PLEASE explain Luke 16:8, 9: “And the Lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely; for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.” C. C. N.
The lesson of the parable is the necessity of preparing for the future. The earthly lord commended the unjust steward, not because of his dishonesty, or unfaithfulness, but because of his shrewdness and foresight in preparing for the future. To do this he made friends with earthly riches, the mammon of unrighteousness. In this respect he showed wisdom greater than do the mass of professed Christians.
From the parable the Lord gives us this lesson: “Make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when it shall fail, they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles.” (R. V.) The “mammon of unrighteousness” is the riches worship'd by the unrighteous, the riches which perish. The child of God should use these riches to feed the poor, to minister to the needy, to spread the Gospel. Thus will he make friends of God, Christ, and the angels, who will receive him home when all things earthly fail. See Matt. 24:31.
No. 337. Blotting Out of Sins.
ARE the sins of the righteous blotted out when their names come up before the Father in the sanctuary in heaven? or will that be the last work of our Saviour before he leaves the sanctuary? H. C. H.
Both will be true. The cases of the righteous dead will doubtless be decided as they come before the Father. The cases of the righteous living will not be decided till their probation is closed. The last acts of our Lord as priest will therefore be the blotting out of the individual sins of the righteous living, and the removing from the heavenly sanctuary the remembrance of all the sins of the righteous. See in the type, Jer. 16:16, 20, 21.
No. 338. The Mosaic Law.
WAS the Mosaic law intended to be handed down to us as a law of God? And if so, why did Christ change it in a measure, that is, the law of divorces and an eye for an eye, etc.? And if not, are we bound to obey that law in regard to eating and drinking, etc.? MRS. R. W. H.
In the various precepts given by the Lord through Moses some were of a distinctly spiritual character, such as injunctions to love and obey God; some were civil ordinances for the protection of individual rights against the greed and oppression of wicked men, such as usury laws, land laws, etc.; and some were ceremonial, regulating sacrifices, offerings, etc., typical of things to come; some were for both the spiritual and physical well-being of God’s people, regulating food, leprosy, etc. The civil ordinances expired with the Jewish state. The ceremonial ordinances expired by limitation at the cross; then also expired the laws, as technical laws, the statutes regulating foods; but the moral principles and the principles on which man’s physical well-being depends, are eternal. No man can eat and drink to God’s glory (1 Cor. 10:31), and yet ignore the plainest teaching of God’s word with reference to food and health. For instance, the law concerning the use of swine’s flesh may not be technically binding as such, but this does not alter the eternal fact, expressed in the law, that the swine is unclean and unfit for food; and the instructed man will desire to heed what God has “written aforetime” “for our learning” in this or any other respect. See Rom. 15:4.
No. 339. This Generation—All These Things.
IN Matt. 24:34 we are told that “this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” What is meant by “all these things”? If it is the events spoken of in verses 29, 30, and 31, how can that compare with verse 34? The first of these events, history tells us, took place May 19, 1780. Surely, that generation and a great number of the next one have passed away.
“This generation” evidently relates to the generation which sees the signs of Christ’s second coming in the light of his prophecy. These signs—“all these things”—are set forth in Matt. 24:12-14, 24-26, 29; Mark 13:22-25; Luke 21:25, 26. To the mind of the writer “all these things” would include all the signs of which our Saviour spoke on this occasion. Of the signs in the sun, moon, and stars, it could not be said that all were seen till the last was seen. When these things were to begin to come to pass, said Jesus, his disciples were to know that his coming was drawing nigh; but when all these things were manifest as fulfilled and fulfilling, they were to know he was near, even at the door. Compare Luke 21:28 with Matt. 24:33. The seeing of these signs is not the mere looking on them with physical eyes, but seeing them in the light of the Lord’s last message. The generation who thus see them, to whom the message is given, will not pass away till Christ comes.
No. 340. This Generation—When Begin.
PLEASE explain Matt. 24:34. When did that generation begin? and how long is a generation? G. W. T.
