Earlier text: The Sabbath in the Old TestamentForgiven Long Ago.
By H. T. Robjohns
YEARS ago I read in Charles Kingsley somewhere—and I have never forgotten it—that when we have thought our highest and best of the love of God, the real thing is beyond it infinitely. There is nothing on earth like it, save the love of a mother for a lost son. Oh! friends, put away dark and harsh views of the love of God; they are all devil’s lies; there is no truth in them. If you were moved now to return this minute to the great God, in whose heart nestles all fatherhood, and motherhood too, he would receive you straightway into the embrace of his almighty love. The love of God is the biggest thing that angels know. I lately heard one tell this story: “It was my happiness to know something of the enduring and indestructible character of a mother’s love. She had much trouble when I was young. My father died early, and we soon found out that he died a bankrupt. Things had to be sold. One trouble came after another, and my widowed mother had as much as she could bear in the way of anxiety and toil. At last, to crown all, her eldest son, who should have been her prop and stay, ran away in very distressing circumstances. I well remember the early years of that cruel separation. Sitting by the fire in the long winter nights, my mother would speak to me and the other children calmly and quietly of our poor father that was dead; but if anybody named the wanderer, she could not endure the anguish; and so, after a time, his name was never heard. I remember how in the night, when the wind was raging round our humble cottage on the hill, making it tremble to its foundation, I used to hear my mother, for her bedroom was over mine, pacing the floor all night, sobbing and praying for her lost boy. She did not know where he was, and, for aught she knew, he might be on the sea. Fourteen years passed away. All of us were scattered except two, who were twins, now men, but little more than babies when their brother went away. It was early summer, and they and mother were sitting in the little parlor with the window open. To the window, with halting step, came a great, dark-bearded stranger. He looked in, leaning on the window-sill. My mother looked at him, and did not know him at first. But the big tears were running down his face, and she knew him through the tears. She sprang up and bade him instantly come in. ‘No, mother!’ said he, ‘I shall never cross your threshold till you have told me that you forgive me everything.’ My mother said, ‘Why, dear! I’ve forgiven you long, long ago. There’s now nothing to forgive, save that you have stayed away so long.—Rev. H. T. Robjohns. What God Blesses.
By Spurgeon
GOD blesses very slender things to the conversion of souls. It is very humbling, sometimes, to a preacher who thinks, “Well, I did preach a pretty fair sermon that time,” to find God does not care a pin about him or his sermon, and that a stray remark he made in the street, which he hardly thought was of any value whatever, was what God has blessed; that when he thought he had succeeded best, he had done nothing, and when he thought he had succeeded worst, then God blessed him. Many a soul has had his eyes opened by an instrumentality which never dreamed of being so useful; and, indeed, the whole way of salvation is in itself extremely simple, so as to be well compared to the clay and spittle which the Saviour used. I do not find many souls converted by bodies of divinity. We have received a great many into the church, but never received one who became converted by a profound theological discussion. We very seldom hear of any great number of conversions under very eloquent preachers—very seldom indeed. We appreciate eloquence, and have not a word to say against it by itself, but evidently it has no power spiritually to enlighten the understanding, neither does it please God to use the excellency of words for conversion. When Paul laid aside human wisdom and said he would not use the excellency of speech, he only laid aside what would not have been of much service to him. When David put off Saul’s armor, and took the sling and the stone, he slew the giant; and giants are not to be conquered to-day any more than they were then by champions arrayed in Saul’s armor. We must keep to the simple things, to the plain gospel, plainly preached. VICTORY over self is victory over the world. It is not the outward enemy, but the traitor within, that storms or undermines the citadel of spiritual life. Alas, that the gates are so often unbarred for the hosts of evil to enter! Alas, that the soul should so easily surrender, and suffer itself to be laid waste! As in the conflicts of nations, the conquering army re-inforces its own strength by the munitions of war taken from the vanquished foe, so does the victorious soul gather new forces from every temptation. Yet the victory is gained—not by self-confidence and spiritual pride, but by humility and self-abnegation. The humble soul alone is truly strong, and safe from fall. What outward power can abuse him who, while he reverences the nature God has given him, still is lowly in his own eyes, “esteeming others better than himself”? What circumstances or condition of life can be adverse to him whose will is merged in the will of God? To him the tide of life flows “like a broad river’s peaceful might,” through sunshine and through storm, bearing steadily on its appointed course. His abundant peace is not stoicism. He is still a being of smiles and tears—tenderly alive to the joys of human sympathy, both in giving and receiving the blessed charities of life. At leisure from internal strife, he has a word of courage for the tempted, comfort for the sorrowing, reproof for the hardened sinner, hope for the penitent.—Monthly Religious Magazine. The Gentleness of Christ.
