Earlier text: The Sabbath and Sunday TrainsMORALITY OF THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT.
By L. A. Reed
ONE Sunday morning not long since, I had the opportunity of listening to a sermon by a Christian (Campbellite) minister. He was trying to impress upon the minds of his hearers the necessity of their observing Sunday more sacredly. In the course of his remarks, he related the following incident which, to my mind, quite aptly illustrates the morality of the fourth commandment:— "There once lived a rich man who had in his orchard a tree on which grew seven large bunches of fruit. Near him lived a poor man who had no orchard and hence no fruit. When the fruit had become fully ripe, this rich man, desiring to show an act of kindness to his poorer neighbor, took six of the bunches of fruit and gave them to him. Of course the poor man was greatly pleased and thanked his benefactor for his kind act. But, when his wealthy neighbor had gone away, he began to think of the present he had received, and, counting over the bunches, he remembered that, originally, there were seven upon the tree. He had six, the other one must still be there. He continued to think of that one bunch he had not received until it seemed to him more important and desirable than the six he had received. Oh, if he could only have that other bunch! Why couldn't his neighbor give him the seven just as well as the six? Allowing his mind to dwell upon such thoughts as these, it finally seemed to him that his future happiness depended upon the possession of that seventh bunch, and,—would you believe it?—under cover of darkness, he went to the garden of the man who had treated him so kindly and stole that last and only bunch which its owner had reserved to himself." Was not that a little ungrateful, and does it not show in a degree a selfish propensity? It seems unnatural for one to act so; but, before we pass sentence on him, let us look at another picture. Away back in the beginning, God, the great Creator, planted the tree of time. From the fruit of this tree, he took six days and gave them to man in which to attend to his temporal affairs, saying, "Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work." But he reserved the seventh to himself, saying, "But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work." Has man been content with the gift? No, indeed, but, like the contemptibly ungrateful man, many have taken this seventh day, thus robbing God of every one. Others have taken this seventh day, but, making a semblance of atoning for it, have tried to tie that first day back on the tree with strings made of traditions of man. But do you suppose God delights in such high-handed proceedings? The man who took the fruit from his neighbor stole it; it was a genuine case of theft. This latter is exactly parallel, and is theft also; but in a far greater degree. And yet people will have the assumption to tell us with all the assurance possible that there is no morality in the fourth commandment, no morality in the Sabbath precept. If there is not then pray tell us where there is any morality. Anyone who will candidly consider the matter can see that there is morality in that precept, and, in the great day of God, that commandment—for all will be judged by the law of which this is a part (Rom. 2: 12)—will condemn their terrible immorality in profaning the rest-day of Jehovah. May God help us to honor that precept, as well as all other God-given commands, that he may honor us at last, and, with the nation that keepeth the truth, welcome us into the Eternal City. L. A. REED.
Marshfield, Oregon. 1. KINGDOM AGAINST KINGDOM.
Said the Saviour, "For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places." No point has been argued in favor of what we have been used to call the Universalist view, of the past complete fulfillment of Matthew 24, with greater show of plausibility than this. Yet it remains decidedly against that view. Dr. Adam Clarke, for whose honesty and ability we entertain the highest respect, says: "This portended the dissensions, insurrections, and mutual slaughter of the Jews, and those of other nations, who dwell in the same cities together;" etc. We say we respect Dr. Clarke, and it is no disparagement of him to believe there is more light now shining out from this chapter, with the greater investigation, and the later fulfillment of prophecy, than he saw in his day. We insist that all that he produced in regard to the dissensions among the Jews, their insurrections, etc., do not meet the demands of this text. On the latter part of the verse he says: "This portended the open wars of the different tetrachies and provinces against each other." In this chapter the Saviour refers us to Daniel the prophet, by whom we learn, what indeed we can learn from any history, that the kingdom of Rome was universal in power at the time of which we are speaking. The dissensions and insurrections of tribes and provinces were not sufficient to meet the prophecy. But the Saviour further says: "And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that ye be not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet." The overthrow of Jerusalem was caused by an "insurrection" of one of the "provinces" of the Roman kingdom. But these are not even connectives of the final event which was mentioned by our Saviour. These things—wars and rumors of wars—shall come, "but the end is not yet." And kingdom rising against kingdom—which, we insist, was not fulfilled by provincial insurrections—"are but the beginning of sorrows,"—"the end is not yet." This point will be yet more clearly settled when others are considered. "Rest in the Lord and wait patiently for him" is a divine command. The waiting-time may seem long and weary, but it is not in vain, and we may be sure that He who bade us wait will not forget us nor abandon us. There is a story told of Havelock and his son, who were one morning crossing London Bridge. Suddenly Havelock thought of something forgotten and for which he needed to return. Leaving the boy on the bridge, he bade him wait till he should come back. He was detained by business, and, his mind being occupied, he forgot the boy and did not return to the bridge at all, but went another way. Reaching home late in the evening, his wife inquired where Harry was. In a moment it flashed upon him. "Why, Harry is on London Bridge!" And hurrying away to the bridge, he found him just where he had left him in the morning. The boy had waited all day, and at last his patience was rewarded. "WHO CHANGED THE SABBATH?"
