The Signs of the Times, vol. 10

October 30, 1884

“Reform and Popularity” The Signs of the Times 10, 41, p. 642.

“IT is the universal law that whatever pursuit, whatever doctrine, becomes fashionable, shall lose a portion of that dignity which it had possessed while it was confined to a small but earnest minority, and was loved for its own sake alone.”—Macaulay’s England, Chapter 8, Paragraph 136. SITI October 30, 1884, page 642.1

A short study of the history of reforms, will be sufficient to convince any one of the truth of this observation. Fashionableness, popularity, is the one great danger of every reform. For just as soon as, from pure love of the principle, by self-denial, sacrifice, and faithful endeavor, it has been carried to that point where it compels recognition, and begins to grow popular, it receives accessions because of its popularity, and not because of its truth; because of its fashionableness, and not because it is loved; and this, as expressed above, inevitably detracts from that dignity which it possessed when it was loved for its own sake alone. This spirit soon pervades the whole body, leaders and all, and then the leaders dare not press any thing upon the people, more than they accepted because of its popularity, and soon, “like people like priest” (Hosea 4:9), it reaches the point where the special reform which they represent, cannot itself be preached in the simplicity and dignity with which it arose, because even that has become unpopular. And just as surely as one begins to press these things upon their notice, he will be slighted; and if he persists in it, he will as surely be accounted a “troubler of Israel,” and will be ostracized, and if his work goes on, it must do so outside of the communion with which it has hitherto been connected. It must begin again in weakness, in humility, in self-denial, in reproached, and in separation, because it is unpopular. SITI October 30, 1884, page 642.2

In this very thing lies the reason and the philosophy of the fact stated by Wendell Phillips: “No reform, moral or intellectual, ever came down from the upper classes of society. Each and all came up from the protest of martyr and victim.” SITI October 30, 1884, page 642.3

Again Mr. Phillips says: “No man, in the pulpit or on the platform, can be true to the truth, and at the same time be popular with his generation.” The tendency of the truth, either moral or intellectual, is to reform, and no reform is ever popular. When it becomes popular, truth is compromised and loses its power. Whosoever, therefore, will love the truth must do so at the expense of his popularity. Christ illustrated these principles, in his choice of his disciples. The Pharisees, also, at the same time gave an illustration of the principles here evolved. When the officers had returned, not bringing Christ as they had been ordered, to their “Never man spake like this man,” the answer was made, “Have any of the rulers were the Pharisees believed on him?” And when Nicodemus simply call their attention to a principle of justice and the law, which, if allowed, they knew must be in Jesus’ favor, they cried out, “Art thou also of Galilee?” John 7:45-52. And although even among the chief rulers, there were some who believed in the truth he taught, and the evidences of his mission, they would not confess him, because of the Pharisees, and lest they should be put out of the synagogue. Then the apostle gives the gist of this whole subject: “For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.” John 12:42, 43. They loved popularity more than they love the truth, and that, too, which they really believed to be the truth. SITI October 30, 1884, page 642.4

Yet “the common people heard him gladly;” because, as is well expressed by Robertson Smith: “The religious life of Israel was truer than the teaching of the Pharisees.”—Old Testament in the Jewish Church, Lecture 5, last paragraph but one. They were willing to believe on him, to love him, and to the efforts of the Pharisees to take him, they were very pertinently asked, “When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles then [sic.] these which this man hath done?” The Pharisees could not avoid seeing the force of this argument, for they could not deny that Messiah would certainly come; well, if when he should come he should do no more miracles than those which he had done, why was not this he? But no; all questions, all reasonings must be set aside because he did not foster their pride, nor promote their popularity. If he had gone to them, every part of his doctrine would have been by them warped into conformity with their proud lives; and so, if he would have his mission proved a success, if he would have the truth grow, in its purity, he was compelled to go to the common people, to those who would receive the truth, and the love of it for its own sake alone, to those who would conform their lives to the perfect form of the doctrine, and not seek to bend the doctrine into the imperfect shape of their evil lives. SITI October 30, 1884, page 642.5