By Albert Barnes
WHAT an expression! The gentleness of Christ! How much is there in that short sentence! How much to admire! how much to imitate! Christ performed great deeds—such as no other one ever did; but not that we should imitate them. He spake to the tempest, and stilled the rolling billows—but not that we should lift up our voice when the wind blows, and the thunders roll, and waves are piled mountain high, and attempt to hush them to peace. He stood by the grave and spake, and the dead man left his tomb, and came forth to life—but not that we should place ourselves by the graves of the dead and attempt to restore them to life. He opened the eyes of the blind, taught the lame man to leap as an hart, the tongue of the dumb to sing—but not that we should imitate him in this, or attempt by miracle to give vigor to the feeble, or health to the diseased. But Christ was meek and gentle, that we might be so too. Christ was benignant and kind, that we might be so. Christ patiently bore reviling, that we might do it also; he was not irritable, and uncharitable, and fretful, and envious, revengeful—and in all these we may imitate him. His was a life of benevolence, diffusive like the light of morning without clouds; a life undisturbed by conflicting emotions; unbroken by a harsh and dissatisfied temper; kind when others were unkind; gentle when the storms of furious passion raged in their bosoms; and tranquil and serene while all around him were distracted by anger, and ambition, and envy, and revenge. To us may the same spirit be given; and while the world around us is agitated with passion, and pride, and wrath, in our hearts may there reign evermore “the gentleness of Christ.” —Albert Barnes. How is it that among all the men who have been robbing the public during the last few years we don't hear of a single one who makes any kind of restitution or ever seems to think of it? Defrauders of the revenue occasionally send back conscience money, but Credit Mobilier and New York Court House swindlers seem either to have no conscience at all, or to have it seared with a hot iron. Oakes Ames made a careful disposition of his five millions of plunder, more or less, among his family, but went to meet a righteous Judge without restoring a cent of it to the real owners of a large part of it—the nation. Brooks acted in the same way with his smaller gains out of the Credit Mobilier swindle. Tweed prepares for his twelve years' incarceration by transferring his immense property to relations and friends, but does not restore one cent to the city or county of New York, from which probably the whole was plundered. We hear no word either of restitution on the part of Connolly, Sweeny, Tom Field, Ingersoll, Woodward, Genet, or a host of others. Keyser is the only man who voluntarily pledged property to make good all that could be legally demanded of him, though he maintained that he never got a dollar beyond his just claims. His fault was that, when he could not get payment of these just claims otherwise, he made out bills and signed receipts for much larger sums than were due to him, the difference being divided among the ring swindlers. Some of the bills and receipts, however, he repudiated as forgeries, and we do not learn that any steps have been taken in his case. In ancient Rome many men gave or left their entire property to the State. In modern times patriotism is not strong enough to induce public men to give the State her own. Feeding Christ's Flock from a Low Crib
A GENTLEMAN traveling in the South attended worship in a colored church, the colored pastor of which was remarkable for his high-flown style in the use of words. On this occasion a white minister preached, in a plain and direct style, adapted to his audience. In the season of exhortation which followed the sermon, an old negro thanked the Lord for the various blessings of the Sabbath and the sanctuary, and added, “We thank thee that to-day we have been fed from a low crib.” The Protestant Churchman wishes that all preachers would remember that Christ’s flock are mostly little ones. Their necks are short. They can not reach high; and food placed in too lofty a crib is no better than none at all. They may then starve, though the food be provided, because they cannot get anything that will nourish them. The Saints Are not to Be with Christ till he Comes.
