Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Mar 1, 1883
General Articles.
By Ellen G. White
Mission of John the Baptist.
By Mrs. E. G. White.
Disciples were being daily added to Christ, and people flocked from cities and villages to hear him. Many came to him for baptism; but Christ baptized none. His disciples performed this ordinance. And while Christ's disciples were baptizing large numbers, there arose a question among the Jews and the disciples of John, whether the act of baptism purified the sinner from the guilt of sin. The disciples of John answered that John baptized only unto repentance, but Christ's disciples unto a new life. John's disciples were jealous of the popularity of Christ, and said to John, referring to Christ, "He that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou bearest witness, behold the same baptizeth, and all men come to him. John answered and said, A man can receive nothing except it be given him from Heaven."
In this answer John virtually says, Why should you be jealous on my account? "Ye yourselves bear me witness that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice. This my joy therefore is fulfilled."
John, so far from being jealous of the prosperity of Christ's mission, rejoices as he witnesses the success of the work he came to do. He assures his disciples that his special mission was to direct the attention of the people to Christ. "He must increase; but I must decrease. He that cometh from above is above all. He that is of the earth is earthy, and speaketh of the earth. He that cometh from Heaven is above all. And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony."
John assured his disciples that Jesus was the promised Messiah, the Saviour of the world. As his work was closing, he taught his disciples to look to Jesus, and follow him as the great teacher.
John's life, with the exception of the joy he experienced in witnessing the success of his mission, was without pleasure. It was one of sorrow and self-denial. He who heralded the first advent of Christ, was not permitted personally to hear him, nor to witness the power manifested by him. John's voice was seldom heard, except in the wilderness. His life was lonely. Multitudes had flocked to the wilderness to hear the words of the wonderful prophet. He had laid the ax at the root of the tree. He had reproved sin, fearless of the consequences, and prepared the way for the ministry of Christ.
Herod was affected as he listened to the pointed testimony of John, and, with deep interest, he inquired what he must do to become his disciple. He was convicted by the plain truths uttered by John. His conscience condemned him, for a woman of vile passions had gained his affections and controlled his mind. This unprincipled woman was ambitious for power and authority, and thought if she became the wife of Herod, her object would be gained. As Herod listened to the practical truths proclaimed by John, reproving the transgression of the law of God, and setting forth the future punishment which the guilty must suffer, he trembled, and greatly desired to break the chain of lust which held him. He opened his mind to John, who brought Herod to the law of God, face to face, and told him it would be impossible for him to have part in the kingdom of the Messiah unless he should break away from the unlawful connections with his brother's wife, and, with his whole heart, obey the commandments of God.
Herod was inclined to act upon the advice of John, and stated to Herodias that he could not marry her in defiance of the law of God. But this determined woman would not be thwarted in her designs. Intense hatred was awakened in her heart toward John. Herod was weak in principle, vacillating in mind, and Herodias had no great difficulty in re-establishing herself in his favor, and holding her influence over him. Herod yielded to the pleasures of sin, rather than submit to the restrictions of the law of God.
When Herodias had gained influence over Herod, she determined to be revenged upon the prophet for his daring to reprove their course of crime. And she influenced him to imprison John. But Herod intended to release him. While confined in prison, John heard, through his disciples, of the mighty works of Jesus. He could not personally listen to his gracious words; but the disciples informed him, and comforted him with a relation of what they had seen and heard.
John having spent his life in the open air, in active, persevering labor, enduring privations, hardship, and toil, he had never before experienced the trials of confined living. He therefore became desponding, and even doubts troubled him whether Christ was indeed the Messiah. His disciples had brought to him accounts of the wonderful things they had witnessed in the ministry of Christ. But he concluded that if Christ was indeed the Messiah, he would publicly proclaim himself as the Saviour of the world.