See answer to question No. 339. It begins with the great advent message of Rev. 14:6-14 (about 1840), and will close with Christ’s coming. There is no data by which the length of a generation for all time may be determined. It was doubtless longer in Noah’s day than it is in ours. Generally speaking, this generation would mean those living upon the earth at this time. The people composing the generation which heard the advent message based on the signs given by Christ, will not all pass away till Christ comes.
No. 341. Daniel.
WHAT became of Daniel? Did he die, or was he translated? J. S.
The angel told him that he should “rest.” The Jewish translation by Leeser reads, “Thou shalt rest, and arise again.” Daniel therefore must have died. Mahommedan tradition says that he died at Susa.
No. 342. Fire on the Sabbath Day.
ACCORDING to the Ten Commandments was Israel allowed to build a fire on the Sabbath day? J. S.
That depends on what the fire was for. If it was builded when not needed in order to defy God, it was forbidden by the Decalogue (see Num. 15:30-36); if it were necessary to save life and minister to the needy, the law did not forbid it; for it is lawful according to law to do good on the Sabbath day (see Matt. 12:12).
No. 343. The Day the Lord Hath Made.
WILL you please explain Ps. 118:24, “This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.” ANXIOUS READER.
The language is prophetic of Christ’s triumph over Satan, sin, and death. It has no reference to a day of the week, but of the time of our Lord’s eternal triumph for evermore. See verses 22, 23; compare with Luke 20:17; Acts 4:10-12; Eph. 2:20; Rev. 12:10. See No. 305, in issue of April 16, page 5.
THE KING OF EARTH.
By Clyde Scott Chase
BY CLYDE SCOTT CHASE.
God spake to weak and troubled souls, “Put not your trust in man”— The word in holy record lives for every eye to scan— “He towers not above the brute, His heart, so hard and sear, Is selfish, wicked, cold and dark And deaf is Mercy’s ear.”
But soon a man of power great, Evolved from strife and sin, Arises at a fitting hour And speaks above the din: “Behold who now all nations rule! His throne earth’s greatest town, Who wields the scepter of the True And wears the jeweled crown.
“You need his wisdom and his word To guide your erring soul, And purify the sons of men As onward ages roll. From henceforth let no one observe The Sabbath of the week, But on the solar holiday Your rest and blessing seek.
“Obey the one who sits enthroned A vicar of his God. He can not err; with truth divine His holy feet are shod. Ye sons and daughters of the earth, Let wrong from right be riven; Pay unto me my price in gold And have your sins forgiven.”
And lo! mankind with reverence bow Their heads before the king, And to procure his pardoning grace Sweet oils and substance bring, And trust in him their souls to free From sin’s oppressive ban, While God, in Holy Scripture, says, “Put not your trust in man!”
Time’s swift, relentless dial turns And marks the fleeting years, While on the earth are multiplied Despair and doubts and fears, Until to man, in mercy sent, An angel from above Loud warning gives: “O! worship Him Who reigns in endless love; And cease to honor the decrees Of this blasphemous power;
“Repent, and serve your God alone, For sits the judgment hour! The great appointed time has come; Let men of every land Erase the mark of this false king From forehead and from hand. Awaken from your days of sleep, And dry your hopeless tears; Beyond the shadow of the night Your coming King appears!”
Columbia, Wash.
ORDINATION OF “THE POWERS THAT BE.”
By W. N. Glenn
BY W. N. GLENN.
Various indeed are the conclusions drawn from the statement in Rom. 13:1 that “the powers that be are ordained of God.” There is, however, quite a unanimity of opinion that reference is had to civil government; in fact, the context will admit of no other conclusion. But, while this fact is so commonly conceded, there is great diversity of opinion as to what constitutes proper subjection to the power so ordered of God.
Without reference to any particular form of government, the Scripture says of rulers that they “are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.” Verse 3. Again it is said, “If thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he [the ruler] beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Verse 4.
The “sword” is the emblem of the power of the civil government, and expresses the extent of that power. The sword being always recognized as a deadly weapon, and the ruler being “a revenger to execute wrath,” it is a logical conclusion that the ruler, or the government, may execute the death penalty. This fact, modified as it is by the statement that “we ought to obey God rather than men,” and further modified by the fact that God has at sundry times sustained his servants in their defiance of civil rulers, is proof positive that there is a limit to the matters over which the civil ruler may legitimately take cognizance.
