The Signs of the Times, vol. 11
July 16, 1885
“Inheritance of the Saints. Continued. Promise Concerning the Kingdom of Israel” The Signs of the Times, 11, 27.
E. J. Waggoner
THE SABBATH-SCHOOL.
LESSON FOR THE PACIFIC COAST—AUG. 8
PROMISE CONCERNING THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL
1. Why was Saul rejected from being king of Israel? SITI July 16, 1885, page 422.1
“For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king.” 1 Samuel 15:23. SITI July 16, 1885, page 422.2
2. Who was chosen in his stead? SITI July 16, 1885, page 422.3
“Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I took thee from the sheepcote, from following the sheep, to be ruler over my people, over Israel.” 2 Samuel 7:8. SITI July 16, 1885, page 422.4
3. By whom was David chosen to be ruler? SITI July 16, 1885, page 422.5
4. Where do you find the record of his anointing? 1 Samuel 16:1-13. SITI July 16, 1885, page 422.6
5. Repeat the promise which the Lord made to David concerning his house and kingdom. SITI July 16, 1885, page 422.7
“And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established forever before thee; thy throne shall be established forever.” 2 Samuel 7:16. SITI July 16, 1885, page 422.8
6. What promise did the Lord make yet the same time concerning his Israel? SITI July 16, 1885, page 422.9
“Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime.” 2 Samuel 7:10. SITI July 16, 1885, page 422.10
7. What did he say he would appoint for them? Ib. SITI July 16, 1885, page 422.11
8. Where should they dwell? Ib. SITI July 16, 1885, page 422.12
9. From what should they be free? Ib. SITI July 16, 1885, page 422.13
10. From 2 Samuel 7:10, quoted above, what conclusion must be draw concerning the promises made to Abraham, and to the Israelites at Sinai? SITI July 16, 1885, page 422.14
We must conclude that those promises were not fulfilled in the possession of the land of Canaan by the Israelites. If they had been, we would not at this time find the Lord renewing the same promise, when they were already in the land that the Lord had given to them. SITI July 16, 1885, page 422.15
11. In what condition was the kingdom of Israel when the Lord made the promise recorded in 2 Samuel 7:10? SITI July 16, 1885, page 422.16
“And it came to pass, when the king sat in his house, and the Lord had given him rest round about from all his enemies.” 2 Samuel 7:1. SITI July 16, 1885, page 422.17
12. Then what must we conclude concerning that promise of rest and peace? SITI July 16, 1885, page 422.18
Since the Israelites were already dwelling in the land that the Lord had given them by Joshua, and were at peace with all around them, it follows that the promise of a land of their own, and of rest and peace, must refer to something in the future, something far greater than anything yet known. This can only be found in that perfect inheritance when the “kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom.” Daniel 7:27. This will be the perfect rest that remains for the people of God, for when the meek inherit the earth they shall “delight themselves in the abundance of peace.” Psalm 37:11. SITI July 16, 1885, page 422.19
13. Who was David’s immediate successor? 1 Kings 1:32-39. SITI July 16, 1885, page 422.20
14. What had the Lord said concerning him? SITI July 16, 1885, page 422.21
“And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.” 2 Samuel 7:12, 13. E. J. W. SITI July 16, 1885, page 422.22
“Camp-Meeting in Portland, Oregon” The Signs of the Times, 11, 27.
E. J. Waggoner
The details of this meeting have been sufficiently reported by Elder Loughborough, but we would add a few thoughts. First, we were made to realize more than ever before the necessity of progress in meetings of that kind. If the work of the Biblical Institute was in its general features the same as the one in Milton, but it did not have the lifting influence on the meeting that it would have had if those attending had had time to devote to study. The truths of the word cannot be absorbed by the simple contact; if we would make them our own we must search for them as for hidden treasure. All the powers of the mind, aided by the Spirit of God, must be brought to bear, and by this means they will be strengthened. There is no discipline of mind equal to the study of the Bible. Although our circumstances were somewhat unfavorable, the institute was by no means a failure. Those present received new ideas as to how to study the Bible; the familiar truths were seen in a new light, and above all, the great central, elevating a truth-God’s love for mankind-was realized by many as never before. He returned to their homes rejoicing in a hope and confidence to which they had hitherto been strangers. SITI July 16, 1885, page 425.1
One interesting feature was the children’s meetings. These were held every day, beginning when the Institute was about half over. The aim in these meetings was to tell the gospel story in language suited to the comprehension of the youngest, and to lead them to the study of the word for themselves. It is a mistake to suppose that to reach the minds of children one must talk in a childish manner, or in any degree to lower the dignity of the subject. Familiar illustrations, both to the eye and the ear, should be freely used, but no word should be uttered that would lead any to think that the way of salvation for a child is different from that for the adult. The “deep things of God,” if properly presented, are more readily grasped by young minds, than by those of mature years. The plan of salvation is so simple in its greatness that the average man overlooks it. Like Naaman, we find the thing required of us very difficult because it is so simple. But in childhood everything is real; the simplicity of childhood was given by Christ as the pattern for Christians. There is, therefore, every encouragement in teaching the children the way of life. There were no meetings held on the ground that were more full of interest than those held with the children. SITI July 16, 1885, page 425.2
In these meetings, as well as in all others, much prominence was given to the subject of reverence for God’s word, and for the places where he is worshiped. As the result of this teaching, we had as quiet and orderly a camp-ground as I ever saw. The children were made to feel that the entire camp was a sacred place, and there was scarcely any running and playing or loud talking even during intermissions. Care was taken to have all enter the tent where meetings were held, in a reverent matter, with head uncovered. Surely we should not come into God’s house with less indication of respect than we would into a neighbor’s parlor. SITI July 16, 1885, page 425.3
We believe that as outward marks of respect were shown, reverence was increased in the heart, and God added his blessing. If the parents will now carry out the lessons which they learned, and will also seek to deepen the impressions made upon the children, and endeavor to instruct and interest them in sacred things, they will find their own souls watered, and will see their children growing up to strengthen the church, and may God help them, and abundantly bless the North Pacific Conference. E. J. W. SITI July 16, 1885, page 425.4
“The Sabbath in Eden” The Signs of the Times, 11, 27.
