the river Euphrates." Here we have the full extent stated, and limits fixed, to the gift which the Creator of all was pleased to bestow upon Abram's seed. Nothing can be more explicit. They were to have the land lying between the great Euphrates and Egypt's mighty river, the Nile. This, it must be admitted, is taking the words in their common acceptation, in their simple, obvious and literal signification; and therefore, doubtless, the true sense in which God intended us to take them. Again and again the promise is renewed and the gift confirmed, sometimes in general, at others in more definite terms. In the next chapter but one, a most important addition is made: God tells Abram, "And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land, . . . for an everlasting possession." The children of Abraham have thus two points secured to them: first, the extent of the Land of Promise,-from the Nile to the Euphrates;—and secondly, the duration, or continuance, of the gift-they are not to possess the land for a few years or generations, but for an everlasting possession.

Thus far, all, I believe, will allow that our statement of the case is plain and straightforward. It is when we come to examine the results which followed God's promises—when we seek to trace their accomplishment on the page of history-that difficulties are started, and great divergencies of opinion exhibit themselves. First in order and importance is the difficulty, that Abraham's children never possessed the land to the full extent of the original promise; and next, that so far from having it for an everlasting inheritance, God's people possessed it, as the prophet complains, but a little while. The fact is, as we shall show hereafter, that only of a few hundred years at the utmost can it be said that the Jews possessed their land in any shape whatever. To us, who bear in mind that God's promises are yea and amen in Christ Jesus; that "God is not a man that He should lie, nor the son of man that He should repent;" such objections are most easy of solution. Those parts of prophetic truth which have not had as yet their accomplishment are only awaiting their future fulfilment. In God's own good time, and in the way which seems best to Him, a perfect, complete, and entire fulfilment of all which He hath spoken will assuredly take place.

We rejoice to know that there are many Christian people who join with us, and are prayerfully looking for the conversion, restoration, and re-establishment of Israel in their own land. But there are others, who still hold to old traditional modes of interpreting the Scriptures. Some of these tell us that Abraham's seed were to possess the land if they did not forfeit it by their disobedience; i.e., it was given to them conditionally, just as the throne of Israel was to Solomon. But surely Abraham could not have understood the promise made to him in this

sense, as no such terms are expressed. The covenant had been made with him, and the promise followed; they are linked together as cause and effect. Others attempt to weaken and dilute the force of the term "everlasting possession." They would have it to mean as long as the Jewish Church lasted, and no further; but this is a most gratuitous assumption, without the slightest authority for it. A third class of interpreters argue from effect to cause-since Israel has not, and never had, the land in its fullest extent, it was not intended in God's promise that they should have it so. Thus Bishop Patrick says, on Gen. xv. 18:"River of Egypt,' so Nile is commonly called, but cannot be here meant, because the Israelites never enjoyed the land of Egypt on this side Nile." He, and others with him, explain, therefore, the river of Egypt to refer to a small brook, or Wady, anciently called Rhinocorura, and now Wady-el-Arish; but they seem to forget that the word in the original Hebrew is (Nahar), not (Nachal). The latter term signifies sometimes a river, at others the valley or Wady through which a river flows; the former is never used to signify a Wady or brook, but always a flowing river; and as in Gen. xv. the word is (Nahar), a river, and, moreover, is joined to the word Egypt, it cannot mean anything else but the river of Egypt, the Nile. This is confirmed by Josh. xiii. 8, where God directs the aged warrior to divide the remaining land among the tribes, though as yet it was neither possessed nor subdued by them. Among the parts to be divided, God reckons the territory "from Sihor, which is before Egypt, even unto the borders of Ekron;" i.e., from the eastern branch of the Nile, justly characterised as being before Egypt. The term Sihor wherever else found in Scripture refers to the Nile, allusion being made to its black or muddy waters (shahor, black). Thus we read, "And by great waters, the seed of Sihor, the harvest of the river, is her revenue." Again, "What hast thou to do in the way of Egypt to drink the waters of Sihor ? or what hast thou to do in the way of Assyria to drink the waters of the river ?"t

