ONE of the strangest conversions of our day is that of Lars Olsen Smith, of Sweden. From being the “brandy king” of that country, manufacturing and selling for years three-fourths of all the brandy consumed there, and realizing an income of over $250,000 a year, he has become an uncompromising temperance reformer, and is endeavoring to elevate the social condition of his countrymen whom his brandy did so much to degrade.
His conscience—for he was evidently that rarest of all creatures, a liquor dealer with a conscience—disquieted him as he reflected that he was responsible for three-fourths of the sin, misery, disease and death which resulted from the brandy he sold. At first, having concluded that alcoholism was occasioned largely by the fusel-oil contained in alcohol, he erected seven rectifying factories for freeing brandy from impurities; but as the agents of the Gothenberg system, who had the monopoly of the liquor business in Sweden, would not sell his brandy, preferring the impure article, as it was cheaper, he went to work to break them down, and at the end of a year had driven the raw, impure spirit out of the market. As a substitute for the Gothenberg system, which he declared had developed into gigantic means of demoralization and jobbery, he drafted a licensing bill fixing the license at $1,500 a year, and making it illegal to charge more than a fixed price, and has thus greatly reduced the number of drinking places in Sweden. He has also used his large wealth in establishing popular savings banks, building societies, co-operative stores, and public kitchens for supplying cheap and wholesome food to the poor. What a fortunate thing it might be, though the idea is hardly conceivable, if some of our whisky lords or beer barons could attempt to repair the injury they have done to the community, by adopting his words: “I think it is better to use the money I have gained in demoralizing and poisoning the people, in undoing, as far as possible, the mischief that unwittingly I created.”—Illustrated Christian Weekly.
Disaster and Defeat.
DISASTER comes from without; defeat comes from within. Let the enemy batter down the walls, silence the guns, storm the defenses, even shoot away the colors—that is only disaster. It becomes defeat, when the garrison, of its own choice, upon its own responsibility, makes the sign of surrender. Not the surrounding colors of the enemy, though they be thick as autumn leaves, but the white flag on its own ramparts shows that the fort has fallen. There remains a possibility of victory to those who will fight, a hope for all save the hopeless, possible salvation for him who admits the possibility. Yet despite this fact, many a one, at one point or another, will insist on practically giving up the contest. This in little things and in larger. From the use of tobacco, for example, a friend's advice, a physician's warning, or a pastor's counsel, will never dissuade a man who persists in urging that because he tried to break the habit last year, and failed, it would be useless for him to try again. No drinking man who is ready to concede that the drink-demon is stronger than he, but will drink till he dies—and probably die of drink. He has already hung out the white flag of absolute surrender. Disaster has become defeat. Whoever has a besetting sin—and who has not?—may never get out of reach of its assaults. It may work disaster to his peace of mind, he may even be once or again worsted by it, and yet finally conquer. But the instant he acknowledges its supremacy, he is in the enemy's hands. Not failure as a fact, not failure as a confession, but failure as an excuse, brings hopelessness.—S. S. Times.
Cigarette Smoking and Insanity
A YOUNG man on Long Island has become insane. It is said that his mental disorder was caused by cigarette smoking. We suspect, however, that they who say this have mistaken the cause for the result.—Boston Transcript.
Prohibition and Homemade Beer
PROHIBITION having been established in Iowa, a prominent brewer advertises that he will furnish the material and full instructions for making a barrel of good beer for $1.50. It sells by the barrel for $7.50.
Question Answered.
By Editor
THE following question is asked by an interested reader of the SIGNS:—
"In Ex. 31:17 I find the Sabbath called a sign. Why was it so called if it was real as given to the Israelites?"
The questioner evidently labors under a misapprehension as to the meaning or scope of the word "sign." We think—as we can only infer—that he uses the word "real" in distinction from typical or shadowy. But that idea is misleading. The word is first used in Gen. 1:14. The sun and the moon are there declared to be "for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years." There is nothing in contrast with "real" in this.