By C. P. B.
As intimated in an article upon this subject, published in last week's SIGNS, the question "Who changed the Sabbath," is answered by history just as fully as are questions relative to the origin of Good Friday, Easter, Ascension Day, prayers for the dead, the worship of saints, the adoration of pictures and images, and other like papal festivals and customs. But in order to the proper rejection of the Sunday sabbath, it is not necessary that we should be able to point to the exact date of its introduction. In his "History of Romanism," book 2, chap. 1, sec. 3, Dowling has well said:— "Protestantism, as opposed to Popery, has been defined by Isaac Taylor, in his Ancient Christianity, as 'A REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE INNOVATIONS BEARING AN ASCERTAINED DATE,' and to this definition we have no particular objection, inasmuch as the date of most, if not all of the Popish innovations, both doctrinal and ritual, can be ascertained with considerable accuracy. Still we must be allowed to add, that should innovations be discovered, either in that or any other communion the date of the admission of which is entirely unknown, if they are contrary to the doctrine and spirit of the Bible, if they are not found in God's word—that is to say, if they are innovations at all—then true Protestantism requires their unqualified rejection, just as much as if their date were as clearly ascertained as is the date of the Papal supremacy, or the absurd dogma of transubstantiation. 'THE BIBLE, I SAY, THE BIBLE ONLY, IS THE RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS!' Nor is it of any account in the estimation of the genuine Protestant, how early a doctrine originated, if it is not found in the Bible. He learns from the New Testament itself, that there were errors in the time of the apostles, and that their pens were frequently employed in combating those errors. Hence, if a doctrine be propounded for his acceptance, he asks, Is it to be found in the Inspired Word? was it taught by the Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles?" Concerning the introduction of some of the Romish errors and practices, Dowling says:— "There is scarcely anything which strikes the mind of the careful student of ancient ecclesiastical history with greater surprise, than the comparatively early period at which many of the corruptions of Christianity, which are embodied in the Romish system, took their rise; yet it is not to be supposed that when the first originators of many of these unscriptural notions and practices, planted those germs of corruption, they anticipated or even imagined that they would grow into such a vast and hideous system of superstition and error, as is that of Popery. Thus remarks a learned and sagacious writer: 'Each of the great corruptions of later ages took its rise in a manner which it would be harsh to say was deserving of strong reprehension. . . . The worship of images, the invocation of saints, and the superstition of relics, were but the expansions of the natural feelings of veneration and affection cherished toward the memory of those who had suffered and died for the truth. . . . The very abuses which make the twelfth century abhorrent on the page of history, were, in the fourth, fragrant with the practice and suffrage of a blessed company of primitive confessors. The remembered saints who had given their bodies to the flames, had also lent their voice and example to those unwise excesses which at length drove true religion from the earth. Untaught by experience, the ancient church surmised not of the occult tendencies of the course it pursued, nor should it be loaded with consequences which human sagacity could not well have foreseen.'—Id., book 2, chap. 1, sec. 1. The same might be said of the observance of Sunday, that it was but natural that those who had before regarded it as a day sacred to the sun, should, upon becoming Christians, retain some of that reverence; nor is it strange that they should seek to connect the observance of the first day, with their new religion, especially as the fact of the resurrection of Christ on that day afforded them an excellent pretext for so doing. And that is just what they did; and it is significant that the practice of keeping Sunday as a Christian festival originated among Gentile Christians—those who had as pagans worshiped the sun upon that day. Recognizing this fact, the North British Review, Vol. 13, p. 409, thus defends the change:— "That very day was the Sunday of their heathen neighbors and respective countrymen; and patriotism gladly united with