John had indistinct ideas of the kingdom Christ came to establish, as also had the disciples of the Christ. They thought Christ would establish a temporal kingdom, and reign upon the throne of David in Jerusalem. He became impatient because Christ did not immediately make himself known, assume kingly authority, and subdue the Romans. He hoped that if Christ established his kingdom, he would be brought out of prison. He decided that if Jesus was really the Son of God, and could do all things, he would exercise his power and set him at liberty.
John sent his disciples to inquire of Christ, "Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?" The disciples sought the presence of Christ; but they could not communicate with him immediately, because of the crowd who were bearing the sick to Jesus. The afflicted, blind, and lame, were passing through the throng. The disciples of John saw the miracles of Christ, and that at his word the lifeless clay became animate, and the glow of health took the place of the pallor of death. Jesus said to the disciples of John, "Go and show John again those things which ye do hear and see. The lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me."
In these words John is gently reproved for his impatience. The cautious reproof returned to John was not lost upon him. He then better understood the character of Christ's mission. And with submission and faith, he yielded himself into the hands of God, to live or to die, as should best advance his glory.
After the disciples of John had departed, Jesus addressed the multitude concerning John, "What went ye out into the wilderness for to see? A reed shaken with the wind?" Jesus knew that a reed trembling in the wind was the very opposite of John's character. John could not be moved by flattery, nor be deceived by prevailing errors. Neither could he be turned aside from the work he came to do, by rewards, or worldly honors. He would preserve his integrity at the expense of his life. Steadfast as a rock stood the prophet of God, faithful to rebuke sin and crime in all their forms, in kings and nobles, as readily as in the unhonored and unknown. He swerved not from duty. Loyal to his God, in noble dignity of moral character, he stood firm as a rock, faithful to principle.
"But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? Behold they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses. But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet. For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist; notwithstanding, he that is least in the kingdom of Heaven is greater than he. And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of Heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force."
The people whom Christ addressed well knew that the apparel worn by John was the opposite of that worn in royal palaces. Christ virtually inquires, What motive induced you to flock to the wilderness to hear the preaching of John? The wilderness is not the place to find those who live delicately, and who clothe themselves in rich, soft apparel. Christ would have them observe the contrast between the clothing of John and that of the Jewish priests. The prophet wore a plain, rough garment, possessing no beauty, but answering the purpose for which clothing was first designed. In marked contrast to the clothing of John, was the gorgeous apparel of the Jewish priests. The burden of the priests and elders was outward display, thinking that they would be reverenced in accordance with their external appearance. They were more anxious for the admiration of men, than for spotless purity of character and holiness of life, that they might meet the approval of God. Christ admonished his disciples, and also the multitude, to follow that which was good in the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees, but not to imitate their wrong example, and not be deceived by their ambitious pretension.
He says, "All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers."98
"But all their works they do to be seen of men; they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, and love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi."
John saw that the Jews who made high pretensions to piety, were exalting and glorifying themselves. Portions of the law were printed and bound upon their foreheads, and about their wrists. God had commanded the children of Israel to have a ribbon of blue in the border of their garments, upon which was embroidered the words of the law, which expressed in short the ten commandments, to remind them of their duty to love God supremely, and to love their neighbor as themselves. The farther they departed from their primitive purity, and simplicity in their words and example, and the more their works were directly contrary to the law of God, the more particular were they to make broad their phylacteries, and add to the words that God had specified that they should have in the ribbon of blue. In their outward appearance, they were expressing exalted devotion and sanctity, while their works were in the widest contrast.
The spirit of reform was stirring the soul of John. The spirit of wisdom and the power of God were upon him. Inspiration from Heaven and holy zeal led him to denounce the Jewish priests, and pronounce the curse of God upon them. They made high pretensions to godliness by their gorgeous apparel, while they were strangers to mercy and the love of God. And while the Pharisees were very exact in their dress to inspire awe and command respect of men, they were abhorred of God. They did not conform their heart and life to the will and word of God. They deceived themselves with the vain supposition that eternal blessings were theirs by virtue of the promises made to Abraham, the father of the faithful. They were not clothed with humility. They bore no resemblance to the faith and piety of Abraham. They had not earned by integrity and purity of life, moral worth, which would ally them to Abraham as his children, to share with him the promises.