The text cited by the questioner relieves the subject of all difficulty when it is noticed of what the Sabbath is a sign. The Lord himself said: "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed." Of the word, Gesenius gives this definition: "A sign of something past, a token, memorial, Ex. 13:9, 16; Deut. 6:8. Hence a memorial, monument, Isa. 55:13; Eze. 14:8." He also uses the words, "a token, argument, proof." The Sabbath is God's token or memorial of creation. As such it is also "proof," and it is used by the Lord in Eze. 20:20, as proof of the most important nature: "Hallow my Sabbath; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the Lord your God." The true God is the Creator of the heavens and the earth; see Jer. 10:1-16; Acts 17:22-25, and many others. Of this the seventh-day Sabbath, the day of Jehovah's rest, is a standing memorial or proof. This is real, everlasting, as long as the earth remains, yes, as long as it remains a fact that God created the heavens and earth in six days, so long will the seventh day be a memorial of that act of creation. Mark the words of God's commandment: "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." How came it to be the Sabbath or rest of the Creator? "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day. Wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day [the day of his rest], and hallowed it."
Thus it is seen that it is not "the Jewish Sabbath," as it is often called. It comes from creation; it belongs to the Creator. The error of that expression—"the Sabbath of the Jews"—will be very clearly seen if we remodel the whole commandment to conform to such a change. It is customary even for men of learning to take the name of the Creator, the Lawgiver, out of the first part of the commandment and insert the name "the Jews" in its stead. Now if they may so amend one part of the commandment, we may the other. Then it will read as follows:—
"Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Jews; in it thou shalt not do any work. . . . For in six days the Jews made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Jews blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it."
Of course no one will accept this reading; but why not? Sabbath means rest, and the Sabbath day is the rest day. Remember that the seventh-day rest or Sabbath is given to commemorate the work of creation; and the Lord claimed it as his day because he created all things in six days and rested the seventh day. The claim is highly reasonable. But the opposers of the Sabbath say it belongs—not to the Lord, but—to the Jews; it is the Sabbath of the Jews. But the rest certainly belongs to him or to them who performed the work. If the seventh-day rest belongs to the Jews, if it is a Jewish institution, it is because the Jews did the work which it commemorates! No one can rest from a work which he never did; but the seventh day is the rest day of the Creator of the heavens and the earth. It commemorates that work and no other. We claim, and fear no contradiction, that no greater violence is done on the commandment by inserting "the Jews" in the last part, than by inserting those words in the first part. In either case it is a mutilation of the law of the Most High. It is treason against the supreme moral Governor of the universe, to corrupt his statutes; to take his own signature, placed there by his own hand, out of his law and to insert in its stead a name which is almost everywhere a by-word and a reproach.
When carefully examined, there is no testimony which is more decisive in favor of the Sabbath of the Lord God, the Creator, than is found in those texts in which the Lord claims it as a sign that he made the heavens and the earth. May he give us wisdom and grace to accept it in the light in which we gave it, as "the holy of the Lord, honorable." Isa. 58:12, 13.
Satan Still at Work.
By Editor
WHEN Satan commenced his work of deception on the earth, he presented two falsehoods which he persuaded the woman to believe: 1. That if they sinned they should not die. 2. That they should be as gods—they should be greatly exalted by disobedience to their Maker. And this is exactly what Spiritualism is teaching to-day.
Unfortunately the current religion of this age has accepted for truth that first falsehood of Satan; not, however, as coming directly from Satan; they received it from his servants, the pagans, who "did not like to retain God in their knowledge" (Rom. 1:28), but carefully transmitted by tradition the falsehood of Satan, that the sinner had endless life in himself. The religionists profess that, in accepting the belief and the arguments of Plato, they do not offer any hope to the sinner; but in that they are mistaken. It is an old saying, and one to which men tenaciously cling, that "while there is life there is hope." Convince the sinner that he is undying in his nature—that he is independent of Christ as far as eternal life is concerned—and he will seize with avidity the fallacies and vagaries of Spiritualism. This is shown to be true by the wonderful growth of that error within the last thirty years. An infant in years, it is a giant in proportions and power. And all because the world has accepted Satan's first falsehood told in Eden, that sin cannot bring death; that man, whether sinful or obedient, is undying in his nature.