expediency in making it their Lord's day and their Sabbath. . . . If the authority of the church is to be ignored altogether by Protestants, there is no matter; because opportunity and common expediency are surely argument enough for so ceremonial a change as the mere day of the week for the observance of the rest and holy convocation of the Jewish Sabbath. That primitive church, in fact, was shut up to the adoption of the Sunday, until it became established and supreme, when it was too late to make another alteration; and it was no irreverent or undelightful thing to adopt it, inasmuch as the first day of the week was their own high day at any rate; so that their compliance and civility were rewarded by the redoubled sanctity of their quiet festival." It cannot be claimed that this paragraph was written by an enemy to the first-day sabbath, for it is a defense of the Sunday institution; and it is evident that had the writer known any better argument for the practice of Sunday-keeping than "expediency," or any higher authority for it than the practice and decree of a corrupt and time-serving church, he would never have made such humiliating and damaging admissions. And this lack of scriptural authority for Sunday-keeping, together with the plea of "expediency" marks it as a child of the Papacy; not that it was begotten by the man of sin, for, as we have seen, it was a heathen festival long before there was such a thing as the Papacy; but that it was early adopted by the mystery of iniquity, and given a place in the Christian church which rightfully belonged to another day, namely, the seventh, the one specified in the fourth commandment. But what especially marks the Sunday sabbath as the child of the Roman Church is the fact that it was a Roman Catholic Council that first decreed that it should be kept instead of the ancient Sabbath. Upon this point, Rev. Mr. James, in addressing the University of Oxford, said:— "When the practice of keeping Saturday Sabbaths, which had become so general at the close of this [the third] century, was evidently gaining ground in the Eastern church, a decree was passed in the council held at Laodicea [A. D. 364] 'that members of the church should not rest from work on the Sabbath, like Jews, but should labor on that day, and preferring in honor the Lord's day, then if it be in their power should rest from work as Christians.'" William Prynne, famous in the history of English Puritanism, also says:— "It is certain that Christ himself, his apostles, and the primitive Christians, for some good space of time, did constantly observe the seventh-day Sabbath, . . . the evangelists and St. Luke in the Acts ever styling it the Sabbath day, . . . and making mention of its . . . solemnization by the apostles and other Christians, . . . it being still solemnized by many Christians after the apostles' times, even till the Council of Laodicea [A. D. 364], as ecclesiastical writers and the twenty-ninth canon of that council testify, which runs thus: 'Because Christians ought not to Judaize, and to rest in the Sabbath, but to work in that day [which many did refuse at that time to do]. But preferring in honor the Lord's day [there being then a great controversy among Christians which of these two days . . . should have precedency]; if they desired to rest they should do this as Christians. Wherefore if they shall be found to Judaize, let them be accursed from Christ.' . . . The seventh-day Sabbath was . . . solemnized by Christ, the apostles, and primitive Christians, till the Laodicean Council did in a manner quite abolish the observation of it. . . . The Council of Laodicea . . . first settled the observation of the Lord's day, and prohibited . . . the keeping of the Jewish Sabbath under an anathema." Of the effects of the decree of this council, John Ley, another old English writer, speaks thus:— "From the apostles' time until the Council of Laodicea, which was about the year 364, the holy observation of the Jews' Sabbath continued, as may be proved out of many authors; yea, notwithstanding the decree of that council against it." About the year 468 or 469 A. D., Pope Leo issued the following decree:— "WE ORDAIN, according to the true meaning of the Holy Ghost, and of the apostles as thereby directed, that on the sacred day [Sunday] wherein our own integrity was restored, all do rest and cease from labor." It was thus that the Sunday institution gained a place in the church; and that we do not err in saying that the Papacy changed the Sabbath will be further shown in another article. C. P. B. THE RETURN OF THE JEWS.
By M. C. W.