TRUST.
By E. A. Boynton
WHEN dark and drear the way has grown,
And somber clouds my soul bedim,
My soul shall trust in God alone,
"My expectation is from him."
When on the Lord "my mind is staid,"
He keeps my heart in "perfect peace;"
And nought can make me feel afraid,
For "everlasting strength" is his.
It matters not what may betide,
Though earth and hell my soul pursue;
With God, my Saviour, on my side,
"I will not fear what man shall do."
When dark forebodings fill thy soul,
And doubts and fears disturb thy breast,
Upon the Lord thy burden roll,
And he will give thy spirit rest.
"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart;"
Nor to thine understanding lean;
Thy doubts and fear shall soon depart,
And leave thee tranquil and serene.
"Wait on the Lord," where'er thou art;
"Good courage" take, nor doubt his word;
"And he shall strengthen wel thine heart."
Again I say, "wait on the Lord."
—E. A. Boynton.
Value of Marginal References.
By Alonzo T. Jones
BY ELD. A. T. JONES.
As a kind of religious "last ditch," the marginal references of Acts 20 : 7; 1 Cor. 16 : 2 and Rev. 1 : 10 are adopted as proof that the first day of the week is the Lord's day, and therefore holy.
I would not utter a word against the use of the marginal references of the Scriptures as helps to the study of the sacred word; but there are insuperable objections to their being adopted as the basis of doctrine, or their use as authority in connection with the word itself.
The marginal references, the punctuation, the divisions into verses and chapters, are all the work of men. Not of men met together for that purpose as in the translation of the Scriptures; but by several men at different times, and each independent of all the others.
First was the division into chapters. This was made by Hugo de Sancto Caro who was born at St. Cher, Dauphine, France, about A. D. 1200, was created a cardinal by Pope Innocent IV., in 1245, and died in 1263. In preparing to make a concordance to the Latin Vulgate version of the Scriptures, he divided both the Old Testament and the New into chapters, and that division still remains as he made it, in all our Bibles.
Next was the division into verses. The first direct step toward this was taken by Rabbi Mordecai Nathan, a celebrated Jewish teacher, in a "Concordance to the Hebrew Scriptures," composed A. D. 1438 to 1445. In this concordance, he made the division into verses, and marked every fifth verse with a Hebrew numeral letter. Then in 1661, Athias, a Jew of Amsterdam, printed an edition of the Hebrew Bible, in which he adopted the verses of Rabbi Nathan, and marked every verse with the figures in common use 1, 2, 3, 4, &c., &c., except the verses previously marked with Hebrew numerals by Rabbi Nathan. With the rejection of these Hebrew numerals, and placing instead the corresponding figures, the verses and numbers of Nathan and Athias are still retained in all the copies of the Bible in other languages. But observe, this refers only to the Hebrew Bible i. e. the Old Testament. The verses of the New Testament as now used are the invention of a printer, Robert Stephens by name, in imitation of those made for the Old Testament than. They were first introduced in 1551, in an edition of the New Testament printed by Stephens.
As for punctuation points, with the exception of the period, no such things were known when the New Testament was written, nor for a long time afterward, for the writing in the oldest manuscripts is all in capital letters without accent or mark of any kind, not even spaces, between the words. Here is a copy of the first few lines of the gospel of John as it was written:--
"INTHEBEGINNINGWASTHEWORDAND
THEWORDWAS
WITHGOD. ANDGODWASTHEWORD. .
HEWASINTHEBEGINNINGWITHGOD
ALLWEREMADEBYHIMANDWITH
OUTHIMWASMADENOTONETHING
THATWASMADEINHIMLIFEWAS."