To prove that men are prone to build a hope on the supposed immortality of the soul, we relate the following incident: A few years ago we attended the funeral of a man who was instantly killed, without a moment's warning, while he was cursing his brother in passionate anger. They were working a wood-sawing machine, and while he was thus swearing at his brother, a stick of wood fell into the fly wheel and was hurled away, striking him under the chin, and he fell dead. A Methodist minister preached the sermon, which was a pretended argument in favor of natural immortality. We sympathized with the minister in his position, for we could not imagine what he could say to the mourners, so utterly hopeless did the case look to us. But the preacher had resources of which we were not aware. He calmly, and with an air of confidence, told them that he had one hope, one consolation to offer them in their great bereavement, and that was, that the soul is immortal and cannot die! We need not say that we were greatly surprised; and this was, no doubt, an unusual case in its bold inconsistency, but it does show that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is made a refuge for incorrigible sinners. If ministers only occasionally present it in this light, we cannot wonder if sinners generally accept it as such a refuge. If Satan can establish them in the first falsehood, he will easily find ways to indoctrinate them into another.
An inspired (?) lecture was recently given in the Metropolitan Temple, San Francisco, by a medium, which was reported to the Banner of Light. It began with this declaration: "In the spiritual nature of man is found all conceivable powers and attributes." According to this, we cannot conceive of a power or an attribute which God possesses which man does not possess! Can the arrogance of self-conceit go farther than this? All the world has greedily taken the first falsehood—"Ye shall not surely die;" and the millions are now as greedily accepting the second falsehood—"Ye shall be as gods."
We doubt the correctness of our common translation of this declaration of Satan. We never could see a reason for it. It does not seem to fully express the strength of the deception of the enemy. According to this rendering man has already gone far beyond Satan's promise in his belief of error. "Ye shall be as gods" is not expressive of very great exaltation. Dr. Tregelles, in his "Hebrew Reading Lessons," renders it: "And ye shall be like God." This translation is literal, and it makes Satan express exactly what his victims accept as truth at the present time. They are not at all content with being as the gods of the heathen; they aspire to be like the Most High; existing by their own inherent powers; independent of Christ and the gospel; possessing every attribute of which the mind can conceive! What a harvest is Satan reaping from that first falsehood! What a responsibility rests upon the Christian world for teaching this doctrine of the great enemy, that man is immortal without Christ and his gospel. How true it is that they have "strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life." Eze. 13:22.
They who teach that man is immortal without Christ, without the gospel, rob the Saviour of his glory as "our life"—the Lifegiver; and the Father has expressed his deep abhorrence of such a course by the apostle John, who wrote as follows: "He that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son." 1 John 5:10, 11. It was not in Adam; it is not in us; it is not found in nature. Plato did not reveal it; he only reiterated the first falsehood of Satan. But Jesus Christ brought it to light in the gospel. To him alone belongs the glory of giving life to all that come unto him, "that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life." John 6:40. "The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord." Rom. 6:23.
Christian Counsel for Daily Living
"Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feeble-minded, support the weak, be patient toward all men. See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men. Rejoice evermore. Pray without ceasing. In everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you." 1 Thess. 5:14-18.
The "Teaching of the Apostles."
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
COMPANY IN WHICH IT WAS FOUND.
LAST week we quoted some testimony to show the untrustworthy character of the writings ascribed to the Fathers in general; in this article we propose to examine the character of those particular writings whose reflected light adds so much to the so-called "Teaching of the Apostles." These are the two epistles of Clement of Rome, the "Epistle of Barnabas," and the "Epistles of Ignatius." The first in order is Clement of Rome. Of him Mosheim says:—
"Next after the apostles, Clement, bishop of Rome, obtained very high reputation as one of the writers of this century. The accounts we have at this day of his life, actions, and death, are for the most part uncertain. There are still extant two epistles to the Corinthians, bearing his name, written in Greek; of these, it is generally supposed that the first is genuine, and that the second is falsely palmed upon the holy man by some deceiver. Yet even the first epistle seems to have been corrupted by some indiscreet person, who was sorry to see no more marks of erudition and genius in the works of so great a man."—Eccl. Hist. Book I, Cent. I, Part II, chap. III, section 18.
Of one of the epistles of Clement, Neander says:—
"This letter, although, on the whole, genuine, is, nevertheless, not free from important interpolations."—Rose's Neander, p. 408.
It will be remembered that "the two epistles of Clement" are included in the manuscript which contains the "Teaching." M'Clintock and Strong's Cyclopedia says of the writings of Clement:—
"The only genuine document is his Epistle to the Corinthians, commonly called the first, but improperly, since the so-called second epistle is not his, and is not an epistle, but only the fragment of a homily, later, perhaps, by nearly a hundred years."