This work of Christ, in his immediate presence on the earth, was not an exception to the rule by which the progress of his truth has been worked out. It was rather the laying down of the rule itself. Prof. Robertson Smith truly says: “Throughout the history of the church it has always been found that the silent experience of the pious people of God has been truer, and has led the people in a safer path, then the public decrees of those who claim to be authoritative leaders of theological thought.—Old Testament in the Jewish Church, Lecture 5, last sentence. And so again we are brought to the truth that no Reform has ever come down from the upper classes of society. And coming up from the protest of smarter and victim it has to meet all the pride of place and power of popularity, and with only the simple truth it overcomes all. The truth and the love of it is the reformer’s “shield and buckler.” The truth will reach the conscience and compel assent. Then the individual must make his choice, whether he will love the praise of men more than the praise of God, whether he loves popularity more than he loves truth. Truth is demonstrable, and even when a person decides against it in his practice, he cannot deny the evidence upon which the proposition is based. The only way in which he can justify his opposition is to destroy the evidence. SITI October 30, 1884, page 642.6

To illustrate: When many of the people believe on Jesus, basing their faith in his Messiahship on the fact that he had raised Lazarus from the dead, then the chief priest “consulted that they might put Lazarus to death.” John 12:10, 11. Exactly; the only way they could evade the truth was to destroy the evidence by killing Lazarus. They would go to the length of committing murder, rather than to acknowledge what they could not deny. The papal persecutions, and all others, have been carried on in the same channel. When the Bible was appealed to, it was destroyed. Then when the heretic in his words and his life gave evidence to the truth, his life was destroyed. SITI October 30, 1884, page 642.7

Opposition to the Third Angel’s Message is conducted on the same principle. The substance of that message is reform on the ten commandments, particularly the fourth. Without special reference to that commandment, we may ask the “chief rulers” of any orthodox church in all the land, whether the ten commandments are the law of God; whether they are every one binding on all people; whether they are immutable, unchangeable; whether that is the fundamental law; whether it is the constitution of the moral world; whether it is the truth; whether the fourth commandment is as binding as the first or the seventh, or any other one? and to every one of these questions they will answer emphatically, Yes. Then we may turn to the fourth commandment and read, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, in it thou shalt not do any work;” and ask them to obey it, and what do they do? They attempt to destroy the evidence by abolishing the law. And from the positions taken by the National Reform Party, as well as from the message itself, we are assured that their endeavors will not be confined to the law, but that when they get the power, it will be extended against those who respect and maintain the obligation of the law. And still they will call that reform, which in every feature is contrary to the word of God, the truth, the basis of all reform. But in no single point does it agree with the principles of true reform. It arose and is carried on by those who claim to be authoritative leaders of theological thought, who, as quoted above, have never been safe guides. It comes down from the upper classes of society, which no reform has ever done, and which we have seen it can never do. Those who advocate it are popular, which Wendell Phillips declared no man can be “and be true to the truth.” More than all these, the fundamental principle of the whole cause, viz., the Sunday sabbath, is a falsehood from its very inception. They may call it National Reform all they please, but the more it is examined in the light of truth, the more plainly it appears that there is not a single element of reform in the whole movement. SITI October 30, 1884, page 642.8

ALONZO T. JONES.

“Note” The Signs of the Times 10, 41, p. 642.

Since writing the above the Christian Statesman of Oct. 16 has come to hand, containing a portion of a paper read by Rev. A. T. Pierson, D. D., before the Ministerial Union of Philadelphia, from which I clipped the following strong confirmation of the points of the foregoing article:— SITI October 30, 1884, page 642.1