About 400 A. D. Jerome, and others from him, used points that correspond with our comma and colon, but they did not go into general use at all. Again in the eighth century the stroke now called comma was received, and Jerome's points were again used at the command of Charlemagne, and in the ninth century the Greek note of interrogation, which is now our semicolon, was first used. But it was not till the invention of printing that any of these points came into general use. Thus the colon and the period began to be used about 1485, the comma was next given a better shape, and the semicolon added about 1521, and in Sir Philip Sydney's "Arcadia" 1587 they all appear, as also the note of interrogation, the asterisk, and the parenthesis.
Then again, there were no acknowledged rules to guide the editors and printers in the use of the points, consequently they were placed just as each one pleased, and very often arbitrarily. And yet again the same editors and printers would change the punctuation in the different editions of the same work as they were successively printed; especially did Stephens vary his points in every edition of the Bible that he printed. And more than that, this variance in the punctuation of the Bible is not yet ended, as any one may prove by comparing copies of the Bible printed only as far back as 1830 or 1840 with the later editions, and looking at Matt. 19 : 28 and Heb. 10 : 12. In the earlier copies, at Matt. 19 : 28 you will see the comma placed after "regeneration" in the passage reading thus:-- "Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory," &c., whereas in the later copies the comma is placed after "me," thus: "ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory," &c. See what a difference it makes. The first would imply that Christ had been regenerated. But the difference in Heb. 10 : 12 is still more apparent, for in the older editions the comma is after "sins," thus: "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on the right hand of God;" where in the newer editions the comma is placed after "ever," thus: "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God." While the first would make Christ sat down at the right hand of God forever, the last only makes one sacrifice for sins forever, and then sat down at the right hand of God only "till his enemies be made his footstool."
To any one who will compare the Revised New Testament with the old version of common use, it will be apparent that the Revision Committee did not hold themselves subject to the punctuation of the common version, but changed it wherever they chose; and it would seem that their changes are not always for the better, for instance, Matt. 27 : 52, 53. From this would appear that at the death of the Saviour, "many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised;" and yet did not come out of the tombs till after his resurrection, which was the third day after his death. Such a thing is hardly to be supposed, but rather, as our old version gives it, that, at the death of Christ "the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of their graves after his resurrection," that is, the graves were opened at his death, when the earth quaked, and the rocks were rent; but the saints did not arise till after his resurrection. This looks more reasonable, and is less ambiguous. Yet there are places in our old standard version where the punctuation needs to be changed before the Scripture will be in harmony with itself. One notable instance is Luke 23 : 43; by placing the comma after "to-day," instead of after "thee." Then it will harmonize perfectly with Zech. 9 : 12 and John 20 : 17, and with the whole course of Scripture on that subject.
Now we come to the marginal references. The first introduction of these was in Coverdale's Bible, the first English translation of the entire Bible, which was printed in 1535. The marginal references were few however, but they served as an introduction, and as an inducement to others to follow his lead. The next was King James' translation of 1611, now our Authorized Version. This had in the first edition, 6,588 references in the Old Testament and 1,527 in the New. In an edition printed by J. Hayes, in 1677, there were 14,699 references in the Old Testament and 9,857 in the New. In Dr. Scattergood's edition, 1678, there were 20,357 references in the Old Testament, and 11,371 in the New. In Bishop Tenison and Lloyd's, 1699, there were 24,352 in the Old, and 13,717 in the New. In Dr. Blayney's, 1769, there were 43,318 in the Old Testament, and 19,898 in the New. In Bishop Wilson's, 1785, there were 45,190 in the Old Testament, and 19,993 in the New, making total in Old and New of 65,183. These with perhaps a few additions are the ones we now use, and thus we have Acts 20 : 7, and 1 Cor. 16 : 2 referring to Rev. 1 : 10. No doubt these Bishops believed, as many will claim now, that the first day of the week is the Lord's day, but the Scripture does not say so, and their running the references from one to the other does not make it so, any more than the references from Lev. 16 : 10, 21, 22 to Isaiah 53 : 6, 11, 12, and 1 John 2 : 2, &c., make Christ, the Holy Saviour, the scapegoat. Neither of these is any nearer to the truth than is the explanation in the margin of Daniel 9 : 24, in saying that the seventy weeks begin from the twentieth year of Artaxerxes. And not one of all three is any nearer to the truth than is the margin of 2 Chron. 21 : 12, in explaining the writing which came to Jehoram from Elijah the prophet, when it says, "Which was writ before his [Elijah's] death." Everybody knows that there is no truth in that, for all know that Elijah never died, but was caught up alive, by a whirlwind, into heaven.