We quote one more testimony concerning Clement. The "Religious Encyclopedia" of Herzog, edited by Schaff, says:—
"Clemens Romanus, one of the most celebrated names of Christian antiquity, but so overgrown with myths that it has become next to impossible to lay bare the historical facts which it represents, occurs in all lists of the first Roman bishops, but not always in the same place. . . . Of the numerous writings which bear the name of Clement, most are evidently spurious. . . . The first epistle is an official missive from the Roman congregation to the Corinthian, occasioned by some dissensions which had arisen in the latter. As it was written in the name of the whole congregation, it bears no author's name. . . . The second epistle is not an epistle at all, but a homily; and, as it is the oldest existing sermon, it is, of course, of great interest. Where, at what time, and by whom it was written, are questions of great difficulty; and of the many hypotheses which have been offered as answers, none have proved fully satisfactory."
This little item is, however, conveniently forgotten by those who wish to pile up all the "evidence" possible in favor of the genuineness and authenticity of the "Teaching." For our part, it is impossible to see why the "Teaching" should be considered any the more reliable because it is in the same manuscript with the "two epistles of Clement," when one of those epistles was not written by Clement, and the other, if written by him, has been grossly tampered with.
We now come to the so-called epistle of Barnabas. It will not take us long to find out the little that is known of this writing. Mosheim says:—
"The epistle of Barnabas, as it is called, was, in my judgment, the production of some Jewish Christian who lived in this century [the first], or the next, who had no bad intentions, but who possessed little genius, and was infected with the fabulous opinions of the Jews. He was clearly a different man from the Barnabas, the companion of St. Paul."—Book I, Cent. I, Part II, chap. II, section 18.
The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia says of this epistle:—
"The opinion to-day is that Barnabas was not the author. The epistle was probably written in Alexandria, at the beginning of the second century, and by a Gentile Christian."
Dr. Killen, in "The Ancient Church," says:—
"The tract known as the epistle of Barnabas was probably composed in A. D. 135. It is the production apparently of a convert from Judaism who took special pleasure in allegorical interpretations of Scripture."—P. 367.
M'Clintock and Strong's Cyclopedia says:—
"An epistle has come down to us bearing the name of Barnabas, but clearly not written by him. . . . The writer evidently was unacquainted with the Hebrew Scriptures, and has committed the blunder of supposing that Abraham was familiar with the Greek alphabet some centuries before it existed."
And, finally, Dr. Kitto, in his "Cyclopedia of Religious Literature," says of the writer of this tract that,—
"He makes unauthorized additions to various parts of the Jewish Cultus; that his views of the old economy are confused and erroneous; and that he adopts a mode of interpretation countenanced by none of the inspired writers, and at variance with every principle of sound criticism, being to the last degree puerile and absurd. The inference is unavoidable, that Barnabas, 'the son of prophecy,' 'the man full of the Holy Spirit and of faith,' was not the author of this epistle."
We now turn to the epistles of Ignatius. To save space, we will quote from only two authors. Mosheim says:—
"A regard for truth requires it to be acknowledged that so considerable a degree of obscurity hangs over the question respecting the authenticity of not only a part, but the whole of the epistles ascribed to Ignatius, as to render it altogether a case of much intricacy and doubt."—Historical Commentaries, Vol. I, Cent. I, section 52.
We have before quoted from Dr. W. D. Killen, Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Pastoral Theology to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. In his book, "The Ancient Church," he devotes two chapters to the so-called epistles of Ignatius, considering at length the testimony for and against their genuineness. In his preface he says:—
"If we accredit these documents, the history of the early church is thrown into a state of hopeless confusion; and men, taught and honored by the apostles themselves, must have inculcated the most dangerous errors. But if their claims vanish when touched by the wand of truthful criticism, many clouds which have hitherto darkened the ecclesiastical horizon disappear, and the progress of corruption can be traced on scientific principles. The special attention of all interested in the Ignatian controversy is invited to the two chapters of this work in which the subject is investigated. Evidence is there produced to prove that these Ignatian letters, even as edited by the very learned and laborious Dr. Cureton, are utterly spurious, and that they should be swept away from among the genuine remains of early church literature with the besom of scorn."
