, "let us reason together;" and he was reasoning with God about taking them to the land of Canaan, and the impression it would make on the heathen if he destroyed them or refused to go with them, that is, if he withheld the tabernacle, ark and mercy seat, which were the symbols of his visible presence.

I believe the passage to teach that Moses considered that he had seen the glory of God displayed in all its fullness, wonder, grandeur and power, and that if God should now blot out Israel, or refuse to carry them into the land of Canaan, he would simply destroy the results of that wonderful display of his glory, as manifested in the burning bush on Mount Horeb, in Egypt, on Sinai; and indeed all the evidences which showed him to be a God able to deliver and mighty to save. Moses, with 002047this view before him, meant by his prayer to God, If you blot out all this work by consuming Israel, then show me your glory--in what will it consist?

God then told Moses that he had an innate, inherent and essential glory which had never been displayed, and promised him a partial vision of this, but with covered face.

How mysteriously wonderful are the circumstances that gave rise to this prayer of Moses! He had been on the mount with God, forty days and forty nights, had received the law for the government of Israel, had come down will full intent to put it into execution, when to his utter astonishment he found that the people had turned away from God, to worship a golden calf, which they had compelled Aaron to make. This so incensed Moses that he broke the tables of the law; and God declared he would destroy the whole people. Hence, the prayer of Moses in their behalf. Well may we here quote the words of the Apostle James, "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." Let us imitate his example, and when in trouble and danger, use the same remedy. It availed much, in that it caused the wrath of God to be turned away, and he was reconciled to Israel, and it also availed much in that it left a noble pattern for our guidance.