By John Nevins Andrews
The Sadducees, who denied the resurrection, and who also denied the conscious state of the dead, assailed our Lord with reference to the former point. It is worthy of notice that their question was not framed with reference to the state of the dead, though it could easily have been made to include this also had they chosen to include it. The fact that they raised the difficulty with respect to the woman that had seven husbands, only with reference to the resurrection, and not at all with reference to the intermediate state, is strong presumptive proof that they knew Christ as a teacher of the resurrection, but did not know him as a teacher of the doctrine that men enter Heaven or hell at death. Christ said: “The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: but they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. Now that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living; for all live unto him.” Luke 20:34-38. Our Lord, having disposed of their difficulty respecting the resurrection, proceeds to prove that there shall be such an event. He brings his proof from Moses, whose writings were of the highest authority with the Sadducees. Long after the death of the patriarchs, God called himself their God. But says Christ, “He is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.” If they were then actually alive, there could be no proof in this text that there shall be a resurrection of the dead. If they were alive only in the purpose of God, who calleth things that are not yet as though they actually exist at the present time (Rom. 4:17), then the words which Christ quotes are a most decisive proof that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, shall be raised from the dead. It is manifest that this is their true sense. God purposed to raise them from the dead. On the strength of that purpose, he speaks of himself as their God. This implies the existence of the persons named, and that God recognized them as his people. He could do this on one of two grounds. 1. That they were then actually alive, in which case no resurrection was needed in order that these words should have their proper force; or, 2. That they were actually dead, but were alive to God because he purposed that they should live again. And this is precisely the point which Christ made. And thus, though this text is often quoted to prove the conscious state of the dead, such was not Christ’s meaning at all. Indeed, if Christ had held that the dead are now actually alive, this text would not only have had no point to prove the resurrection, but would have told directly against it; for it would show that they needed no resurrection in order to sustain the relation to God which this passage implies. Christ promised that some of those who stood by on a certain occasion should not taste of death till they had seen the kingdom of God. Luke 9:27. So after eight days he took three of his disciples up to the top of a mountain, and there gave them a miniature representation of it in a vision. Matt. 17:9. His face shone as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. He appeared just as he will be in his glorious kingdom. To represent the two classes of his people that shall inherit that kingdom, namely, those who shall be translated, and those who shall be raised from the dead, there appeared Elijah, who had been translated, and Moses, who had passed through death. The case of Moses is often cited to show that the dead are now in conscious bliss in Heaven. But the future kingdom of Christ, which was here represented, will have no disembodied saints in it. They will all have been raised from the dead before they enter it. Everything in this case requires that Moses, in order to fully represent the resurrected saints in the kingdom of God, should himself have been resurrected. Dr. Adam Clarke is of this opinion. The contention of Michael and Satan respecting the body of Moses indicates this. Jude 9. Moses, as the type of Christ, may have been an exception to the general statement respecting the resurrection. Acts 26:23. But to those who think that Moses was present on the mount as a disembodied spirit, we present these questions: “The law of Moses forbade consulting the dead, or holding converse with them. Deut. 18. Christ was certainly under the authority of that law. Now, if Moses, as a dead man, was at full liberty to converse with Christ, was Christ, as subject to the law of Moses, at liberty to converse with dead Moses? If it was a great sin for Saul to seek to converse with dead Samuel, was it not also a sin for Christ to converse with dead Moses? But the questions are asked only to show the absurdity involved in the view that Moses was still numbered with the dead when he appeared upon the mount to represent the resurrected saints in the future kingdom of Christ.” “Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.” John 14:1-3. The Saviour here seeks to comfort his disciples in view of his separation from them. He tells them that the