Then the question arises, What is the limit? This is made plain by reference to the matters in which God has approved the action of his servants when they disobeyed the civil law. Meshach, Shadrach, and Abednego disobeyed the decree of King Nebuchadnezzar when he commanded them to worship an idol which he had set up. Daniel disobeyed the decree of King Darius which forbade prayer to any one but himself for thirty days. Peter and others disobeyed the order6 (310)of the Jewish council when commanded not to preach in the name of Jesus of Nazareth. In all these instances God delivered his servants from the vengeance of the powers which he had ordained. In the first two instances, the accused parties were not merely subjects but captives by the direct providence of God in the hands of the rulers from whose vengeance he delivered them.
Now what was the subject matter concerning which the Lord thus forbade the civil ruler to exercise authority?—It was concerning their obedience of the law of God; it was concerning their worship; concerning matters of conscience. This is emphasized in the fifth verse of this same thirteenth chapter of Romans, from which we have before quoted: “Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.” If, then, one is to be subject for conscience’ sake, it is clearly unreasonable and unjust to expect him to be subject beyond the limit of conscience. Here the jurisdiction of the civil ruler is estopped. In matters of religion, of conscience, God has not ordained that “the powers that be” shall have jurisdiction.
But some will say there is a great variation in the matter of conscience with different individuals. Then so much the more reason why human judgment is incompetent to judge in this realm. The human judge would naturally draw an arbitrary line, and, being fallible, his rule would be imperfect; consequently violence to the conscience of many would be the result. It will also be said that the consciences of some in religious matters would lead them to override the rights of others, even to murder and other overt acts of lawlessness, and that these consciences should be restricted by the civil law. Just so; and the men who are so anxious to have the civil government exercise authority in the realm of conscience are the very class that is most inclined to ignore the rights of others, and hope to secure the help of the civil law in bringing all others in line with their own ideas of right. Therefore the apostle Paul gives us a rule for the consideration of questions of conscience: “Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other; for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?” 1 Cor. 10:29. Those who ask for the compulsion of conscience by human authority always ask for the compulsion of those consciences that are out of harmony with their own.
Those religionists whose religion includes uncivil ceremonies are also estopped by the word of Him who ordained “the powers that be.” They are reckoned as having gone beyond conscience. Either they have put it away (1 Tim. 1:19) or it has become “seared with a hot iron” (chap. 4:2). In either case it has become inoperative. Uncivil acts, such as transgress the natural rights of others, can not legitimately be deemed acts of conscience. Properly speaking, conscience is bounded by the Golden Rule: “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” Outside of this boundary all action comes within the purview of the “powers that be.” Outside of this boundary is the field of action of the evil-doers, whose uncivil deeds God has specially given the civil government the power to punish. 1 Peter 2:14. As long as the power thus ordained of God confines its operations to the field set apart for it, it is the Christian’s duty to obey its ordinances. But when there comes a usurpation of the realm which God has reserved to himself, duty is equally clear: “We ought to obey God rather than men.” Acts 5:29.
It should be borne in mind that we are to submit to “every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake.” 1 Peter 2:13. Now no one who disobeys the word of God, whether voluntarily or under pressure of fear of the civil magistrate, can justly claim to do so for the Lord’s sake. No act, by whomsoever commanded, will be recognized as having been done for the Lord’s sake unless it be in harmony with his word.
STRONG WORDS FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
(Concluded.)
[The following is from a speech by Hon. Thomas C. McRae, of Arkansas, in the House of Representatives, April 2, 1896. The special point under consideration was an appropriation for Howard University, a private and Congressional institution. This appropriation came in as an amendment to the appropriation bill for civil expenses of the government. The speech, especially that part quoted from Judge Jeremiah Black, is worthy of a place among some of the famous documents drawn by Jefferson, Madison, and Johnson.]