In chapter 3 of section 2, first paragraph, the history of the Ignatian epistles is stated so clearly that we quote it entire. He says:—
"The history of the Ignatian epistles may well remind us of the story of the Sibylline Books. A female in strange attire is said to have appeared before Tarquin of Rome, offering to sell nine manuscripts which she had in her possession; but the king, discouraged by the price, declined the application. The woman withdrew, destroyed the one-third of her literary treasures, and, returning again into the royal presence, demanded the same price for what were left. The monarch once more refused to come up to her terms; and the mysterious visitor retired again, and burnt up the one-half of her remaining store. Her extraordinary conduct excited much astonishment, and, on consulting with his augurs, Tarquin was informed that the documents which she had at her disposal were most valuable, and that he should by all means endeavor to secure such a prize. The king now willingly paid for the three books not yet committed to the flames, the full price originally demanded for all the manuscripts. The Ignatian epistles have experienced something like the fate of those Sibylline oracles. In the sixteenth century, fifteen letters were brought out from beneath the mantle of a hoary antiquity, and offered to the world as the productions of the pastor of Antioch. Scholars refused to receive them on the terms required, and forthwith eight of them were admitted to be forgeries. In the seventeenth century, the seven remaining letters, in a somewhat altered form, again came forth from obscurity, and claimed to be the works of Ignatius. Again, discerning critics refused to acknowledge their pretensions; but curiosity was roused by this second apparition, and many expressed an earnest desire to obtain a sight of the real epistles. Greece, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt were ransacked in search of them, and at length three letters are found. The discovery creates general gratulation; it is confessed that four of the epistles, so lately asserted to be genuine, are apocryphal; and it is boldly said that the three now forthcoming are above challenge. But truth still refuses to be compromised, and still disowns these claimants for her approbation. The internal evidence of these three epistles abundantly attests that, like the last three books of the Sibyl, they are only the last shifts of a grave imposture."
Comment on the testimony here quoted must be reserved for another article. These quotations should be borne in mind by the reader. They are valuable, and should be preserved by all who are interested in the Sabbath controversy, and who have not access to the original sources of information.
The Mission of Christ.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
"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. In previous numbers of the SIGNS, we considered briefly the subject of eternal life—that which those have who believe in Christ. We learned that eternal life is the gift of God through Jesus Christ (Rom. 6:23), and that therefore none can ever possess it unless they have the Son. John 3:36. The question now arises, "What shall those have who do not believe in Christ?" In this article, and succeeding ones, we shall seek a Bible answer to this question. An understanding of this subject is necessary, not merely that we may be driven to Christ through fear of the consequences of unbelief, but that we may have a proper appreciation of the love of God. We cannot praise God, and his love to us as manifested in Christ, as we ought, unless we understand, as far as our finite minds are capable of understanding, that from which his love rescues us.
In the first place, we notice that their condition is different from that of believers in Christ. This has already been shown. Christ said to the unbelieving Jews, "Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." John 5:40. The obvious meaning is that they had not life, and could not have it without coming to him, and accepting him as their Saviour. From John 3:17 some would argue that all mankind will be saved, because Christ said "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might have life." Such a conclusion shows the folly of basing a theory on a single text, regardless of other texts or the context. The eighteenth verse explains the seventeenth. "He that believeth on him [the Son] is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." Now we know why God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world. That would have been an unnecessary proceeding. The world was condemned already. His mission was to save as many as possible from a lost world. "God commendeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Rom. 5:8. The tenth verse of this chapter shows that being sinners is equivalent to being enemies; and that is why the world was condemned, because all have sinned.
God sent his Son "that the world through him might be saved;" there was opportunity for all the world to be saved if they would, but they must comply with the condition,—belief on Christ. And650now what is to become of those who do not accept this condition? The verse quoted at the beginning of this article tells us: "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." From this we learn that if God had not sent his Son, the whole world would have perished; and since the condition of salvation is belief in Christ, it necessarily follows that those who do not believe in him will perish; they will accept nothing from Christ, and therefore they receive the same doom that they would if he had not come.
In the passage under consideration (John 3: 16-18), there are two classes brought to view, believers and unbelievers. The first class receive the reward of eternal life, the second class are left to perish. Now since these two classes are directly opposite in character, it must follow that to perish is the exact opposite of eternal life. The opposite of life is death, and the opposite of eternal life is eternal death. That death is what unbelievers receive, we learn from Rom. 6:23: "The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord."
