Earlier text: Moral and Ceremonial LawPROFESSING PROTESTANTS AS PERSECUTORS
By Milton C. Wilcox
A Significant Prophecy for These Days
THE prophecy is the seventeenth chapter of the Revelation; and we quote it entire, that we may have it before us, and become familiar with what it says. “And there came one of the seven angels that had the seven bowls, and spake with me, saying, Come hither, I will show thee the judgment of the great harlot that sitteth upon many waters; with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and they that dwell in the earth were made drunken with the wine of her fornication. “And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness: and I saw a woman sitting upon a scarlet-colored beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and decked with gold and precious stone and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations, even the unclean things of her fornication, and upon her forehead a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF THE HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I wondered with a great wonder. “And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou wonder? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and the ten horns. The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and is about to come up out of the abyss, and to go into perdition. And they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, they whose name hath not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast, how that he was, and is not, and shall come. “Here is the mind that hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth: and they are seven kings; the five are fallen, the one is, the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a little while. And the beast that was, and is not, is himself also an eighth, and is of the seven; and he goeth into perdition. “And the ten horns that thou sawest are ten kings, who have received no kingdom as yet; but they receive authority as kings, with the beast, for one hour. These have one mind, and they give their power and authority unto the beast. These shall war against the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, for He is Lord of lords, and King of kings; and they also shall overcome that are with Him, called and chosen and faithful. “And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the harlot sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. And the ten horns which thou sawest, and the beast, these shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked218 and shall eat her flesh, and shall burn her utterly with fire. For God did put in their hearts to do His mind, and to come to one mind, and to give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God should be accomplished. And the woman whom thou sawest is the great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.” In the two previous articles, we have learned the meaning of the harlot, of Babylon, of the beast, of the wilderness, and of the first five heads of the beast, bringing us down to 1798. 5. What Is the Sixth Head?
The sixth head, under which the beast régime continued, is the present church-and-state governments, which followed the overthrow of the Holy Roman Empire, embodying the same general principles of church-and-state government. They were not centralized in papal Rome, but they were just as truly intolerant. Without reference to or thought of this prophecy, the change in the beast régime, or phase, but nevertheless the continuation of the beast principles, is stated so admirably by the Hon. James Bryce, historian, essayist, diplomat, and statesman, that I can do no better than to borrow his words. In speaking of the conditions that followed the overthrow of papal domination, he says: PROFESSING PROTESTANTS AS PERSECUTORS
“The principles which had led the Protestants to sever themselves from the Roman Church, should have taught them to bear with the opinions of others, and warned them from the attempt to connect agreement in doctrine or manner of worship with the necessary forms of civil government. Still less ought they to have enforced that agreement by civil penalties; for faith, upon their own showing, had no value save when it was freely given. A church which does not claim to be infallible is bound to allow that some part of the truth may possibly be with its adversaries; a church which permits or encourages human reason to apply itself to revelation has no right first to argue with people and then to punish them if they are not convinced. But whether it was that men only half saw what they had done, or that finding it hard enough to unrivet priestly fetters, they welcomed all the aid a temporal prince could give, the result was that religion, or rather religious creeds, began to be involved with politics more closely than had ever been the case before. “Through the greater part of Christendom wars of religion raged for a century or more, and down to our own days feelings of theological antipathy continue to affect the relations of the powers of Europe. In almost every country, the form of doctrine which triumphed associated itself with the state, and