All this goes to show that the references are not to be followed implicitly as are the Scriptures, but simply and alone, as helps to the study of Scripture. As such they are a very great help. But always bear in mind that the plain reading of the word of God is to be taken above any, or all, references, punctuation, or division of verses or chapters.
A GOLDEN STATEMENT
By Examiner
Remember John Trapp's golden statement: "God respecteth not the arithmetic of our prayers, how many they are; nor the rhetoric of our prayers, how neat they are; nor the geometry of our prayers, how long they are; nor the music of our prayers, how melodious they are; nor the logic of our prayers, how methodical they are; but the divinity of our prayers, how heartsprung they are. Not gifts, but graces prevail in prayer."
Who are Orthodox?
By William M. Healey
WEBSTER defines orthodox as, "Sound in the Christian faith; believing the genuine doctrines taught in the Scriptures." According to this definition, can one be orthodox who denies the Scriptural doctrine that the seventh day is the Sabbath, and instead of it, places the first day of the week, for which they know there is no Scripture command, as they often admit, but only a custom of long standing in the church? When questioned as to the practice of following a church custom that is opposed to the word of God, they reply that, "It does not matter which day we keep, so long as we keep one out of each seven," and they claim that this doctrine is orthodox. Then why do they say that we are not orthodox? for we keep one day in each seven. But an association of ministers in this State, not long ago, decided that those who believe in keeping the seventh day are not orthodox. In substance, their doctrine amounts to this: Keep any day in seven, only do not let it be the seventh day, but the first. "Consistency thou art a jewel." W. M. HEALEY.
Is the Reformation Complete?
By Eld. I. J. Hankins
EVERY work of reform meets opposition. As the work grows in strength, the opposition increases. But why are reformations necessary? Because men have neglected, or have not made a proper use of, the light and knowledge they have had. Especially is this true when we speak of religious reforms. Our minds at once revert to the important religious movement of the sixteenth century, in which Martin Luther was the prominent character. His object was, not to bring out new truths, but to restore the truths taught by Christ and his apostles—truths which for ages had been covered over by papal superstition. It was by preaching the plain, simple truths of the Bible that the papal errors were exposed.
The Roman bishops were sensible of the weakness of their position, and when it was to be tested in open discussion they greatly feared the consequences. And they had cause to fear; for the gross darkness, under whose cover they had committed their crimes, must soon vanish before the light of the gospel as presented by the great reformer.
Luther points to the close of the discussion at Leipsic as the moment of his emancipation from the papal yoke. "Learn from me," said he, "how difficult a thing it is to throw off errors confirmed by the example of all the world, and which, through long habit, have become second nature to us."
For several years after Luther began to expose the errors of the papacy, he still retained his connection with the church. He did not at once discover all the errors in the creed of the Romanists, nor the terrible wickedness of their practices. But as light broke in upon his mind, these iniquities appeared to him in all their enormity, and he resolved to expose them, even at the risk of his life. It required no small degree of faith and courage to stand up in defense of a doctrine which, if maintained, would undermine the foundation of Popery. "I am surprised," said Dr. Eck, Luther's opponent at Leipsic, "at the humility and modesty with which the reverend doctor undertakes to oppose, alone, so many illustrious Fathers, and pretends to know more than the sovereign pontiffs, the councils, the doctors, and the universities! . . . It would be surprising, no doubt, if God had hidden the truth from so many saints and martyrs—until the advent of the reverend Father." Nor is this so strange after all; for error is always surprised at the appearance of truth,—though its humble and modest garb should not occasion surprise, because truth is always clothed in this manner.