separation is not to be eternal. Though he leaves them to go to his Father, he goes there to prepare a place for them. When the place is prepared, he will come back after them and receive them unto himself. It was necessary that he should do this, in order for them to be with him once more. For thus he states the object of his return to our earth: “that where I am, there ye may be also.” This fixes the time when the saints shall be with Christ. It is not at death, but at the second advent of the Saviour. If each one was going to Christ at death, he could have told them the separation would be very short, and that as each one should die he should be taken into his presence. But he fixes the time of meeting at his second coming, and absolutely excludes the idea of their being with him till then. And the same fact is implied in the preparation of the place. When that work is done, Christ returns for his people. If they were able to go thither before that time, they would go in advance of the preparation of the place. But there is divine order to this. The place must be first prepared for them. Our Lord shall then return and take his people to that place. And till that time they must wait. Happily the period of waiting has no element of time in it to the peaceful sleeper. As there are no thoughts in death, the state of death is to the dead a blank, even as to the living it has proved to be when from brain injury the power of thought is lost. A half-finished sentence has been completed after the lapse of weeks, the moment that thought was resumed. There is the same space of time that the dead wait, so far as the lapse of time to them is concerned, that there is to the living in the act of translation. It is an atom of time represented by the twinkling of an eye. Stephen “fell asleep” with the view of the Saviour plain before his eyes. When he awakes in the resurrection, and beholds the Saviour in his glory in the heavens above, it will be to him as though there had been no period in which he had slept in death. He can be no more conscious that Christ had disappeared from his view than we are that an object disappears when we wink. The resurrection at the advent of our Lord does, therefore, rob death and the grave of all their terrors and of all their gloom. J. N. A. The Third Angel’s Message.
By S. A.
FURTHER EXPLANATION OF THE MARK.
We were brought to the conclusion last week that the mark of the beast is the change which that power (the papacy) has made in the law of God. We now inquire what that change is. By the law of God, we mean the moral law, the only law in the universe of immutable and perpetual obligation, the law of which Webster says, defining the terms according to the sense in which they are almost universally used in Christendom, “The moral law is summarily contained in the decalogue, written by the finger of God on two tables of stone, and delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai.” If, now, the reader will compare the ten commandments as found in the Roman Catholic catechisms with those commandments as found in the Bible, he will see in the catechisms that the second commandment is left out, that the tenth is divided into two commandments to make up the lack of leaving out the second, and keep good the number ten, and that the fourth commandment (called the third in their enumeration) is made to enjoin the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath, and prescribes that the day shall be spent in hearing mass devoutly, attending vespers, and reading moral and pious books. Here are several variations from the decalogue as found in the Bible. Which of them constitutes the change of the law intended in the prophecy? or, are they all included in that change? Let it be borne in mind that, according to the prophecy, he was to think to change times and law. This plainly conveys the idea of intention and design, and makes these qualities essential to the change in question. But respecting the omission of the second commandment, Catholics argue that it is included in the first, and, hence, should not be numbered as a separate commandment. And, on the tenth, they claim that there is so plain a distinction of ideas as to require two commandments. So they make the coveting of a neighbor’s wife the ninth commandment, and the coveting of his goods the tenth. In all this they claim that they are giving the commandments exactly as God intended to have them understood. So, while we may regard them as errors in their interpretation of the commandments, we cannot set them down as intentional changes. Not so, however, with the fourth commandment. Respecting this commandment, they do not claim that their version is like that given by God. They expressly claim a change here, and also that the change has been made by the church. A few quotations from standard Catholic works will make this matter plain. In a work entitled, Treatise of Thirty Controversies, we find these words:— “The word of God commandeth the seventh day to be the Sabbath of our