MAINTAINED THE DESPOTIC SYSTEM OF THE MIDDLE AGES, WHILE IT FORSOOK THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THAT SYSTEM HAD BEEN BASED. It was thus that there arose national churches, which were to be to the several Protestant countries of Europe that which the Church Catholic had been to the world at large; churches, that is to say, each of which was to be coextensive with its respective state, was to enjoy landed wealth and exclusive political privilege, and was to be armed with coercive powers against recusants. It was not altogether easy to find a set of theoretical principles on which such churches might be made to rest, for they could not, like the old church, point to the historical transmission of their doctrines; they could not claim to have in any one man or body of men an infallible organ of divine truth; they could not even fall back upon general councils, or the argument, whatever it may be worth, ‘Securus iudicat orbis terrarum.’ But in practice these difficulties were soon got over; for the dominant party in each state, if it was not infallible, was at any rate quite sure that it was right, and could attribute the resistance of other sects to nothing but moral obliquity. The will of the sovereign, as in England, or the will of the majority, as in Holland, Scandinavia, and Scotland, imposed upon each country a peculiar form of worship, and kept up the practices of medieval intolerance without their justification. Persecution, which might be at least excused in an infallible catholic and apostolic church, was peculiarly odious when practiced by those who were not catholic, who were no more apostolic than their neighbors, and who had just revolted from the most ancient and venerable authority in the name of rights which they now denied to others. If union with the visible church by participation in a material sacrament be necessary to eternal life, persecution may be held a duty, a kindness to perishing souls. But if the kingdom of heaven be in every sense a kingdom of the spirit, if saving faith be possible out of one visible body and under a diversity of external forms, persecution becomes at once a crime and a folly. Therefore the intolerance of Protestants, if the forms it took were less cruel than those practiced by the Roman Catholics, was also far less defensible.” CHANGE OF FORM BUT NOT OF PRINCIPLE
What shall we call it? Shall it be “apostate Protestantism”? The professed Protestant governments were then the leading powers in the beast territory, such as Germany, Great Britain, the Scandinavian countries, joined by France and others. This condition is the head that “IS,” not a persecutor to the same degree as the papacy, but still intolerant. It is a change in the form but not in the principle. Its weakness in persecution lies in its own contradictory principles. In its claim to Protestantism, it repudiates both Protestant and Christian principles by an organic union of religion and the state. This inconsistency has made this phase of the beast power weak as an antagonist to the gospel and freedom; and it gave place, to some extent, to those who were regarded as heretical. But it was intolerant nevertheless, and it persecuted Anabaptists, Baptists, Roman Catholics, Quakers, and others. Under that head the beast continues to exist, and will till the seventh head comes. That will be our next study. M. C. W. THE UNCHANGEABLE LAW
By M. C. W.
The language of the “chosen people” was Hebrew. The Decalogue, the law of the eternal God, was given in Hebrew. Some of the characters that form the Hebrew alphabet are quite similar. They may be seen in most reference Bibles in the 119th psalm, beginning with “aleph” and ending with “tau.” Compare “gimel” and “nun,” or “vau” and “resh,” or “he” and “tau.” Sometimes it is but the merest point which serves to distinguish one letter from another. These little distinguishing points are called “tittles.” The smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet is “yod,” called in the New Testament “jot.” Now of the law of God Jesus declares: “Verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Matt. 5:18. “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than for one tittle of the law to fail.” Luke 16:17. A change of a tittle might destroy or vitally alter the meaning. The change of the smallest letter would pervert the law. Therefore the solemn, emphatic declaration of our Lord. A good illustration of the importance of the warning of Jesus is furnished by a news item of recent date from New Haven, Connecticut. The Yale alumni association reproduced the seal of the university on their stationery. But the careless artist, in reproducing the Hebrew motto, meaning “light and truth,” failed to note the distinction between “vau” and “resh,” and hence inscribed a motto meaning “Blasphemers and Farmers,”—a sore vexation and disappointment to the members of the alumni association. God’s law is unchangeable; neither jot nor tittle can be changed. “Seventh” does not mean “first.” Its great negatives do not yield permission. Like its Author, we can rest upon its eternal foundations. M. C. W. Strength Through Christ
By J. O. C.