“We are often fettered by our denominationalism. Brought up to exalt our sectarian standards, and use, and politics, we sometimes degenerate into religious partisans and politicians, espousing our sect, because it is our sect. We stand by our callers, whether it is the color of the blood or not! We preach and teach what we find in our denominational standards, whether or not we give an intelligence scriptural reason for our position. Have we the boldness to face opposition and ridiculed for the sake of the truth? And, if a candid, careful searching of the word should compel us to believe that our denominational position is unscriptural in any respect, would we simply follow the light God might give us, or consent to silence and compromise with conscience? Many of us are hindered in preaching the word and in directing the affairs of Christ’s body, by the very officers of our church, and especially by ungodly trustees! If, out of profound convictions, born of prayer and spiritual travail, we should insist upon a new and more spiritual conduct of our churches, or preach some gospel truth that pierces the quick, there are some church officers who would come between us and the congregation, and request us to keep silence or resign.” SITI October 30, 1884, page 642.2

A. T. J.

“Notes on the International Lesson. 1 Kings 11:4-13” The Signs of the Times 10, 41, pp. 646, 647.

NOVEMBER 16—1 Kings 11:4-13

IN the present lesson our attention is turned from Solomon in his uprightness, when he was the beloved of the Lord, to Solomon in his degradation, when “the Lord was angry with” him; from Solomon building a temple for Jehovah, which the Lord accepted and hallowed for his own name, to Solomon building temples for Ashtoreth, and Chemosh, and Molech, and for the gods of all his strange wives, the abominations of heathendom, which God abhorred; from Solomon worshiping the God of Heaven in such a height of purity and faith, and with such wondrous acceptance that it brought the very presence of Heaven down upon the earth, to Solomon in such depth of iniquity worshiping idols, and joining in the murderous and licentious rites of all the heathen nations round about; from Solomon in the fear of God, and from a deep sense of sin, burning sweet incense to the Lord, offering to him the acceptable sacrifices of sheep and oxen, and praying to him for forgiveness, for light, for strength, and for wisdom, to Solomon burning incense to devils, helping on the sacrifice to them of smiling babes and innocent children, and opening the gates of iniquity by which the whole land should be stained with innocent blood. In short we are turned from the contemplation of “Solomon in all his glory,” to the contemplation of Solomon and all his shame. SITI October 30, 1884, page 646.1

“KING Solomon loved many strange women.” It seems that at this time Solomon cared for nothing but to have his own way. Contrary to the express command of the Lord, in Deuteronomy 17:16, he did multiplied horses to and self and he carried on with Egypt a regular traffic in horses and chariots, until he had for himself one thousand four hundred chariots, which with three horses for each chariot—two to work and one in reserve—would make four thousand two hundred horses; then he had twelve thousand horsemen—cavalry—besides. But he did not conduct this trade for himself alone. He had horses and chariots brought out of Egypt for the kings of the Hittites, and the kings of Syria, and there can be hardly a doubt that this traffic in horses with the Hittites and the other nations led him into his sinful connection with these “strange women,” for seven hundred of his wives were “princesses,” the daughters of these heathen kings with whom he was trading in horses. Had Solomon been obedient to the Lord, he would have been saved from all this, for Deuteronomy 17:18 says: “And it shall be when he sitteth upon the throne of this kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book.... and it shall be with him, and he shall read there in all the days of is life.” In this which he was to write, and read for himself was contained particularly in the two foregoing verses forbidding the very thing which Solomon did. “He shall not multiplied horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiplied horses; for as much as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall return no more that way. Neither shall he multiplied wives to himself that his heart turn not away.” Solomon did send into Egypt, and multiplied courses unto himself; this led to the traffic with the heathen around him; this led him to the gathering to himself of the many strange women, and these let him to the final and fatal step, and his heart was turned away from his God. SITI October 30, 1884, page 646.2

“WHEN Solomon was old,” the text says. Not old in years, for he was only about forty-nine, but the dissipation consequent upon having seven hundred wives, every one of them shamefully licentious, besides three hundred concubines, who could have certainly been no better,—all this made him “old” though only in the prime of his years. SITI October 30, 1884, page 646.3

“HIS wives turned away his heart after other gods.” And what fearful God’s they were! Devils, the psalmist calls them (Psalm 106:37, 38); and devils they were. SITI October 30, 1884, page 646.4

“Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians.” The “queen of heaven” of Jeremiah 7:18 and 44:19, the Astarte of the Greeks, the Venus of the Romans, and under different names worshiped by all of the ancient East, and though having different names, and yet was always worshiped in the same manner, and which is fully expressed in one word—lasciviousness. She was the female Baal, and corresponded to the moon as Baal did to the sun. She represented the female principle in generation as Baal did the mail. She was always worshiped in connection with him, and the rites of her worship corresponded to that idea. Her priests were men dressed in women’s clothes; her priestesses were harlots, and the only worship was prostitution. SITI October 30, 1884, page 646.5

MILCOM of the fifth verse is identical with Molech of the seventh, and Molech of the Ammonites is the same as Chemosh of the Moabites, and both are the same as Baal of the Canaanites and other Eastern nations generally. It is with Baal as with Ashtoreth above, although called by different names, he is the same god, and his worship the same amount all the ancient nations. He represents the sun; and the worship of Baal, Molech, Chemosh, or by whatever name, was sun-worship. The form of his worship is described in the words of the Bible about Ahaz (2 Chronicles 28:2, 3): “For He walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, and made also molten images for Baalim. Moreover he burnt incense in the valley of the son of Hinnom, and burnt his children in the fire, after the abominations of the heathen whom the Lord had cast out before the children of Israel.” Baalim in the text is the plural form of Baal, and signifies the images of Baal in connection with Ashtoreth, set up and worship together. So we see that children born of the licentious worship of Ashtoreth, were burned in the fire in the worship of Baal. Not all of the children, of course, but such as they should choose to sacrifice. The priests of Molech (Baal) ranked above the princes, and were next to the king, and sometimes even the king himself was a priest, as in the case of the father of the infamous Jezebel, who was himself a priest of Ashtoreth, and was also a dedicated to Baal. It was such daughters, of such men as these, from whom Solomon took his seven hundred wives. No wonder they turned away his heart from the Lord. No wonder that in cleaving to these in their in purity he did it at the expense of forsaking Jehovah, who will be worshiped in purity alone. No wonder that now we read in quick succession: “And the Lord stirred up an adversary on to Solomon.” Verse 14. “And God stirred up another adversary.” Verse 23. “And Jeroboam ... even he lifted up his hand against the king.” Verse 26. No more can Solomon right as he did in his youth to Hiram: “But now the Lord my God hath given me rest on every side, so that there is neither adversary nor evil occurrent.” 1 Kings 5:4. Adversaries on all sides, from the kings abroad and from his own subjects at home. Evil “occurrent” everywhere. From his own sowing of evil, springs and abundant harvest, and he has to begin the reaping. No more can he be called Solomon—peace—but rather Magor-misabib—fear round about, for there is fear on every side, and God above all against him, to rend the kingdom from him as though no longer fit to rule over men. And in closing we may quote the words used ages after by Nehemiah in correcting sins in Israel: “Among many nations was there no king like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel; nevertheless even him did outlandish women cause to sin.” Nehemiah 13:26. SITI October 30, 1884, page 647.1

SOLOMON’S life is an example and a warning. In his youth an example of how good God is to all who seek him in humility, and in entire dependence upon him, an example of how “the blessing of the Lord it maketh rich, and he addeth no sorrow with it.” Proverbs 10:22. In his latter days his life is a warning to all, of man’s helplessness when he forsakes the path which the Lord has marked out for us to walk in. It shows that, however great a man’s wisdom may be, or however grand may be his success, while serving the Lord in sincerity, all the wisdom that he had acquired will not keep him from becoming a fool, and that all the success that he had achieved will not prevent his making a miserable failure, when He ceases to serve the Lord. Therefore cling close to the word of God. “The fear of the Lord, that is wisdom.” Job 28:28. “Good success have all they that do his commandments.” Psalm 111:10 margin. The words of David to Solomon are still the words of the Lord to every one of the children of men. Know thou God “and serve with him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind; for the Lord searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts, if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsaken him, he will cast thee off forever.” 1 Chronicles 28:9. SITI October 30, 1884, page 647.2

ALONZO T. JONES.