Lord, and to be kept holy; you [Protestants], without any precept of Scripture, change it to the first day of the week, only authorized by our traditions. Divers English Puritans oppose, against this point, that the observation of the first day is proved out of Scripture, where it is said, the first day of the week, Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10. Have they not spun a fair thread in quoting these places? If we should produce no better for purgatory, and prayers for the dead, invocation of the saints, and the like, they might have good cause, indeed, to laugh us to scorn; for where is it written that these were Sabbath days in which those meetings were kept? Or where is it ordained they should be always observed? Or, which is the sum of all, where is it decreed that the observation of the first day should abrogate or abolish the sanctifying of the seventh day, which God commanded everlastingly to be kept holy? Not one of those is expressed in the written word of God.” In the “Catholic Catechism of Christian Religion,” on the subject of the third [fourth] commandment, we find these questions and answers:— “Ques. What does God ordain by this commandment? “Ans. He ordains that we sanctify, in a special manner, this day on which he rested from the labor of creation. “Q. What is this day of rest? “A. The seventh day of the week, or Saturday; for he employed six days in creation, and rested on the seventh. Gen. 2:2; Heb. 4:1, &c. “Q. Is it then Saturday we should sanctify in order to obey the ordinance of God? “A. During the old law, Saturday was the day sanctified; but the church, instructed by Jesus Christ, and directed by the Spirit of God, has substituted Sunday for Saturday; so now we sanctify the first, not the seventh, day. Sunday means, and now is, the day of the Lord.” In “Abridgment of Christian Doctrine,” we find this testimony:— “Ques. How prove you that the church hath power to command feasts and holy days? “Ans. By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same church. “Q. How prove you that? “A. Because by keeping Sunday they acknowledge the church’s power to ordain feasts, and to command them under sin.” In the “Catholic Christian Instructed,” again we read:— “Ques. What warrant have you for keeping the Sunday, preferable to the ancient Sabbath, which was the Saturday? “A. We have for it the authority of the Catholic church, and apostolic tradition. “Q. Does the Scripture anywhere command the Sunday to be kept for the Sabbath? “A. The Scripture commands us to hear the church (Matt. 18:17; Luke 10:16), and to hold fast the traditions of the apostles. 2 Thess. 2:15. But the Scriptures do not in particular mention this change of the Sabbath.” In the “Doctrinal Catechism,” we find further testimony to the same point:— “Ques. Have you any other way of proving that the church has power to institute festivals of precept? “Ans. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her—she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no scriptural authority.” And finally, W. Lockhart, late B. A. of Oxford, in the Toronto (Cath.) Mirror, offered the following “challenge” to all the Protestants of Ireland; a challenge as well calculated for this latitude as that. He says:— “I do, therefore, solemnly challenge the Protestants of Ireland to prove, by plain texts of Scripture, the questions concerning the obligation of the Christian Sabbath. 1. That Christians may work on Saturday, the old seventh day. 2. That they are bound to keep holy the first day, namely, Sunday. 3. That they are not bound to keep holy the seventh day also.” This is what the papal power claims to have done respecting the fourth commandment. Catholics plainly acknowledge that there is no scriptural authority for the change they have made, but that it rests wholly upon the authority of the church; and they claim it as a token or mark of the authority of that church; the “very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday” being set forth as proof of its power in this respect. For further testimony on this point, the reader is referred to a tract published at this Office, entitled, “Who changed the Sabbath?” in which are also extracts from Catholic writers, refuting the arguments usually relied upon to prove the Sunday Sabbath, and showing that its only authority is the Catholic church. “But,” says one, “I supposed that Christ changed the Sabbath.” A great many suppose so; and it is natural that they should; for they have been so taught. And while we have no words of denunciation to utter against any such for so believing, we would have them at once understand that it is, in reality, one of the most enormous of all errors. We would therefore remind such persons that, according to the prophecy, the only change ever to be made in the law of God, was to be made by the little horn of Dan. 7, and the man of sin of 2 Thess. 