Not very unlike the days of Luther do we find the professed Christian church in our time. People are married, as it were, to some particular church, and they express great surprise at any intimation of error in their creed.
All Protestants believe that Luther was a special agent in the hands of God in breaking the Roman yoke, and freeing God's true people from papal errors and superstitions. But, it may be asked, did Luther finally discover and eradicate all papal errors? And are the churches sound in their religious principles to-day? Let the various opposing sects answer in the negative.
Then, since there is such a diversity of opinion, shall errors be corrected, and the pure, unadulterated principles of truth be established in the churches? Only in one way can this ever be accomplished, and that is by comparing very critically our various theories with the Bible—the only true standard—and conforming to its teachings. This course would unite the people of God, because the Bible teaches but one doctrine. But, alas! we find too few that, when convinced of error, will renounce it, or exchange it for truth, and are therefore not so sanguine as to hope for this desired unity.
The Christian world has for some years past avoided religious controversy. Each sect has seemed to feel satisfied with its creed, not perhaps because they know of a surety that it is founded upon the Bible, but because it has been handed down as the religion 'of their fathers, and established by learned and eminent men. It is a question whether or not these eminent divines are not more highly regarded by many than the apostles themselves, and the creed of the church considered of greater authority than the Bible.
The prevailing sentiment seems to be, "I am rich and increased with goods, and have need of nothing"—let me alone. If there is a well-established doctrine in any particular creed, that has stood the test of severe criticism, it may be discussed at length to the perfect satisfaction of its adherents; but let a point in which there is an apparent weakness be suggested for investigation, and there is a cry raised at once. We do not believe in religious discussions; they create strife and division. But this claim only betrays a conscious weakness in the positions of those who present it.
Man trusts his eternal salvation to the performance of certain requirements which he supposes are found in the Bible. But when the thought is suggested to him that in all probability he is following tradition instead of the Bible, it should be his first duty to settle the matter by careful and prayerful investigation; and, if he find himself arrayed on the side of error (though he may have been honest), to change immediately to the platform of truth.
Christ found a people in his day who transgressed the commandment of God by their tradition, and he said that they worshiped him in vain. Martin Luther found many of the same class; and even in our own age of boasted light there may be found not a few who are more willing to follow the customs of their fathers than they are to obey the commandments of God.
The reader doubtless believes that the keeping of the commandments of God is necessary to man's salvation, and that "whosoever keeps the whole law and yet offends in one point, is guilty of all." Now allow me to suggest a thought which may not have occurred to all the readers of the SIGNS. Are you well satisfied that the observance of the first day of the week for the Sabbath is not authorized by custom and tradition instead of by an express command of God? Do not reply as others have done, that it must be right, or the church would long ago have discovered the error. Thus did people reason in Luther's day, as was seen in Dr. Eck's remarks; and thus have some tried to reason away every work of reformation. But this is poor satisfaction to the earnest seeker after truth. If the work of reformation for our time consists in a restoration of the seventh-day Sabbath, as the SIGNS affirms, this then becomes the matter of vital importance to every lover of truth. And vain would be the efforts of man in opposing it; for what can the opposing arm of flesh effect when God has set his hand to the accomplishment of his work?
Old Testament Criticism.
In the N. Y. Observer, Professor Shedd, of Union Seminary, gives the following clear statement of the real point at issue in the controversy as to the authorship of the Pentateuch:—
"There are two views of the Old Testament; the historical or traditional, and the rationalistic or critical, so called. The one is held by the church, the other is held by parties and individuals, sometimes within the church and sometimes outside of it.