“THIS evil spirit of persecution is indeed very far from confining itself to the ignorant and depraved. It has often brutalized the kindliest natures, and under its influence the man of genius drivels like an idiot. I think no one can read the writings of St. Francis Xavier without being touched by the deep tone of his personal piety, yet he was the author of that diabolical invention, the Spanish Inquisition. That Calvin was the profoundest thinker of his age everybody admits; to deny the sincerity of his devotion would be simply absurd; but his name is inseparably linked with one of the foulest murders that ever blackened the face of the sky. Even the matchless intellect of Milton was subdued to the service of the same demon. When all his faculties were roused in defense of free conscience, there was one class of his opponents that he gave up without hesitation to the sword and the fagot. The great heart which conceived all the glories of the Paradise Lost had no drop of pity in it for the sufferings of the Irish. The loftiest hymn of his praise was sung to the man who carried the ‘curse of Cromwell’ through that devoted island.
“It not only nourishes those violent passions which lead to bloodshed and tyranny, it is almost equally objectionable for its meaner vices of treachery and fraud. It seldom approaches you in fair hostility, with its weapon drawn and its visor up; it hides its hideous face under some plausible disguise, and surrounds itself with all the machinery of false pretenses. It takes its adversary by the beard and affectionately inquires, ‘Art thou in health, my brother?’ while it stabs him under the fifth rib. Charles IX. invited the leading Protestants of his kingdom to a royal wedding, and took such order for their entertainment during the night that their mangled and lifeless bodies were scattered next morning through all the streets of Paris. This and other outrages were committed on the absurd allegation that Protestants were not, and could not be, faithful subjects or sound in their private morals. The statesmen of England, meanwhile, with a disregard of truth equally base, made the same accusation against Catholics, and on that hypocritical pretense compelled them, for more than a century, to groan under oppression compared to which the bondage of Egypt was mild and merciful.
“It engenders dissimulation of another kind. It pays an enormous premium for hypocrisy, and crushes out all independence and truth from the hearts of the people. Sincerity, even when it clings to an erroneous faith, is the first of virtues. But the brave, true men, who would rather suffer than belie their honest convictions, are hunted down and sent to the stake, or at least are banished in disgrace from the public councils, while the knave or the coward, who is willing to profess whatever creed is safe or profitable, is rewarded for his baseness with influence, power, and place. Bigotry applies an infallible test to the merits of men. With unerring certainty she divides the chaff from the wheat, but the wheat she condemns to the unquenchable fire of her hatred, while the chaff is carefully stored away in her garner. Therefore it is that, when bigotry reigns, the public service is always crowded with the worst men. Hostility against an unpopular religion is easily simulated. When you make that a virtue, the infidel and the ribald scorner can be as virtuous as anybody. When that becomes a passport to the sovereign’s favor, the state will be served, not by religious men, but by ‘hireling wolves, whose gospel is their maw.’
“It is useless to describe any further the features of this monstrous demon. It is the Moloch of the earth, who sits on his shrine up to the ears in blood and compels the children of men ‘to pass through fire to his grim idol.’ It corrupts the morals, it pollutes the religion, it endangers the safety of any people who permit it to gain a foothold among them.
“But we may safely felicitate ourselves upon one thing. Our establishment of perfect religious liberty and equality has not only given happiness and peace to ourselves, but it has revolutionized the sentiments of the Christian world. We have led the grandest reform that has ever been since the days of the apostles. England, under the admitted influence of our example, has in a great measure knocked away the shackles from the minds of her people. She has removed one political disability after another, until at last she welcomes men of every creed to her service. A Jew is sheriff of London, Catholics sit in her Parliament, and a Presbyterian was, not long ago, at the head of her cabinet.
“France has made a progress still greater. No one there thinks of excluding a man from office on account of his religion. For many years the prime minister, who mainly wielded the power and patronage of the kingdom, was the zealous defender of a creed which the king and four-fifths of the people rejected. Even the fund raised by taxation for purposes of religious instruction is distributed to preachers of the Protestant as well as the Catholic faith. In those parts of Germany where the religious wars were conducted with the greatest ferocity, the Catholic and the Protestant sit side by side at the same council board, and even worship alternately in the same churches. The Inquisition has been abolished in Spain and auto-da-fé are heard of no longer in Portugal. Each government in Europe still supports what it chooses to call the national faith, but offenses against the religion of the state are nowhere visited with those cruel and sanguinary7punishments which used to disgrace the Christian name. The great light of religious freedom, which was seen at first only from the mountain ranges of the intellectual world, has already illumined the hillsides, and promises soon to expel the deep darkness from the lowest valleys. May the time be speeded when the whole earth shall be bathed in its radiance!
