The Signs of the Times, vol. 12

July 29, 1886

“Comments on Galatians 3. No. 4” The Signs of the Times, 12, 29.

E. J. Waggoner

“Till the seed should come to whom the promise was made.” There is no question of course but that the “seed” is Christ. The sixteenth verse plainly says so. Then what is the coming of the seed? Some have supposed it to be Christ’s first advent, but a little study will show that the second advent is here spoken of. The “seed” is never mentioned except in connection with the promise, and the promise is fulfilled only at the second coming of Christ. The following texts and argument will make this appear:- SITI July 29, 1886, page 454.1

In Genesis 3:15, the Lord, in pronouncing the curse upon the serpent (Satan), said, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it [the seed] shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” Paul, in his letter to the Romans, many years after Christ had come and had ascended to Heaven, said, “And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.” Romans 16:20. The bruising of a serpent’s head is its destruction; but this was not accomplished at Christ’s first advent, but was something still future. The destruction of Satan begins only at Christ’s second coming. See Revelation 20. SITI July 29, 1886, page 454.2

Again, in the promise to Abraham it was said, “And thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies.” Genesis 22:17. This was not fulfilled at the first advent of Christ. On the contrary he was then delivered into the hands of his enemies, and they did to him whatsoever they would. He will possess the gate of his enemies only when the following promise is fulfilled: “Ask of me, and 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.” Psalm 2:7, 8. And this is fulfilled at Christ’s second advent, when he takes vengeance “on them that know not God and that obey not the gospel,” as is described by the revelator:- SITI July 29, 1886, page 454.3

“And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood; and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in Heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations; and he shall rule them with a rod of iron; and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King of kings, and Lord of lords. And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; that ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.... And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.” Revelation 19:11-21. Thus he possesses the gate of his enemies. SITI July 29, 1886, page 454.4

Again, another part of the promise to the seed was that he should possess the whole earth. See Psalm 2:7, 8, where the uttermost parts of the earth are promised to Christ for a possession; also see Genesis 13:14-17, and Romans 4:13. But when Christ was on earth, he possessed not so much as a place where he could lay his head. Matthew 8:20. When, however, the seventh angel sounds (when the mystery of God is to be finished, Revelation 10:7), then it will be said: “The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ.” Revelation 11:15. The eighteenth verse says that this is at “the time of the dead, that they should be judged,” showing conclusively that it is at the second coming of Christ. Compare 2 Timothy 4:1. SITI July 29, 1886, page 454.5

Still further, in the prophecy of Ezekiel the promise of the earth to Christ is directly associated with his second coming. The prophet foretells the captivity of the Jews, the succession of the four universal monarchies, and the setting up of the kingdom of God, as follows:- SITI July 29, 1886, page 454.6

“And thou, profane wicked prince of Israel, whose day is come, when iniquity shall have an end, Thus saith the Lord God; Remove the diadem, and take off the crown; this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high. I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him.” Ezekiel 21:25-27. SITI July 29, 1886, page 454.7

The diadem was taken from the king of Israel when he and his people were carried away to Babylon. At that time Babylon was a universal monarchy. Then three “overturnings” are mentioned, which reach to the second coming of Christ. Thus: The first overturning made Medo-Persia a universal dominion; the second gave the dominion of the world to Grecia; and the third overturning made the empire of Rome fill the world. This was the state of things at Christ’s first advent, and for four hundred years later, and the prophet declared that there should be no more general revolution “until He come whose right it is.” Note the parallel between this and the clause in Galatians 3:19, which says, “Till the seed should come to whom the promise was made.” In the light of Ezekiel 21:25-27 we think there can be no question but that in the latter passage the second coming of Christ is referred to. SITI July 29, 1886, page 454.8

Once more: The promise to the seed was that in him all the families of the earth should be blessed. This of course could not be fulfilled as long as any wicked are in existence. But when Christ comes, sitting on the throne of his glory, to destroy sinners out of the earth, “Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” Matthew 25:34. SITI July 29, 1886, page 454.9

From the above quotations and references it will be seen that the promises to “the seed” are not fulfilled until the second coming of Christ; they all culminate at his second advent. It was willful forgetfulness of this fact that caused the Jews to reject Christ. They read the promises to the seed,-promises of glorious triumph,-and applied them to the coming of the Messiah; and when they saw none of those promises fulfilled in him, they rejected him. Let us not, like them, fall into grievous error by referring to his first advent those promises to be fulfilled only at his second glorious coming. That was the time of his humiliation, not of his triumph. Christ then came as an offering for sin, and not as the seed to whom the promise was made. When he comes the second time he comes as King of kings and Lord of lords; he comes to take possession of the gates of his enemies, whom he will dash in pieces as a potter’s vessel; he comes to take possession of his inheritance, even “the uttermost parts of the earth,” and to receive as his own a great multitude whom no man can number. Compare Revelation 7:9 and Genesis 13:16. In short, he comes as “the seed to whom the promise was made.” W. SITI July 29, 1886, page 454.10

“Plain Facts on the Sunday Question” The Signs of the Times, 12, 29.