No one need be weak in character or ability, unless he is so from choice. It matters not how insufficient one may have been, because of prenatal defects, on coming into the world. There is always at command strength from the heavenly courts to supply every need. Only let the destitute one bring his feeble equipment to the throne of infinite grace, asking that Heaven’s blessed strength may add its efficiency, and the human capacity will surely be enlarged as were the five loaves and the two fishes, which were made ample to feed the hungry thousands. The simple faith of the great apostle said, “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me”; and it may be added that “God is no respecter of persons.” J. O. C. Preaching Christ, Not Self
If we attempt to preach the gospel in a manner to attract credit to ourselves, we are not preaching Christ, but self. Consequently all the power there is in such preaching is the limited strength of finite man. Question Corner
By Milton C. Wilcox
Conducted by MILTON C. WILCOX Mountain View, California NOTE.—This department is for the purpose of helping Bible students. Answers must of necessity be brief, often only suggestive, never exhaustive, never infallible, only as they agree with the infallible Word. Such questions only will be answered as seem to the editors to minister to the mission of the paper. Questions of the same import can not be answered repeatedly in the same volume. Name and address must be given, not for publication, but as evidence of good faith and to insure reply by letter if thought best. It is well always to inclose stamp, not stamped envelope, unless answer is desired by letter alone. Why do we call a time 360 days, and use 30 days for the month in the computation of the 42 months, and yet apply the 1,260 days to the 365-day year? So also with the 2,300 days of Dan. 8:14? N. A. B. We use the twelve months and the thirty days to the month for the year because this was the regular Jewish year. The Jews reckoned thirty days to the month. Compare Gen. 7:11, 24; and 8:3, 4. The Flood came upon the earth in the second month, the seventeenth day; and the ark rested in the seventh month, and on the seventeenth day, upon the mountains of Ararat, which we learn is one hundred and fifty days, or just five months, making thirty days to the month. This was too short a year, but this was made up by adding a month every three years. This, however, does not come into the regular reckoning of the year. The regular year is 360 days. This is also called a “time.” See the margin of Dan. 11:13, “at the end of times, even years.” So too the 1,260 days of Revelation 12, the forty-two months of Revelation 13. The “time, times, and a half” of Dan. 7:25 and 12:7 refers to the same time. Three times and a half, or three years and a half, would mean just forty-two months. Forty-two months, with thirty days to the month, would be 1,260 days—symbolize 1,260 years. That is the number of years that was symbolized; and it is the number of years, and not the number of days, that the prophecy deals with. That would have reference to just so many natural years, whether we counted the year 365 days, 360 days, or any number of days. It was so many years, irrespective of days. The fact of the added five days makes no difference in the number of years, because the year was continually brought back to the autumnal equinox. All that the prophecy itself aims to do is to give us a certain number of years for the existence of a certain power and a certain phase of its power. This it has symbolized under the term “day.” The prophecy itself has interpreted what is meant by the three and a half years, by mentioning the number of months, and also mentioning the number of days. We can therefore make no mistake regarding that; and inasmuch as the days symbolize years, they symbolize so many solar years. The same reckoning applies to the 2,300 days. What is the soul? and does every living creature have a soul? J. W. T. The word “soul” is used in at least three different senses in the Scriptures. First, a person (Adam) was created out of the dust of the earth, and became a “living soul” (Gen. 2:7)—that is, a living creature. Peter tells us there were “eight souls” saved in the ark—that is, eight persons. Again and again we read, in the tenth chapter of Joshua, that “all the souls” that were in various cities “were slain”; that is, persons were slain. Secondly, the term is used for life,—the animal or soulical life, which every being has. It is used in this way in the very first chapter of Genesis, verse 30, margin: “Everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life”—margin, “wherein there is a living soul.” It is so used in Matt. 16:25, “Whosoever will save his life shall lose it,” etc. The same word is translated “soul” in the next verse, “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” “Life” would be better in both cases. Thirdly, it means the emotions, the desires, the thoughts of the heart, as used in Ps. 103:1, “Bless the Lord, O my soul: and all that is within me, bless His holy name.” But in no one of these cases is the soul said to be immortal or never-dying. It is simply the life of the flesh. Beasts have souls, and men have souls. Each has a life, which is given it in harmony with the law of the creature that receives it. That life in man is human life. In the beast it is the beast life—each according to the law of the creature. When man comes into living connection with God by faith, he receives the spirit life. And the Word clearly discriminates between the soul and the spirit. Heb. 4:12. The man who has the soul life alone, does not know or apprehend the things of the Spirit. See 1 Cor. 2:14: “But the natural man” literally, the soulical man—“receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.” There is great truth which lies in this. When the soulical man is converted, however, God gives him the Spirit, and the Spirit dominates the soul, or the life, of the flesh; but when a man is unconverted, he does not have the spiritual life, and his soul is dominated by the flesh. To what time do the “days” of Dan. 12:12 refer? O. S. The general interpretation is that the 1,335 days begin at the same time as the days in the previous verse,—the time when the “daily” is “taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up.” That is usually placed, in the beginning of it, at 508 A. D.; and the ending, of course, in 1798, at the overthrow of the papacy. Inasmuch as no beginning is given for the 1,335 days, they are supposed to begin at the same time, 508, and would reach to 1843, the culmination of the great second advent movement; and the blessing that was received at that time was the wonderful blessing that came to those who gave their all for the Lord Jesus Christ and entered into blessed relationship with Him. 109 — The Crumbling Wall and Untempered Mortar