Moved by these and other considerations, modern commentators apparently yield the point at issue, and allow that the words of the promise to Abram convey the whole of the lands between the Euphrates and the Nile. This, however, is only in appearance, for they subjoin remarks of a most astounding character. One writes on Gen. xv. 18:-"The river of Egypt is the Nile, and not the brook of Egypt, the boundary stream Rhinocorura, Wady-el-Arish. According to the oratorical character of the promise, the two large rivers, the Nile and the Euphrates, are mentioned as the boundaries within which the seed of Abram would possess the promised land, the exact limits of which are more minutely described in the list of the

tribes who were then in possession." Oratorical character of the promise! As if the Divine Bestower was carried away by the flow of his oratory, and promised more than he intended to give! Another says:-"Many understand not the Nile, but Wady-el-Arish, which, however, is called the brook or stream of Egypt, as in Isa. xxvii. 12,—not the river of Egypt. The boundaries of the future possession are not described with minute exactness, but they are marked as reaching from the valley of the Euphrates to the valley of the Nile." Can any Christian imagine that God's promises were ever given with inexactness? -that they do not mean all that they say, and that we shall find ourselves mistaken if we take them in their fullest sense? Away with such comments! "Let God be true, but every man a liar." We hold firmly and steadfastly to the divine promise, and in due time shall find, that not one thing shall fail of all the good things which the Lord hath spoken. Heaven and earth may pass away, but the word of God abideth for ever.

Thus far we endeavoured to show what the full extent of the promise made to the patriarch really imports,-viz., the lands lying between the Nile and the Euphrates ;-but were we even to adopt narrower limits, and allow that the borders of Israel's patrimony reached only to Rhinocorura, or Wady-el- Arish, we still contend tha God's people had not yet possessed the entire country made over to them by the Abrahamic covenant. A glance at the history of the conquest of Palestine by Joshua will show us, that at his death the land was far from having been conquered or subdued. Divine providence permitted this as a test of Israel's faithfulness, whether they would steadfastly walk in the ways of the Lord or not ;* nevertheless it remains a fact that at the decease of that hero, they had not got the whole land in possession. The times of the Judges, which followed, were times of hard protracted struggles, not for the extension or consolidation of Israel's conquests, but for the very life and existence of the nation. Within a period of less than three hundred ⚫ years they were five times reduced to serve other nations,—some of those very nations whom they were to have driven out of the land. The first of Israel's kings fell fighting on Gilboa; a great part of David's life was spent in wars with the Philistines, and it was not till the latter part of his reign that he obtained something like rest from his enemies. Yet even then, neither he nor Solomon his son had the whole of the Promised Land in possession. Let not any Christian readers be startled at this statement. I know that it is customary with many writers, and not a few commentators, to set at rest their own conscience and that of their readers by observing of the victories of David, "Thus was the Promised Land put into the entire possession of the Hebrews by David." But let us impartially examine whether historical facts support this assertion, or, as I believe, entirely contradict it.

* Jud. ii. 22.

And, in the first place, a few words as to the continuance of the Promised Land in the hands of the Hebrews. This lasted but for a very short period. From the time that David subdued the Philistines and other enemies of his nation to the death of Solomon we may calculate some sixty years. After the death of David, and during the lifetime of the wise king, several of the vanquished nations threw off Israel's yoke and established their own independence. Now we have seen above that the gift of the Promised Land was to Abram and his seed "for an everlasting possession," and we naturally ask, Are fifty years to be taken as the full equivalent and entire accomplishment of the promise made to the patriarch? Certainly not. We feel confident that every lover of the Bible will repudiate such paltry and inadequate accomplishments, for they tend to the derogation of God's holy word, and afford occasion of reproach to the enemies of revelation.