E. J. Waggoner
It has been our constant aim to avoid controversy as far as was possible. Believing that the coming of the Lord is here, and that the strict observance of the ten commandments (with divine assistance) is necessary to a complete preparations for that event, we design to get these truths before the people in the most direct manner possible. While, therefore, we deprecate debate, we dare not lower the standard of truth because it is opposed. Whenever we make strictures upon those who teach differently, we do so, not because they have assailed “our position,” but because they oppose what we firmly believe to be Bible truth. We do not consider ourselves as standing in opposition to anybody, but as simply lifting up the truth, which is being trodden down. SITI July 16, 1885, page 425.5
Quite frequently newspaper articles and reports of sermons in opposition to the Sabbath, are sent to us, with the request that we reply to them. Of course these articles contain no argument for objection that has not been met and answered hundreds of times, and our first impulse is usually to throw them aside as unworthy of further notice. But we recollect that the old objection which to us seems so flimsy, is to many a new one, and a real stumbling-block. Therefore we feel constrained to give them notice. If that notice be often extended, it is not because we fear that truth itself will suffer by the opposition, but that honest minds that have not been accustomed to think upon Bible themes, may not be entangled in error. It is for this reason that we begin to briefly notice a series of articles on the Sabbath question, by C. E. W. Dobbs, D. D., recently published in the Indiana Baptist. SITI July 16, 1885, page 425.6
The writer takes the position throughout, that Sunday (invariably called by him the “Lord’s day”) is not the Sabbath, and that its observance, although the obligatory upon Christians, derives no force from the fourth commandment; that it is purely a “gospel institution, and that the fourth commandment, enjoining the observance of Saturday, has, with the rest of the Decalogue, entirely passed away.” SITI July 16, 1885, page 425.7
One word concerning the idea that the Sunday-sabbath is a gospel institution. If this were so, then it must stand upon the same plane as other gospel ordinances,-baptism and the Lord’s Supper. No Christian, whatever denomination, thinks of allowing unbelievers to participate in these ordinances. If the Sunday-sabbath be a gospel institution, then no unbeliever must be allowed, much less compelled, to observe it. But Dr. Dobbs does not believe this theory any more than do his Baptist brethren. This is proved by their own actions. A Baptist father would not invite his unconverted children to partake of the Lord’s Supper, nor would he allow them, while still unconverted, to be baptized, yet he would require them, while they were subject to his authority, to observe Sunday. Notwithstanding what men may say, their actions show that they do not really believe that Sunday is a Christian ordinance. SITI July 16, 1885, page 425.8
We most heartily agree with the Doctor in his claims that Sunday observance finds no authority in the fourth commandment. But, knowing that there is no Bible authority outside of the fourth commandment for the observance of any day as sacred, we conclude that the Doctor’s admission rules Sunday out of the question. By the side of that admission, we wish to place a few others. In its issue of March 1, 1882, the California Christian Advocate said:- SITI July 16, 1885, page 425.9
“When we plead for a law for it [Sunday] as a day of rest, we can justify that only on the ground that it is according to the law of nature, and necessary to man.... We cannot sustain it before the people, if we claim its sanctity as a religious institution.” SITI July 16, 1885, page 425.10
Very true, only it would be difficult for the Advocate to show how to rest on Sunday meets the wants of man’s nature, anymore than rest on Saturday. The Christian at Work, in its issue of April 19, 1883, said:- SITI July 16, 1885, page 425.11
“Some plant the observance of the Sabbath [Sunday] squarely on the fourth commandment, which was an exquisite injunction to observe Saturday, and no other day, as a holy day unto the Lord.... The truth is, so soon as we appeal to the litera scrpta [i.e., the plain reading] of the Bible, the Sabbatarians have the best of the argument.” SITI July 16, 1885, page 425.12
Again, its issue of January 8, 1885, the Christian at Work says:- SITI July 16, 1885, page 425.13
“We rest of the designation of Sunday on the church having ‘set it apart of its own authority.’ The seventh-day rest was commanded in the fourth commandment, as it is written in every tissue and trembling fiber of the human frame. The selection of Sunday, thus changing the particular day designated in the fourth commandment, was brought about by the gradual concurrence of the early Christian church, and on this basis and none other does the Christian Sabbath, the first day of the week, rightly rest.” SITI July 16, 1885, page 425.14
All true; but if the observance of Sunday was brought about by the “gradual concurrence” of the church, then of course it was not instituted by Christ; and if it was not instituted by Christ, then it is obviously not a Christian institution; and therefore, although “the church” did gradually effect this change, it was to that extent at least unchristian. But now for the argument against the Sabbath. We quote:- SITI July 16, 1885, page 425.15