“That America should now give up the proud position she occupies in the front of the world’s great march, and skulk back like a recreant into the rear, is a thought which can not enter an American mind without causing a blush of insupportable shame. She stands pledged to this principle in the face of the world; she has solemnly devoted herself to its championship; she has deliberately promised it—not only to her own people, but to all others who should fly to her for protection—and, if she breaks her faith, it will be such perfidy as never blackened the brow of any power before.
“To avert a calamity so grievous, and to prevent a disgrace so indelible, the country looks to her educated men. The unbroken and uncorrupted heart of the people will always be with you on the right side. But you are the body-guard of freedom, and it is your special duty to carry her oriflambe in the van of every battle. Perhaps no dangerous service will be needed soon. You may safely sit still while your enemies merely talk against the equal rights of all the people. But if at any time hereafter, during the long lives which I hope you will all enjoy, some great combination should arise to stir up the bitter waters of sectarian strife, and to marshal ignorance, prejudice, and selfishness into a body compact enough to endanger the bulwarks of the Constitution, then let your flag stream out upon the wind.”
Then stand you up,
Shielded, and helmed, and weaponed with the truth.
And drive before you into uttermost shame
Those recreant caitiffs.
Two Reformations—Type and Antitype
By I. E. Kimball
ZION AND BABYLON. NO. 4.
BY I. E. KIMBALL.
Two Reformations—Type and Antitype.
It will be remembered that after some years (about, fifteen), at the instigation of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the people arose under Joshua and Zerubbabel and began to build the temple. Many returned from Babylon. All restrictions were taken away, and forthwith the king ordered the tribute money beyond the river to be at their disposal for the accomplishment of the work. He threatened with death any opposer.
So we find after the Gospel temple was founded, the work thereon was hindered, and, seemingly, finally suspended; for antichrist seemed wholly to rule the world.
But the Reformation began, and the temple began to go grandly up. The Reformers to a man believed the Roman Church to be Babylon, or a part thereof. They cried mightily to forsake her, and thousands responded, and came out, as they had from the Jewish church in the times of Christ.
Was the Rome of Luther’s day Babylon? I have showed the spiritual usurpation of Babylon over Judea anciently, and how God gave them up, and also her spiritual usurpation in Christ’s day. The apostate people were scattered to the four winds as a consequence.
When the people of God retrograde to the spiritual standing of Babylon, and are deceived by her lying spirits, they become a part of her. Now, that Babylonish superstition and practice was rife in the church even of the fourth and fifth century, most of us are fully assured. It is enough to make a plain statement of facts, and the careful student of history will not gainsay them. The church of the third century was greatly debauched. Heathen and heathenism were fast gaining full control of the church in the fourth century. In the fifth century the church was a very pit of corruption, utterly filled with false miracles, the work of the demons of heathenism deceiving her most trusted divines. Monkery drained off nearly all religious feeling from society, altho the entire mass of humanity were looked upon as the church, and received the sacrament; and yet they were no better than heathen communities in general.
The sixth century and onward the church was simply a cesspool, including all crimes and sins within its pale. This Salvian, a faithful writer and a truly Christian man of the fifth century, affirms as the truth in his own times. He was not splenetic in his utterances, but bitterly lamented the fall of the church. It was simply the Babylonism of the world.
The things now sacrificed to God were once dedicated to the service of idolatry—days, times, incense, noon candles, mysteries, and sacred signs, holy water, bones, and relics, and shrines. It was heathenism through and through. Sunday, Christmas, Lady day, and Easter—who does not know that these days were first dedicated to the service of idolatry before their introduction into the Christian calendar? See Rev. 2 : 14, 20. Celibacy, professedly so, and virginity were all of heathen origin, and may be seen carried out as fully as they were in the early church, in eastern countries. Even the spectacles in the arena were dedicated to Christ; everybody swore by Christ.