"The historical or traditional view is: That the books of the Old Testament are the infallible word of God communicated to a small circle selected out of the people of Israel for this purpose. Certain holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. These books, consequently, do not contain the religious ideas of the Hebrew race, but the teachings of the Supreme Being. The Old Testament, though Hebrew in language and modes of expression and forms of thought, is not Hebrew literature, but divine revelation; because literature, properly so called, is the natural and spontaneous product of a national mind. Originated in this manner, the Old Testament religion, unlike the natural and national religions of the world, is homogeneous in its nature. It is pure monotheism, from first to last; from Genesis to Malachi. From beginning to end, also, it contains the promise and the doctrine of a Redeemer, and of redemption. There is no polytheism, deism, or pantheism in the religion of Israel, as enunciated by Moses and the prophets. The Hebrew people themselves, from time to time, were more or less idolatrous and deistical, but the religion which Jehovah gave them through inspired individuals had nothing of this tincture. In brief, the Old Testament is a revelation, not an evolution; a revelation from the divine mind, and not an evolution of the Hebrew mind.
"The rationalistic or critical view is: That the books of the Old Testament are the product of the common Hebrew mind, as this spontaneously developed in a national literature from age to age. The religion of Israel, like the religions of Babylon and Assyria, of Egypt and India, of Greece and Rome, has no uniform and homogeneous character. It begins, like all human religions, in polytheism, and passes gradually upward into monotheism.
"This theory supposes that there was no supernatural revelation of religious truth to the Hebrew people, but only that ordinary unfolding of man's religious nature, which is common to every nation. The books of the Old Testament are a history of this unfolding in the case of the Hebrews, and are no more infallible and entitled to be the rule of religious faith for all mankind than any other books or literatures which contain similar accounts of national religions. In brief, the Old Testament is an evolution, and not a revelation; an evolution of the Hebrew mind, and not a revelation from the divine mind.
"Such are the two views of the Old Testament. They are antagonistic in every fiber. In the entire history of opinions, there are no two theories that are more hostile and deadly to each other than these. The latter of these two views calls itself the 'critical' theory, but the method by which it is attempted to be established is wholly uncritical."
Progress in the Truth.
PROGRESS belongs to the human mind. The converted man is illuminated, but he does not at once discover or apprehend all truth. The treasure hid in the field is only revealed to the man who searches for it. There is "strong meat" for men, and we are warned not to be children in understanding. However ably men may summarize truth, it is utterly impossible for any creed to give so correct an exhibition of it that it shall not make more of one truth than another, both of equal importance, and to avoid altogether neglecting others. Yet as all Scripture is profitable for our instruction, we ought never to rest from the most anxious reach into the meaning of the divine volume.
To be thoroughly furnished with Christian knowledge, we must remember the mutual relation of truths, and realize their conjoined influence in promoting the highest and best form of Christian character. It is possible to magnify a truth till its influence on one's self shall be as pernicious as a positive error. Such was the case with the men whose course constrained Paul to ask: "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?" It has been well remarked that some people have been so afraid of justification by good works, that they took care to have no good works. The controversies of every age tend to the obscuration of some truths by the prominence given to what may be the "present truth."
Progress in divine knowledge greatly tends to the enjoyment and strength of the spiritual life. The consolations of the divine word are most attainable by the man who has striven most to understand its meaning, and for service to our fellow-men, we can only gain the character that leads men to glorify God as in the highest sense we learn the "truth as in Jesus."
Let it not, however, be thought that progress in the truth is evidenced by changeableness of doctrinal views. There are people who gain notoriety by espousing opinions which are new to them, and discarding sentiments they have heretofore held. We are exhorted to leave the principles of the doctrine of Christ, and go on unto perfection; but we are not in doing this to leave or dishonor Christ. We may leave the first elements of Christian truth as we leave the alphabet behind when we make progress in literature; but we shall with true progress, become only the more firmly grounded and settled in the faith.—Baptist Weekly.
The Meaning of Humility
By Charles Haddon Spurgeon
HUMILITY is to make a right estimate of one's self. It is no humility for a man to think less of himself than he ought, though it might rather puzzle him to do that.—Spurgeon.
Every Man a Hero
By Ralph Waldo Emerson
EACH man is a hero and an oracle to somebody, and to that person, whatever he says has an enhanced value.—Emerson.