LAST week we gave some reasons why we could not believe that God had yet a special work to do among the Jews, and that the promises made to that people could not be rightly understood as unconditionally and absolutely applying to the fleshly seed of Jacob. We stated, and proved the proposition, that the promises to Israel were conditional; or were fulfilled in the restoration of Jerusalem and the return from the Babylonian captivity. That these promises were subject to the conditions of the covenant under which they were fulfilled; that the literal signification of the name "Israel" denotes primarily not fleshly Israel, but spiritual Israel; that the promises to the fathers and the predictions concerning the twelve patriarchs extended beyond the old covenant to the new, were also shown. The predictions of the return from the Babylonian captivity and the rebuilding of Jerusalem at that time, are often connected with predictions of the future gathering of the true Israel so closely that the subjects seem to blend. The former is the type of the latter. Just this way the first and second advent of our Lord is connected in the Messianic prophecies. The Jews confounded them, applied the glory of the second advent to the first, and then rejected Christ because he did not meet their misinterpretations of Scripture. So with many now as regards the predictions concerning Israel. They confound the predictions concerning the typical seed—fleshly Israel—with the predictions concerning the true Israel, and thus will be led to reject Christ in his last message, through their misinterpretations. Again: It is absolutely impossible to understand the Old Testament predictions concerning Israel without the aid of the New Testament. The New Testament is the complement of the Old. What was type and figure in the Old Testament is antitype and reality in the New. The one was shadow, the other substance. The shadow is never the perfect image (it shows only the profile at best) of the substance whose shadow it is. Type cannot be perfect antitype, else the antitype were not needed. But both type and shadow indicate many things which cannot be perfectly understood till the substance is before us. And this is true concerning the promises to Israel and the predictions concerning that people. Therefore we must go to the later and clearer revelations for the greater light. In harmony with this take the following inspired567and positive statement of the apostle Paul on the plan of God:— “How that by revelation he [God] made known unto me the mystery; . . . which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the SAME BODY, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:” Eph. 3:3-6. The promise here referred to is the promise to Abraham, an essential part of which was the land, or dominion. Of this promise with the literal seed of Israel, the Gentiles are fellow heirs, equal heirs, companion heirs, of the promised inheritance through Christ. This Paul argues in Galatians 3. “Know ye therefore [says the apostle] that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.” Verse 7. Of course if they are children, they are therefore heirs of the world. Rom. 8:17, and 4:13. And this by faith in order that, “the blessing of Abraham [Gen. 22:17, 18] might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ.” Gal. 3:14. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed and HEIRS according to the promise.” Verses 28, 29. We do not know what could be clearer than this. Even Moses, or Elijah, or Daniel, could claim no more than the promise given to Abraham. All was embraced in the Abrahamic covenant. But Inspiration declares that those of faith, whatever their birth, were heirs of that promise, because they were the seed of Abraham. The case could be rested here, but there is more evidence which we wish to present. Those Gentiles who accept of Christ by faith are no longer Gentiles. As stated in the scripture last considered, they are the seed of Abraham, as stated in other scriptures, they are Israelites:— “Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world; but now, in Christ Jesus, ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.” “Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit.” Eph. 2:11-13, 19-22. This is equally positive with the testimony from Galatians. When unregenerate they were strangers, foreigners, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel. In accepting Christ, they become fellow citizens of all the holy people prior to that, and are builded together with the believing literal seed in the one spiritual temple. As to how the Gentiles are made Israel, we are told in Romans 11, which we will here briefly consider. In the beginning of the chapter, the question is asked, “Hath God cast away his people?” This Paul denies, he presents as proof of that, his own acceptance. Paul was a Hebrew, and if he could accept of Christ, every other soul in Judea could accept of him. He then proceeds to show from God’s dealings with Israel in the time of Elijah that it is the faithful remnant that constitute the true Israel. The seven thousand which had not bowed the knee to Baal were those reserved unto the Lord as his own. Even so then [says the apostle] at this present time also [in his day] there is a remnant according to the election of grace.” Verse 5. He proceeds to show that this election is not of works but of grace. “Israel [that is the fleshly seed] hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election [those chosen because they believed] hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded [that is, the nation at large was blinded]. Verse 7. He then quotes from the prophets the predictions of this blindness, and continues:— “I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid; but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them [the Israelites] to jealousy. Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fullness?” Verses 11, 12. The first covenant was made with Israel as a nation. They forfeited its conditions and were broken off. See Jer. 11:1-8, 16. The latter verse reads: “The Lord called thy name, A green olive tree, fair, and of goodly fruit: with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken.” These branches were broken off because of unbelief. Rom. 11:17, 19. They were broken off in their national capacity; for they had forfeited the conditions by which they thus existed. But they were not broken off in order that they should be lost. Under the old covenant there was no hope for the Gentiles. If they came into these promises it must be as individuals through the generous provisions of the new or Abrahamic covenant. And these promises did not shut out the Jews. They could not come in as a nation, but as individuals, the only way in which they could be saved eternally. They were blinded, they rejected Christ, they were cast off forever as a nation. But not that they might fall, but that provision might be made for all in the Abrahamic covenant now ratified and proclaimed to all the world, “to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” Rom. 1:16. They could every one accept of Christ, and thus be partakers of the blessings, but they could not shut out the Gentiles. Their fall as a nation and diminution as a people were a blessing to the Gentiles; how much more would their fullness be! Verse 14 shows the apostle’s object in this argument: “If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.” All might be saved, and Paul would do by the Spirit of God all that it was possible to do, in order to save them. And yet he knew many would reject the gospel message. Those who were saved, who came into the new-covenant blessings, must do so as individuals, by faith, even as the Gentiles were received. Verses 23, 24. But when the Gentile by faith accepted of the Abrahamic blessings through Christ, he was no longer a Gentile, but a branch of Israel, bearing not the fruit of the tree from which he was cut, but grafted “contrary to nature,” bearing the fruit of the tree into the stock of which he was grafted. This is just the truth taught in the passages before quoted from Ephesians 2. The sinner unregenerate is a Gentile, a stranger to Israel; regenerated, or grafted in, he is an Israelite, a fellow citizen with the saints. The plan of salvation, embodied in the Abrahamic covenant and blessings is worthy of our God. This subject we will consider further in an article on “The Fullness of Jew and Gentile.” THE FULLNESS OF JEW AND GENTILE.
By M. C. W.
IN the eleventh chapter of Romans, verses twelve and twenty-five, is an expression greatly misunderstood and misinterpreted generally, in the former verse referring to the Jews, in the latter, to the Gentiles. That expression is "fullness." The verses read in the order given above as follows:— "Now if the fall of them [Israel] be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fullness [the riches of the world and of the Gentiles]?" "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits, that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in." The fall, or blindness, spoken of was not to all Israel as individuals, but as a nation. Individuals were not cut off; for some believed even as in Elijah’s day. They were the remnant, elected of God through faith. But the nation, the constituted authorities, rejected Christ and put him to death. That blindness lasted till the typical promised land was wasted, and its once lawful inhabitants were removed by sword, by famine, by death in war, and by slavery. Isa. 6:9-12. And this, till the fullness of the Gentiles should come in. Now the fullness of the Gentiles or the Jews does not apply to the acceptance of Christ by these classes. Fullness comprehends all. But all the Jews did not accept, would not believe. Paul, by the most strenuous efforts, only expected to "save some." Verse 14. Neither will all of the Gentiles accept of Christ; for the Scriptures reveal that many will be lost and suffer the second death. The fullness, then, does not apply to the above, as is generally taught. To what does it apply? Verse 11 will afford some light on this question. In that verse, Paul says that the Jews stumbled that through their fall "salvation is come unto the Gentiles." Now salvation can come only in one way, and that is through Christ. "Neither is there salvation in any other." Acts 4:12. Jesus says, "I am the way; . . . no man cometh unto the Father but by me." John 14:6. By the nullification of the old covenant, and the rejection of Christ, through the disobedience and unbelief of Israel, the world-wide proclamation of the Abrahamic covenant was made on equal terms to all. And this is what is taught in the twelfth verse. The fall of the Jews, and the decay or loss of their dignity, or first place among the nations, placed them upon a level with all others, and brought to the Gentiles the same privileges held by the Jews. The riches of the adoption, the glory, the new covenant, the law, the service of God, the promises, were offered to the Gentiles. Wonderful indeed were these riches to a people who had fed upon the husks of idolatry. But this is not all that came to the Gentiles through the fall of the Jews; their fullness came also. This fullness is the riches of the world, the salvation of the Gentiles. It can refer to nothing else than our Lord Jesus Christ. And so the apostle says: "For it pleased the Father that in Him [Christ] should all fullness dwell." Col. 1:19. And this is spoken of right in connection with that reconciliation by which peace was made with the Gentiles. Verses 20, 21. Compare with Col. 2:11-15; Eph. 2:11-16. "All fullness" must include all fullness of the Jews, which could in any way advantage the Gentiles. A brief consideration of the promises will prove that the fullness of the Jews was in the long-looked-for Messiah. How was the race to triumph over that old serpent, the devil?