False miracles are as sure a sign of Satan’s church as true miracles are of a true church, and whoever reads the records of the miracles of the fifth century and later, will be constrained to believe the counterfeit was here shown—not the genuine.
Babylon had made a complete conquest, and her vicar became seated in the chair of “St. Peter.” Paganism was swallowed up in this monstrous power, which came to sway such an influence politically that all nations feared, bowed, and received the yoke of the popes. Thus the dragon of Revelation 12 gave his power, seat, and authority to the beast—a new phase, a religious phase of Rome; and while worshiping the dragon they also worshiped the beast. Rev. 13 : 4. I conclude, therefore, that Romanism is but Babylonism, and that this is one part of Babylon, which is shown to be finally divided into three parts. Rev. 16 : 19. We have found two of them, Paganism and Catholicism.
Then, as anciently, after the temple had remained for years in an unfinished state, by the decree of Smerdis the people were aroused by the prophets of God, and put their hand to the work once again, and the cry was raised by the prophets: “Ho, ho, come forth, and flee from the land of the north, saith the Lord; for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of heaven, saith the Lord. Deliver thyself, O Zion, that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon.” Zech. 2 : 6, 7. Doubtless multitudes responded, as we would also infer from the record in 1 Esdras. So the Reformers of the present era raised the cry, “Come out of her, my people,” and we know well the result. Tens of thousands broke the thrall of that antichristian power, and fled forth from her gates. Then the temple of Christ arose in splendor, and to the foundation of the apostles and prophets of old they brought precious, living stones, with mind fully set to finish the work so long before begun.
As, anciently, under the second decree the workmen commenced in opposition to the powers of earth, when, lo, a decree said to them, “Build,” so the Reformers commenced, and so the decree of God sustained them. For God was also the Author of the decrees made by the Persian kings. Isa. 44 : 28.
The Reformers protested against “mysteries,” holy water, incense, noon candles, and rites, classes, and orders, against fastings and the flagellations of the unkempt saints, whose picture is shown in Col. 2 : 23. They protested against the many intermediaries between man and God, the human authority of priest over laiety, and bishops and cardinals and primates and popes—five cordons stretched between man and his God. They protested against the supreme pontiff, the evident successor8of the pagan Roman pontiff, who was high priest of the pagan religion, an office which Constantine held all through his life; for it was, after the times of Cæsar, vested in the emperors, and the Roman pontiff was the manifest successor to the Babylonian pontiffs of old, as shown in Nebuchadnezzar; for even to this day it is a notable fact that the pope perpetuates in his attire the inimitable costume of the Babylonian kings, as described by Strabo and Herodotus. The ring, the slipper upon the foot, the toe of which tributary kings bowed down to kiss, the white cassock hanging to the feet, the white cloak open to the shoulder, the high round cape with pendant fillets, which was death for any other to wear, attendants clothed in scarlet, with chains of gold about the neck—all this tells the tale that Rome is but a continuation of Babylon.
The Reformers protested against the unmerciful spirit which is manifest in the words of Thomas Aquinas:—
The heretics must not be tolerated because they deserve it, we must bear with them till, by a second admonition, they may be brought back to the faith of the church; but those who, after a second admonition, remain obstinate in their errors, must not only be excommunicated, but they must be delivered over to the secular power, to be exterminated.
Thus Babylon drank the blood of the servants of God, and fifty million martyrs will testify in the judgment how rigidly Aquinas’ doctrine was carried out in the church.
But, as with the builders anciently, mountains should become plains, all difficulties be overcome by the power of God, so the Reformers wrought by the power of God, and they prospered and builded. The powers of hell were massed against them; nevertheless, they passed through the sea of afflictions and persecutions, and found rest. The world was enlightened, the pontiff’s power broken, freedom to worship God according to the dictates of enlightened conscience secured, and a glorious step forward taken.
But another and more important era follows.
THE POINT IS PERTINENT.