2; and the only change that has been made in it, is the change of the Sabbath. Now, if Christ made this change, he filled the office of the blasphemous power spoken of by both Daniel and Paul—a conclusion sufficiently hideous to drive any Christian from the view which leads thereto. But why should any one labor to prove that Christ changed the Sabbath? Whoever does this is performing a thankless task. The pope will not thank him; for if it is proved that Christ wrought this change, then the pope is robbed of his badge of authority and power. And no truly enlightened Protestant will thank him; for if he succeeds, he only shows that the papacy has not done the work which it was predicted that it should do, and so that the prophecy has failed, and the Scriptures are unreliable. The matter had better stand as the prophecy has placed it; and the claim which the pope unwittingly puts forth, had better be granted. When a person is charged with any work, and that person steps forth and confesses that he has done the work, that is usually considered sufficient to settle the matter. So, when the prophecy affirms that a certain power shall change the law of God, and that very power in due time arises, does the work foretold, and then openly claims that he has done it, what need have we of further evidence? The world should not forget that the great apostasy foretold by Paul has taken place; that the man of sin for long ages held almost a monopoly of Christian teaching in the world; that the mystery of iniquity has cast the darkness of its shadow, and the errors of its doctrines over almost all Christendom; and out of this era of error and darkness and corruption, the theology of our day has come. Would it then be anything strange if there were yet some relics of popery to be discarded ere the reformation will be complete? A. Campbell (Baptism, p. 15), speaking of the different Protestant sects, says:— “All of them retain in their bosom, in their ecclesiastic organizations, worship, doctrines, and observances, various relics of popery. They are at best a reformation of popery, and only reformations in part. The doctrines and traditions of men yet impair the power and progress of the gospel in their hands.” S. A. THE SETTING UP OF THE KINGDOM
By Joseph H. Waggoner
THE SETTING UP OF THE KINGDOM.
In regard to the manner of, or as to what constitutes the setting up of, the kingdom, we come in conflict with another class who teach the theory of what is called the Age to Come. This theory appears in many phases, and we can only notice some of its main features. Its most prominent points, with which we disagree are these: That the Lord will set up his kingdom upon the earth at his second advent by giving his people authority to rule over the nations then existing; and that the nations will not be destroyed at that time, but be put upon a new probation. In this the reader will see a modification of the old theory of the millennium, the main difference being, that in that theory the Lord was not supposed to come until the close of the millennium, while in the Age-to-Come theory, he is personally on the earth during the one thousand years. We have no faith in, and no sympathy for, the doctrine of future probation after the second advent. It is a deception of the enemy to lull people to sleep, and lead them to look with indifference upon the ushering in of the great and terrible day of the Lord. Without stopping to notice the particular errors of that view, we proceed to show what the Scriptures teach on the subject. We quote the same prophetic declaration as our text:— Dan. 2:44: “And in the days of these kings shall the God of Heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.” Two points of inquiry we shall raise on this text: 1. What is the act of setting up the kingdom? 2. When will it break in pieces the kingdoms of earth? We have already noticed to some extent when it will be set up. Other testimony on that point will be embraced in the divisions here indicated. 1. It is of great importance to keep in mind this truth, that the “God of Heaven,” of whom it is said in the text, he shall set up a kingdom, is the Father and not the Son. In 1 Chron. 17, there is a promise given to David concerning his seed, which evidently refers to Christ, wherein God said, “I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build me an house, and I will establish his throne forever.” “I will settle him in mine house, and in my kingdom.” Verses 11, 12, 14. The word establish is evidently used here in the same sense that the expression set up is in Dan. 2. It may also be used to denote the confirmation of that which is set up, and is so used in Isa. 9:7. “Of the increase of his [Christ’s] government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it, with judgment and with justice, from henceforth even forever.” Now we have in definite terms the establishing of the kingdom ascribed to both the Father and the Son; and we must look to other scriptures to ascertain the precise work of each. That their works are different is shown in these promises. The Father said he would settle David’s seed in his house and kingdom, and establish