The prophecy, true in the days of Ezekiel, was also symbolical of what would be in the last days; for we are told, in verse 5, that “ye have not gone up into the gaps, neither made up the hedge for the house of Israel to stand in the battle in the day of the Lord.” God’s hedge around His people is His holy law, and the blessed truth of His gospel. There has been a breach made in this through apostasy, and one of God’s commandments has been trampled in the dust. Isaiah speaks of that in the fifty-eighth chapter and the twelfth and thirteenth verses, and tells us that in the last days a people will be called out who will repair the breach and build up the paths that have been broken down. But there are those among the professed servants of God who have not gone up into the gaps, or the breaches, that have been made. They have not built up the hedge. See the margin of Eze. 13:7. “They have seen vanity and lying divination, saying, The Lord saith: and the Lord hath not sent them: and they have made others to hope that they would confirm the word.” This is true many times of men who promise that there is any amount of Bible truth and proof for the false sabbath with which they have tried to repair the breach in God’s law; but the prophet tells us that to substitute for God’s wall that which is not of God, to endeavor to repair the breach made in truth by error, is like building up a wall and dashing it with untempered mortar. He also tells us that it matters not how beautifully this may have been faced, and how smoothly the untempered mortar may have been placed over it, the wall is “a slight wall”—margin of verse 10. And when the plagues of God fall, and the great hailstones descend, and the overflowing shower of His judgments comes upon the earth, the wall will fall, and those will fall also who have built it. God will break it down, and accomplish His wrath upon those who have thought to use human subterfuges in the place of God’s truth. The 28th verse of the 22d chapter uses the same figure. But the context tells us more than this. It declares that these priests or ministers of God who have built up the wall are those who have violated His law, and profaned His holy things, and have put no difference between the holy and the profane, “neither have they showed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from My Sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.” This clearly shows that the slight wall which men have built up, and the mortar with which they have dashed it, are not of God’s building, and are contrary to the wall in which they have endeavored to build it. The only way in which the break in God’s wall can be restored is by the restoration of His downtrodden truth. 110 — The Bond Woman and the Son
The scripture reads: “Nevertheless what saith the Scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” The foundation of this parable is found in the history of Abraham. Sarah was Abraham’s lawful wife. Through her was to come the promised Seed. Hagar was the bondwoman, and in human planning and human idea her seed was to be the promised Seed—so Abraham thought. But the Lord said: Sarah is right. Let the bondwoman go. Sarah’s son and only Sarah’s son is to be the promised Seed—the child which came not through any human power or planning or effort, but solely by the power of God. These things are a parable. The bondwoman and the seed of the bondwoman represent those who seek to obtain salvation by their own works. So the Jews did of old. And Jerusalem represented her who was in bondage with her children. It was utterly impossible for man to win salvation of himself—that must be by faith, and not of human works. Consequently those who thus endeavored to control the church or people of God will be cast out. The Lord will have only the children of promise for a seed. The Jewish church might have become the children of promise. All of them might have accepted Christ at His first advent. Had they done so, they would have done just what Abraham did in passing from his own plans to the simple, absolute faith in God. They would have done just as Jacob did when he gave up all of his planning and rested solely on the arm of God. The Jews would not do that, and consequently they were cast out, and the Lord’s people have been His people by faith. Kindly explain Isa. 45:7. In what sense does God create evil? H. S. P. “Evil” is not used, in this scripture, in the sense of sin or wickedness. The prophecy, it will be seen, has reference to Cyrus and God’s use of Cyrus for His people. The Persians worshiped the god of light and the god of darkness. They believed that there was one god that ruled the light, and another god that ruled the darkness, and that these were at continual war with each other; that from one god, the god of light, came peace, and from the god of darkness came all the evil upon the world. The Lord would have Cyrus and all others understand that the light and the darkness are sent by Him, and that the judgments which come upon the world, that may be called evil, also come from Him,—either through direct sending or by permission. If there is an earthquake, the Lord permits it to come. If mighty storms sweep over sea and land, bearing destruction in their train, the Lord has Himself permitted it, in order that men may learn that sin has perverted even the physical laws of the universe. “Evil” is simply used in the sense of judgment, and God sends both upon the earth, but He does not create sin or wickedness.