Under the heading “Open Letters” the Advance publishes the following kindly criticism of one of its own editorial articles. The point is well taken, and the editor did well in frankly publishing it without comment:—
May I venture a kindly criticism on your editorial “The Coming of Christ”? It strikes me as so at variance with the generally excellent character of the articles found in the editorial columns of the Advance, that I can only account for it on the assumption that the writer reached his conclusions, not from an independent study of the word of God, but rather through a theological “system.” What, for example, could bring one to conclude that death,—which is everywhere spoken of in the Scriptures as “the wages of sin,” “the king of terrors,” and “the last enemy,” which Christ came to destroy,—is the coming of the Lord, whose appearing believers are commanded to love? We are nowhere commanded to love death. Satan has the power of death (Heb. 2:14); but Christ is everywhere set forth as the Prince of Life. Surely no two future events could stand out in more striking contrast. This editorial teaches that death is “the coming of Christ.” The Scriptures teach two separate and distinct comings of Christ (Heb. 9:28): First, “to bear the sins of many,” and again a second time unto them that look for him, “without sin [a sin offering] unto salvation.” How unworthy, then, as well as unscriptural and misleading, are these other various alleged “comings” of our Lord!
I am fully aware of the general teaching of our Congregational pulpits, as of the religious press, for the most part. My observation is that to hold the ancient hope of the pre-millennial coming of our Lord is vastly more unpopular and unwelcome in most of our churches than any theory of higher criticism, however destructive of faith in the word of God, or even to question the divinity of Jesus Christ, or hold a theory of evolution that denies the Lord that bought us. D. C. S.
CHRIST OUR LIFE.
By Geo. H. Heald, M.D.
BY GEO. H. HEALD, M.D.
“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Gen. 2:7.
Is not this text sufficient evidence that man differs from brute creation in the possession of an immortal soul? Let us see.
1. Man was formed out of the dust of the ground. So were animals. “Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air.” Verse 19.
2. God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Gen. 7:21, 22 shows that all animal creation had the same breath of life.
3. Man became a living soul. In chapter 1:20 the expression “moving creature” that hath life is more properly rendered “soul” in the margin; for it comes from the same original words which are rendered “living soul” in Gen. 2:7. The expression “living creature” in verses 21 and 24 should be similarly rendered, for the same reason, and in the thirtieth verse, the literal rendering, as given in the margin, is, “And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul.”
The word rendered “soul” and “life” in these passages means simply “animal life.” Paul, in 1 Cor. 15:45, in his discourse on the resurrection, says, “The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [Christ] was made a quickening [life-giving] spirit.”
Christ “is our life.” Col. 3:4. He is called “THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.” Jer. 23:6. And in Gal. 3:21 we learn that if the law could have given life, it would also have given righteousness; hence righteousness and life are inseparable. But the law could do neither; and “what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Rom. 8:3, 4. So both life and righteousness are from God, through Christ. This is further shown in Rom. 5:12 and onward, where death is declared to be the result of sin. Righteousness is called a free gift (verses 17 to 19), and this righteousness is inseparably connected with eternal life in Christ, in these and the succeeding verses.
“We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren.” 1 John 3:14. Love is the fulfilling of the law, or righteousness. It is a gift from God, not something that we can develop in and of ourselves. “Love is of God.” “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God.” 1 John 3:1. “Every one that loveth is born of God.” 1 John 4:7.
This condition, spoken of as loving the brethren, “born of God,” “passed from death unto life,” etc., is necessary to an entrance into heaven. “Except a man be born again [“born from above,” margin], he can not see the kingdom of God.” John 3:3. It was to bring man into this condition of sonship that Christ came to the world. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16. “He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God.” John 1:11, 12. “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.” 1 John 5:1.
We learn, then, that there is promised to the sons of God—those who have accepted Christ by faith—an eternal life, which is altogether different from the animal life given in common to Adam and to the beasts; for, while Adam in his sinless condition had an opportunity to go on to immortality, it would have given the same life to the beasts; for had there been no sin, there would have been no death.
But what is the record regarding the life of those who are not “sons of God”?—“For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them; as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast; for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.” Eccl. 3:19, 20.