—Through the seed—Christ. Gen. 3:15. How was Abraham to inherit the promises?—Through his seed—Christ. Gen. 22:17; Gal. 3:15. How and by whom were the blessings of Abraham to be continued to the tribe of Israel when that nation had fallen?—Through the Shiloh of the tribe of Judah. Unto8Him was to be the gathering of the nations, the whole Israel of God. Gen. 49:10. "Salvation is of the Jews" (John 4:22); but it comes through our Lord Jesus Christ, the power that made Jacob the supplanter, the Israel, prevailer with God and man. All the riches of the Jews came through Christ, and they existed because of him. All the graces and blessings of the Jews, the center and circumference of their hopes—all center in Christ. "And of his fullness [says John the Baptist, speaking as a Jew] have all we received, and grace for grace." John 1:16. He is the fullness of the Gentiles, even as of the Jews. No greater blessings can come to humanity than being heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ. But this we are if we have faith in Christ: "For if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Gal. 3:29. And thus it is true that in Christ "there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free; but Christ is all and in all." Col. 3:11. No earthly birth, no outward ordinance or right, no race nor condition, debars one soul from the kingdom of God; if he will but accept of the fullness of Christ, his defects will be made complete. Christ is the fullness of Jew and Gentile. This fullness of the Gentiles came in when the Jews rejected Christ the second time in the martyrdom of Stephen, and the rejection of the gospel message. The apostles turned from the darkened race to preach the glad tidings to all the world. Their blindness, in the plan of God, had done its work; Israel, after the flesh, had been forever cast off as a nation, and now true Israel was to be gathered from all nations, tongues, and kindreds, through faith in the fullness of Christ. "And SO [that is, by faith] all [true] Israel shall be saved; as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer [the Fullness], and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob." Rom. 11:26. Thus it is that God hath concluded all (Jews and Gentiles) in unbelief, that he might have mercy through the fullness of Christ upon all. Rom. 11:32. Rom. 11:25 is often connected in arguments concerning the return of the Jews with Luke 21:24; but why we cannot tell, unless it is because the word "Gentiles" is used in both texts. We could with as much reason use 1 Cor. 12:2 for the same purpose, because the word "Gentiles" is found there. The "fullness of the Gentiles" and the "times of the Gentiles" are two distinct things. Again: We are told in Rom. 2:28, 29 that "he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God." Here we are again pointed to Jacob's inspired prediction concerning Judah. Jew comes from Judah; and the central figure of the tribe, the one under whom all the true people of Judah will gather, as well as all others of like faith, is Shiloh, the Prince of peace. The true Jew is a follower of the Lion of the tribe of Judah. One more testimony: "For they are not all [true] Israel, which are of [flesh] Israel; neither because they are the [literal] seed of Abraham, are they all children; but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." Rom. 9:6-8. "Now we, brethren [Jews and Gentiles], as Isaac was, are children of promise." Gal. 4:28. "Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles." Rom. 9:24. Paul proves this by quotations from the Old Testament. The children of the promise are those who accept of Christ. The natural seed of Abraham was Ishmael; Isaac was given by the miraculous power of God, even as men are regenerated. Heb. 11:11, 12. These provisions of the new covenant are open and free alike to all. There are no special blessings to the Jews, there are none to the Gentiles. "FOR THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE between the Jew and the Greek; for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him." Rom. 10:12. All promises yet to be fulfilled must be fulfilled under the new covenant, and under that all are on an equality. Both Jew and Greek may believe, may be partakers of the riches of the grace of Christ and his infinite fullness, may be gathered to the heavenly Jerusalem, may have a part in the earth made new, may reign through the fullness of Christ, and with Christ throughout the endless ages of eternity. The above scriptures are clear and conclusive. We do not know how the above position can be shaken. The theory of the return of the Jews, and the rebuilding of old Jerusalem, is a doctrine devised by the enemy of truth, to deceive, to prevent watchfulness as regards the second coming of Christ, to lull the church to sleep amid great dangers, and is subversive of the gospel of Christ, making the promises of God to all the world of none effect. Not so with the view presented above. It harmonizes all prophecies and promises; it presents before us God's wondrous mercy and wisdom, and shows the fullness of the blessings of the gospel of Christ. "Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" "For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things; to whom be glory forever. AMEN." Rom. 11:33, 36. Do Not Rejoice at an Enemy’s Fall
“REJOICE not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth; lest the Lord see it, and it displease him, and he turn away his wrath from him.” Prov. 24:17, 18. Religion Sustains Society
By Laplace
I HAVE lived long enough to know what I did not at one time believe—that no society can be upheld in happiness and honor without the sentiment of religion.—Laplace.