his kingdom and throne; and the Son shall order it and establish it with judgment and with justice. The Father sets it up, and settles the Son in it; the Son orders and rules what he has received of his Father. This view is abundantly sustained by the Scriptures. Dan. 7:13, 14: “I saw in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him,” &c. Here is the act of the Father—conferring the kingdom on the Son of man; and the consequence—all people, nations, and languages, serve him, or he rules in the kingdom conferred upon him by the Father. Ps. 2:8, 9, expresses the same idea. “I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” Ps. 110:1, 2, is parallel to the foregoing: “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.” Luke 1:32, 33, says the same thing. “The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David. And he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” It will be noticed in all these passages that the only work ascribed to the Father is that of giving the throne and kingdom to his Son, thereby putting his enemies under his feet. All else—the dashing, breaking, destroying (his enemies), ruling, ordering, and establishing it, is the work of the Son. See also Luke 19:12, 15, where the Saviour likens himself to a certain nobleman who “went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.” “And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded,” &c. According to the Age-to-Come teachers he only received something of which to make a kingdom. And it is utterly impossible to harmonize their view with the Scriptures; for they assert that it cannot be called a kingdom until the materials are gathered in order and arranged and established, and the Son is ruling in their midst; but there is not a text in the Bible that goes to show that the Father gives the Son a kingdom in any such condition. He has received the kingdom when he returns from Heaven; the kingdom is given to him when he is brought before the Ancient of days. If there is in all the Bible a single passage which ascribes any work to the Father, in the setting up of the kingdom, but that of conferring it upon the Son, or of investing the Son with regal power, we ask to be cited to such passage. And that work is certainly accomplished in Heaven before the second advent. Deceiving and Being Deceived.
By Roswell F. Cottrell
It is generally the case that deceivers are themselves deceived. An apostle foretells that evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. If we do not watch against the “evil heart of unbelief,” we are in danger of being hardened through the “deceitfulness of sin.” There are multitudes of professed Christians at the present time that are being deceived by their religious teachers. The doctrine of the conversion of the world before the second advent of Christ, a doctrine untaught by the word of God, is deceiving its thousand and leading them to final ruin. This doctrine which was never heard of three hundred years ago, is so agreeable to the worldly church and the carnal mind that men will not stop to give it a scriptural investigation, but, taking it for granted, they close their eyes to the prophecies that relate to our times and the signs of the approach of the day of wrath that shall follow the close of probation and bring the second advent. The evil signs of our times, together with the proclamation of the advent at hand, do trouble the minds of many; but they turn from the truth to the pleasing fables that are taught on every hand, and persuade themselves that a conversion to a popular sect will do instead of obedience to the truth; and thus they follow the blind leaders of the blind. Conversions abound. But what are they converted from, and what are they converted to? They should be converted from sin, which is the transgression of the law of God, and to obedience to that law. But their teachers turn away their ears from hearing that holy law. They do not keep all its commandments. They teach that the law has been abolished, wholly or in part, or that it has been changed to correspond to the present practice; and they make their converts hope that their word will be confirmed. They rely upon majorities, and seek for civil enactment to retain their creed; and while superficial conversions are filling up the great city of confusion, they will prove to be a real accession of political strength to carry the measure they seek—a “religious amendment,” which will constitute the predicted “image of the beast.” Superficial and partial preaching will produce superficial and partial converts—converts who increase political power, rather than spiritual, and are just fitted to join the crusade against Bible truth, and legislate a proud and boastful nation into the kingdom of God on earth. Thus they are deceiving and being deceived. May the honest of heart escape this wide-spread deception. May the time soon come when those who enjoy a measure of the Spirit of God may fully understand the fact that Babylon is fallen. Rev. 18. R. F. COTTRELL.