Editorial by Editor

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Sep 9, 1897

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 23, No. 35.

Editorial

By Editor

THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD.

"And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth." And Jesus said, "As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world. When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay, and said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam (which is by interpretation Sent). He went his way, therefore, and washed, and came seeing." John 9:1-7.

In this simple story we learn how literally true are the words of Jesus, "I am the light of the world." Here was a poor man who in the midst of light was walking in darkness. Jesus said, "I am the light of the world," and immediately gave the man sight. It is very evident that the poor man was wholly dependent on Jesus and his word for his sight. Jesus was literally to him the light of day.

But that case is only illustrative. What Jesus was to that man, he is to all. He is literally the light of the world. "All things were made by him" (John 1:3), and "by him all things consist" (Col. 1:17). God has set his glory upon the heavens. Ps. 8:1, R. V. The light of which the sun was made bearer, is nothing less than "the light of the glory of God." All the light of this world came from the word of God, who said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

It was this same word that gave light to the poor, blind man. There was no healing virtue in the clay, nor in the water; but the man obeyed the command, "Go and wash," and in those words of Jesus he found the light. Thus he found that the words, "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path," are most strictly and literally true. He who follows Christ can not walk in darkness, because he has the light of life. John 8:12.

The man upon whom this miracle was wrought was only a poor beggar, who until that day had never seen the light, yet as soon as the miracle was performed, he had more true knowledge of the light than all the learned Pharisees and doctors of the law had. Note his clear and decisive answers under cross-questioning. When there was a doubt expressed as to his being the same blind man who begged by the wayside, he settled that question by saying, "I am he." He was not ashamed to acknowledge his low degree.

NEITHER was he ashamed to acknowledge his dependence upon Jesus for his sight. On being asked how his eyes were opened, he said, "A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash; and I went and washed, and I received sight." It was a simple testimony to the truth, and therein lay its convincing power. The most learned man in the city could not have told it any better.

THEN there was a dispute as to the character of Jesus. First he bluntly declared, "He is a prophet." Note that he did not give it as his opinion or belief, but as a fact that admitted of no dispute. In his simplicity he did not presume to advance theories, but stuck to what he knew, and that was far better than theories. If professed Christians, and Christian teachers, were better acquainted with the practical facts of the Gospel, there would be far less groping among systems and theories.

FURTHER than these simple facts, the young man would not allow himself to be enticed. To the Pharisees' declaration that Christ was a sinner, he replied, "Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not; one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see." That was a fact which the Pharisees would gladly forget, but the young man held them to it; and it really settled the whole question. For to give sight to a man born blind, was a creative act, and showed divine power. That being admitted, there could be no further question as to the character of Jesus.

THE result was characteristic. The Pharisees could not gainsay the facts so simply yet graphically told by the man, but they were loath to accept the light that had so brightly dawned upon him, and so they said, "Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us?" and they cast him out of the synagogue. When men meet facts which they can not overthrow and will not accept, they betray their confusion by appealing to their age, or their position, or their learning.

BUT the great lesson for us to learn is the reality of the light which God gives by his Word, and the positive assurance with which those must speak who have received that light. If all the philosophers in

the world should unite to demonstrate that the sun is an opaque body, and that we actually receive no light from it, the most ignorant man in the street could say, "I don't know anything about your science, but I know I see;" and with that fact he could overturn all their theories. So the simple man whose eyes are opened to see "the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ," can silence every learned objection with the simple declaration, "I was blind; now I see." Doubtless few will accept the truth through his simple testimony; but he may be sure that those who will not accept it on such evidence, would not accept it under any circumstances. One thing that an unlearned man knows is worth more than ten million things that wise men do not know. Ellet Joseph Waggoner

A SHOT AND ITS RECOIL.

A ROMAN CATHOLIC priest, M. O'Keefe, in a sermon published in the Catholic Mirror of August 14, replies to a Methodist Protestant clergyman who attempts to defend Sunday, and his (the clergyman's) observance of it, by declaring that if he had the Holy Spirit to teach him, he was "abundantly privileged." Thus it is that Mr. O'Keefe replies:—

Before I proceed to analyze his interpretation of these words, I would ask him, Did he have the Holy Spirit to teach him, 1st, That it was the practice of Christ and the apostles to keep Sunday? 2d, Did the Holy Spirit inspire him to keep Sunday, whilst he inspired the apostles and evangelists to keep Saturday to the last hour of their lives? And, 3d, Did the Holy Spirit instruct him to contradict the plain Word of God by keeping Sunday, whilst every page of the apostolic writings says Saturday? The spirit that inspired Rev. Bryan is evidently in direct conflict with the Holy Spirit, and is necessarily not the spirit of truth, but the spirit of error, of darkness, of uncompromising falsehood, who inspires him to contend against "the known truth."

Now this is a logical argument, and a fatal shot to the Sunday cause. But the recoil is just as heavy against the teaching of the Catholic Church; for if she has a spirit which teaches her to teach contrary to the Word of God and the example of Christ and his apostles, what spirit is it? On the Bible ramparts such shots are harmless.