In Rom. 5:12 we learn how the whole world came to be in this state of condemnation, on account of which they would all perish if it were not for Christ. Paul says: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned;" &c. Adam was the one man by whom sin entered into the world. The stream, unassisted, cannot rise higher than the fountain, and therefore Adam's posterity were necessarily born into a state of sin. When Adam sinned, God looked down the ages and saw the whole human race in a state of rebellion, and, consequently, of condemnation; and then it was that his great love was manifested, in giving his only begotten Son to die for a rebellious world. Since the sentence pronounced upon Adam extended to the whole human race, we will turn and examine it.
In Gen. 2:15-17 we learn that God placed man in Eden to dress it and to keep it, giving him permission to eat freely of the fruit of every tree, with one exception. Concerning that the Lord said: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." There has been much bewildering comment on this verse, the conclusion usually being that the death here threatened was threefold, viz., "death spiritual, death temporal, and death eternal." But as in the giving of a law, so also in pronouncing the penalty for its violation, the words must be understood in "their usual and most known signification." When the words of a law or of a penalty are such as are in common use, no one is justified in placing any construction upon them. Now the term "die" in the text is unqualified, and it must therefore mean simple death. It cannot mean spiritual death for the following reasons: 1. Nothing is said about any such kind of death. 2. According to the commonly accepted meaning of spiritual death—a state of sin—the act of eating the forbidden fruit would have been spiritual death; and consequently the penalty pronounced upon Adam for a certain act would have been the commission of the act prohibited! But the penalty was not the act itself, but something that should follow that act. Neither could it mean temporal death, i. e., death for a time; for that would be equivalent to a pardon before the sin was committed; which would be absurd. As before stated, the penalty was simply death.
Right here we are met with an objection. Says the objector: "You cannot take the words of the penalty in their exact literal signification, because they read thus: 'In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,' and the record says that Adam lived nine hundred and thirty years." Still we say
that the penalty means just what it says. If it does not, then Adam had no means of knowing what would be the penalty if he should sin. The objection arises from the erroneous supposition that the sentence has been carried into effect. Those who make it seem to forget the words of Christ, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish." If God had not so loved the world, the sentence would have been executed, Adam would have died that very day, and we, his posterity, would never have existed. It was not Adam alone whom God loved, but the whole race whom he had created in him. On account of this great love, the execution of the sentence was stayed, and man was granted another trial. The plan of salvation was devised, and Christ agreed to take the sins of the world upon himself, and rescue man from his lost condition. Bear in mind the fact that God did not revoke the penalty; he merely stayed its execution, in order to give man a chance to accept the conditions of pardon. If none of Adam's race should accept these conditions, then they would all suffer the penalty threatened to him; if a few accept the conditions, then they alone escape the threatened doom. And so when we read that Christ was given that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, we understand that the original penalty announced to Adam was that he should perish. "To perish" signifies, "to be destroyed; to go to destruction; to come to nothing; to be blotted from existence." That this will be the doom of all who disregard the love and mercy of God in Christ Jesus, is fully borne out by the Scriptures, as we shall see.
It may not be out of place to briefly consider the marginal reading of Gen. 2:17: "Dying thou shalt die." By some this is supposed to afford an answer to the objection that Adam did not immediately die, and that therefore the words of the penalty cannot be taken literally. From this marginal reading they gather that the penalty threatened was that the seeds of death, as it is expressed, would be sown in Adam as soon as he sinned, or, in other words, that he would become mortal, and would eventually die. But this does not help the matter at all; for if we substitute "dying thou shalt die," for, "thou shalt surely die," we are still shut up to the fact that this was to occur "in the day that thou eatest thereof." The truth is that the marginal reading does not express to us the meaning of the original so correctly as do the words of the text, "Thou shalt surely die." It is a construction that often occurs in the original, when emphasis is required. It is used in Gen. 2:16: "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat." The marginal reading is, "eating thou shalt eat." This does not mean that he should begin to eat and continue to eat until the act of eating should be consummated, but was an emphatic permission to Adam to eat.