“Some find evidence of the Edenic institution of the Sabbath in Genesis 2:3: ‘God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work.’ This is supposed to be the enactment of the Sabbath law for the race. But it is an exceedingly frail support for such an institution. The language is only the historian’s statement that the Sabbath, instituted two thousand years afterwards, had a commemorative relation to creation. It is barely mentioned by him proleptically, as giving the divine determination to sanctify the seventh day, and to constitute it a religious rest day in the future ceremonial law.” SITI July 16, 1885, page 425.16
How does the Doctor or anyone else find so much in Genesis 2:3? Those who say that Genesis 2:3 records what the Lord designed to do two thousand years in the future, seem to be wise above that which is written, for there is not the slightest intimation of such a thing in the text. Just as reasonably might we affirm that “there was no marriage institution until two thousand years after the creation, the statement in Genesis 2:24, that a man ‘shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh,’ being only the historian’s statement that the marriage relation, instituted two thousand years afterward, had a commemorative relation to the union of the first pair. It is merely mentioned by him proleptically, as giving the divine determination to sanctify the marriage relation, and to constitute it the sacred ordinance in the decalogue,” which, by the way, is in no sense a ceremonial law. But no sane man would accept such an interpretation, or rather perversion, of the Scriptures in regard to marriage; and no unprejudiced person can for a moment regard such reasoning as just when applied to the Sabbath. SITI July 16, 1885, page 425.17
What, then, may we will learn from Genesis 2:3? The text is plain: “And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.” This immediately follows the statement that God “rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.” Now we submit it to any candid person, that in Genesis 2:1-3 events are mentioned in historical order. From the reading of the text, no one would imagine that the third verse refers to something two thousand years after the event mentioned in the second; and there is nowhere in the Bible any intimation that such is the case. It is a fact, then, that the blessing and sanctifying of the seventh day immediately followed God’s resting upon it, after the six days of creation were ended. To deny this is simply to make an assertion contrary to a plain declaration. Now we will find out what was comprehended in that act of sanctifying, and then we shall see upon what foundation the Edenic Sabbath rests. SITI July 16, 1885, page 425.18
To sanctify means “to set apart for a sacred or religious use; to make holy.”-Webster. Its use, as applied to inanimate objects, may be learned from the following instances: When the Lord was about to come down on Mount Sinai, he said to Moses, “And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death.” Exodus 19:12. In verse 23 we read, “And Moses said unto the Lord, The people cannot come up to mount Sinai; for thou chargedst us, saying, Set bounds about the mount, and sanctify it.” The mountain was sanctified, or set apart for a sacred use, and a barrier was built around it, so that none need be in doubt as to how far they might go. SITI July 16, 1885, page 426.1
Again, in Joshua 20 we find that the Lord told Joshua to appoint six cities to which men who had accidentally slain a man might flee for refuge. “And they appointed [margin, sanctified] Kedesh in Galilee in mount Naphtali,” etc. Joshua 20:7. Here the same word is used as in Genesis 2:3. In what did the sanctification of these cities consist? In setting them apart for the use for which they were designed, by letting everybody know which cities were the cities of refuge. Without thus informing the people, the sanctification would have been a farce. Indeed, that is just what the sanctification was,-a public setting apart. SITI July 16, 1885, page 426.2
So with the Sabbath. First, God rested on the seventh day; then he blessed it, or spoke well of it; and lastly, he sanctified it, that is, he appointed that it should be preserved sacred. Just as Moses set bounds around the mount, so the Lord placed around the Sabbath the sanctions of his law. Now as we have seen that the sanctification immediately followed the resting and the blessing, we know to whom the Lord made the statement that the day was to be kept holy;-it was to all who were then living-Adam and Eve. But this pair represented all the inhabitants of the earth, for they had been commanded to “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” We find, then, that Genesis 2:3 teaches, in the most unmistakable language, that the seventh-day Sabbath was instituted at creation, and that it was designed for and given to all mankind. We may add, however, that in Genesis 2:3 we do not find the enactment of the Sabbatic law before the race, but the statement, as a fact of history, that such a law was made in creation. This point, borne in mind, removes the next objection, which shall be noticed next week. E. J. W. SITI July 16, 1885, page 426.3