But passing over the astonishing brevity of the time that the nations of Canaan were in subjection to Israel, let us turn our attention to the question, Did the Hebrews ever possess the Promised Land in its entirety? I have no hesitation in saying that they did not. Even in the palmiest days of David and Solomon, extensive and important provinces were in the power of the Canaanites. Tyre and Sidon existed as an independent kingdom on the west coast of Palestine. Hiram, their king, was a friendly neighbour to David, but not his subject or tributary. In the time of Solomon a still greater intimacy existed between the Hebrew king and the Canaanitish prince; but we never read of their standing in the relation of liege and lord. The Tyrians supplied Solomon with the requisite timber for his buildings-not in bond service, as the other Canaanites did, but in exchange for corn and oil which they drew from his kingdom. Again, when Solomon presented Hiram with cities which did not please him, he had both the confidence and the power to refuse, and express his disregard of them. These facts clearly prove that Hiram was an independent sovereign of a free and independent nation.

Another free and independent people were the Giblites. They are mentioned in 1 Kings v. 32, along with Hiram's men, and, like them, were independent people, working for wages, or as hired men, in preparing stones and timber for Solomon's buildings. We find nowhere that the Hebrews ever possessed themselves of the land of the Giblites; and their being mentioned in the above passage after Hiram's builders, and not after Solomon's, clearly implies that they did not belong to the latter. That Tyre, Sidon, and the land of the Giblites were included in, and formed part of, the Promised Land, is evident from Joshua xiii. 1-8, where the Lord commands Joshua to divide those very lands amongst

the tribes of Israel.

* 1 Kings xi. 14.

The city of Gezer appears also to have been independent of the Hebrews. It was indeed conquered by Joshua,* and allotted to the tribe of Ephraim, but the Canaanites must have re-taken it and kept independent possession till the days of Solomon. We are told, "Pharaoh, king of Egypt, had gone up, taken Gezer, and burnt it with fire, and slain the Canaanites that dwelt in the city, and given it for a present unto his daughter, Solomon's wife."t Had Gezer been under the rule of Solomon, it would seem passing strange that Pharaoh should go up, take one of the cities in subjection to his son-in-law, and give it back to him in dowry with his daughter.

From these and other facts we gather that even under the sway of David and Solomon, there were parts of the Holy Land which were not subject to Israel's dominion. The greatest part by far was in their power, and hence they looked forward with reasonable hope and expectation that the remaining portions would likewise soon follow. As those provinces mentioned above never after came under Hebrew dominion, and as God's promises cannot fail, it follows very naturally that the Promised Land will be re-occupied and re-possessed by Abraham's seed, to a wider and larger extent than either in the days of David or those of his son. All this is in perfect harmony with God's dealings known to us. He often gives to His people one part of a gracious promise, to encourage them to look with more fervent hope for the other. Let us take, for instance, the prophecy of Joel (ii. 28-32), which St. Peter applies to the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. On examining those passages it will become evident, that he could only have intended to point to them as a beginning or primary accomplishment of those wonderful declarations by the prophet; but to the full realisation of them the Church still looks forward in hope and full assurance of faith. In like manner, in the case of Israel's inheritance, what was possessed by the nation afforded the surest pledge, that in due time the promise made to the father of the faithful would have its fullest and happiest accomplishment.

Josh x. 33; xii. 12.

† 1 Kings ix. 16.

There is a passage in 1 Kings iv. 21 upon which great stress has been laid as if proving that Solomon possessed all the land that God covenanted with Abraham to give to his posterity. It says, "And Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the river unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt: they brought presents and served Solomon all the days of his life." But the word here is not river; it does not say unto the river of Egypt, but unto the border of Egypt, and we cannot tell how far the Egyptians may have pushed their border into territory not occupied by Hebrews. From what has been said before, of provinces which were not subject to Solomon (Tyre, Sidon, the land of the Giblites, &c.), and of those who threw off his yoke (Edom, Syria), it will be evident that the words used must be understood with some limitation, and signify that he reigned over a great part of the Promised Land.

§ Acts ii. 17-21.