The same construction is used in Ex. 3:7, where the Lord says, "I have surely seen the affliction of my people." Had our translators done as they did in Gen. 2:16, 17, they would have placed in the margin, "Seeing I have seen." Then, according to the interpretation given to the marginal reading of Gen. 2:17, it would mean that God began to see, and continued to see, until finally he saw. This would make nonsense of the text, yet it would be as legitimate an interpretation as the other. The expression is simply an emphatic statement that God had seen the affliction of his people; and Stephen, in his discourse (Acts 7:34), marks this emphasis by the repetition of the statement: "I have seen, I have seen." So the statement in Gen. 2:17 did not mean that man should begin to die and continue to die until he should finally be dead, but it was an explicit and emphatic declaration that death should immediately follow his sin. If we should translate this passage as Stephen did the similar construction in Ex. 3:7, it would read: "In
the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt die thou shalt die." This would well express the meaning. A parallel to this emphatic declaration of the death penalty is sometimes heard in human courts
"Thou shalt surely die." This penalty was unequivocal and unconditional. But for the merciful forbearance of God, and his love as manifested in the promised sacrifice of Christ, the human race would have been blotted from existence, in Adam.
We have now found how man incurred the wrath of God; and in succeeding articles we shall learn more fully how that wrath will be manifested to all who do not flee to the refuge offered. The consideration of the words spoken to Adam after he had sinned: "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return," must be deferred until we have finished the subject now before us. E. J. W.
The Missionary.
By John Norton Loughborough
San Jose and Lemoore.
ON Sabbath and first day, Oct. 11 and 12, Brother Ings and myself attended the church quarterly meeting at San Jose. On the Sabbath we had an interesting Sabbath-school, a discourse, and a social meeting. About thirty-five adults were present besides the children. I could not but note the changes that have taken place in San Jose. In the audience I saw but three persons who were in the church when I was last in the place, six and one-half years ago, and not one of the three remained as enrolled members. The church is mostly composed of those who have newly embraced the truth. Of the old members, death, removals, and a few cases of apostasy have depleted their number.
On first-day, as we had not the use of the hall in the city, our meetings were held at the house of Brother Peach, in Willow Glen. Here we had a discourse and the ordinances. Six members were voted into the church, making the present membership twenty-six. A spirited church missionary meeting was held, and, among other things considered, the San Jose members secured distributors for the waiting-rooms of the railway stations in the place, and made arrangements for reading-matter to supply them. One brother volunteered to attend to placing the reading-matter in the distributors. Some matters of difference were investigated during our stay, and we trust, as they go forward with a spirit of good cheer, they may see their number still increased.
On Friday evening, Oct. 17, Bro. Israel and myself commenced meetings with the church in Lemoore. These meetings continued until the afternoon of the 19th. Four discourses and one Bible-reading were given, and the district quarterly meeting was held. Before our arrival, on Wednesday, the church observed a day of fasting and prayer, for the Lord to give success to our meeting. In that meeting a part of the time was occupied in reading selections from the four volumes of "Spirit of Prophecy," and in a spirited social meeting. They reported a good meeting on fast day. We believed it, for the influence of the meeting was fully apparent in our two days' meeting. At 3 P. M. of Oct. 19 we parted with our brethren and sisters at Lemoore, leaving them in good cheer. They determined to prepare for the five days' meeting to be held there Nov. 21-25. We then rode twenty-three miles by team to Goshen, where we took the train for an all-night's trip to Los Angeles, and our southern meetings. J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.
Faith in Business
A FAITH that does not embrace a man's business leaves him actually outside of his own confidence, an errant cheat, deceiving his own soul, but deceiving nobody else.
California T. and M. Society.
REPORT FOR QUARTER ENDING SEPT. 30, 1884.
THAT there may be no misunderstanding amongst members as to which district they belong, we republish the formation as per resolution of the recent annual meeting of the Society:—
No. 1—Del Norte, Humboldt, Trinity, Mendocino, Sonoma, Marin, Lake, and Napa Counties.
No. 2—Siskiyou, Modoc, Shasta, Lassen, Tehama, Plumas, Butte, Colusa, Sutter, Yuba, Sierra, Nevada, Placer, Yolo, Sacramento, Eldorado, Amador, and Solano Counties.
No. 3—Alameda, Contra Costa, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Calaveras, Tuolumne, Alpine, Mono, and Mariposa Counties.
No. 4—San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, San Benito, Monterey, and San Luis Obispo Counties.
No. 5—Merced, Fresno, Tulare, Inyo, and Kern Counties.
No. 6—San Diego, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Ventura, and Santa Barbara Counties.
No. 7—The State of Nevada.
ANNA L. INGELS, Secretary.