E. J. Waggoner

Among the letters on the Sunday question, published in the St. Louis Republican of July 4, is one from a Catholic priest, D. S. Phelan, of the St. Louis, which states the facts relative to the Sunday in such a plain language that we reproduce it entire. We earnestly invite all Protestants to give it a careful perusal:- SITI July 29, 1886, page 454.11

“St. Louis, July 3.-EDITOR REPUBLICAN: I have been asked my view on the question of Sunday observance. I have no views. It is a matter of positive law. Dogmas of faith and canons of discipline are great and stubborn things; views are trifles light as air. The Sunday is an institution of the church. The attempt to identify it with the Jewish Sabbath, or to make it heir to its rights and ceremonies is futile and absurd. The ceremonial law Moses is abrogated-buried in the same grave with the synagogue. The Lord’s day is the creation of the church in its specific form, although the obligation to sanctify one day in the week would seem to be of divine origin. When the church set apart the first day of the week for public worship, she enacted that all her children who reached the years of discretion should first hear mass, and secondly abstain from servile works on that day. This is positive law, and any man’s views contrary to this enactment are treasonable. The mass is the one great sacrifice of the new law, and all the faithful are obliged to assist at on the Lord’s day. Sunday is likewise a day of rest-made so by the church’s enactment. She says we may not do any work on that day which is of servile or ordinary wage-earning character. SITI July 29, 1886, page 454.12

“But how all about games and amusement on the Lord’s day? ‘What saith the law?’ the Church does not condemn them, although she encourages the faithful to works of piety and prepare. She knows the world too well to impose a burden they cannot bear. She is satisfied with what is essential, while counseling what is of supererogation. It would be well for all Christians to spend all of Sunday in church, but the church obliges them to about one hour. SITI July 29, 1886, page 455.1

“Why do our separated brethren place so much stress in observing this Sunday ordinance of the Catholic Church? They are more Catholic than the Catholic Church. But they are Catholic only on Sunday. On Friday they are pagans. Why do they eat meat on the latter day? The church, who presented the method of Sunday observance, forbids the use of flesh meat on Friday. Why, too, do they not observe the laws of the Lenten season? They emanate from the same authority which fixed the time and method of the weekly public worship. The Pharisees were in the habit of higgling about trifles, while they neglected the weightier things of the Mosaic law. Our separated brethren are in the same predicament. They take the Sunday from the church, and they get the scare-crow of Christendom, while they throw away the Friday abstinence, and the Lenten fast, not to speak of the annual confession and communion.” SITI July 29, 1886, page 455.2

The only thing in the above that we would criticize is the implication that by the abrogation of the ceremonial law the Sabbath was also abolished. The fourth commandment had in it nothing of a ceremonial nature, consequently it was not affected by the blotting out of the handwriting of ordinances. So when “the church” set apart Sunday as a demi-semi-holy day, there were too weekly days of worship claiming man’s allegiance: one given by man himself; the other, the original Sabbath which God gave to man. We wish now to call our readers special attention to the following points in the letter of “Father” Phelan:- SITI July 29, 1886, page 455.3

1. “The Sunday is an institution of the church.” It has no connection with the Sabbath, and derives none of its “authority” from the command enjoining the observance of what is termed the “Jewish Sabbath.” SITI July 29, 1886, page 455.4

2. “The Lord’s day [an erroneous title for Sunday] is the creation of the church, in its specific form, although the obligation to sanctify one day in the week would seem to be of divine origin.” But why should it “see” that the obligation to observe one day in the week is of divine origin? If the Sabbath commandment be abolished along with the ceremonial law, the obligation to observe one day in the week must also be gone; for the fourth commandment is the only place where such obligation is expressed. But if there is now obligation to observe one day in the week, and that of divine origin, it must be derived from the fourth commandment, which specifies particularly which gave the week shall be observed. Note this point: Our Catholic friend distinguishes between the obligation that is of “divine origin,” and the “obligation” which originated in the “church.” This is as it should be. The observance of one day in the week is enjoined by the Creator, in the fourth commandment; the setting apart of the first day, instead of the seventh “according to the commandment,” rests solely on the authority of men. There is nothing divine about it. SITI July 29, 1886, page 455.5

3. The same power that set apart the Sunday also originated the mass; and the Sunday was set apart so late for the celebration of this mummery. Notice: The church “is satisfied with what is essential, while counseling what is of supererogation. It would be well for Christians to spend the whole of Sunday in church, but the church obliges them to about one hour.” Outside of that hour, the people may engage in anything except servile work. Thus the only essential thing about Sunday is the mass. If professed Protestants want to know how to keep Sunday, why do they not go to the only source of authority on that subject? SITI July 29, 1886, page 455.6

The remainder of the letter speaks for itself. We commend to all Protestants the questions which it contains. If they are determined to follow, and even to exceed, the Catholic ordinance concerning Sunday, why not be consistent, and attend mass on that day, abstain from meat on Friday, and go to confession? But if they are determined to be Protestants indeed, the way is plain. We do not acknowledge the Pope’s authority, and the only treason that we know of in matters pertaining to morals, is disobedience to the commandments of God. W. SITI July 29, 1886, page 455.7