Earlier text: Efforts to Hinder Nehemiah's WorkThe Son of God Died.
By Editor
SOME affect to think it derogatory to the character of God that his Son should suffer for us—the innocent for the guilty. But all such must have views of the divine Government unworthy of the subject; unworthy of the eternal truth and infinite justice of a holy God. The Lord has said that death was the penalty of transgression, and that his law should not be set aside, nor its penalty relaxed, for he would by no means clear the guilty. Ex. 34:7. Was it necessary for God to keep his word? If so, in order to man's salvation, it was necessary to clear man from guilt—to save him from sin; for, as guilty, in sin, he could by no means be cleared. Reason attests that the salvation of a sinner can only be effected by providing a willing and honorable substitute. The Bible attests that God gave his own Son, and the Son gave himself to die for us. What reason, in the name of justice and mercy, demands, the Bible reveals in the gift of that holy One in whom infinite justice and mercy unite. We think that all who have read carefully our remarks upon the requirements of the moral system, must accept the conclusion, that a substitutional sacrifice is the only means whereby the broken law may be vindicated or the honor of the Government maintained and a way opened for the pardon and salvation of the sinner. The Scripture plan of atonement has this peculiarity, that it presents one offering for many offences, or, in truth, for many offenders. And this is true whether we consider it in the light of the Old or the New Testament; of the type or the antitype. Their sacrifices under the Levitical law were, indeed, "offered year by year continually" (Heb. 10:1), but on the day of atonement, the offerings of which were the heart and substance of the whole system, a goat was offered for all the people. Lev. 16:15. The declaration of the apostle Paul, in Heb. 10:4, is too reasonable to admit of any dispute. He says, "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." A bull and a goat were offered on the day of atonement, on which day the high priest took the blood into the most holy place. To these the apostle refers. His statement is founded on what may be termed the law of equivalents. While the greater may be accepted for the less, strict justice would forbid that the less should be accepted for the greater. A goat is not as valuable as a man. Its blood or life is not as precious, of as great worth, as the blood or life of a man. How much less could a goat answer as the just equivalent of a whole nation! If your neighbor owed you an ounce of silver, you would feel insulted if he offered you in payment an ounce of brass; but, on the contrary, you would consider him both just and generous if he offered to pay you with an ounce of gold. Even so, a man might consider himself demeaned, were he under sentence of death, if the Government should offer to accept the life of a goat in his stead. "Am I," he might inquire, "of so little worth that I can be ransomed by a goat?" Again, it would not only lower the dignity of a man, but it would give us a mean idea of the justice and importance of the law. If the broken law can be vindicated by the sacrifice of a goat, a dumb animal, the law itself could not be considered of great value or importance. But how different would the case appear if the Government should announce that the law was so just, so sacred, and its violation so odious in the sight of the lawgiver and of all loyal subjects, that nothing less than the life of a prince royal could be accepted as a substitute for the transgressor. The announcement of the fact that no less a sacrifice would be accepted, without any reason being given, would at once raise the law in the estimation of every one who heard it, and overwhelm the transgressor with a sense of the enormity of his crime. Now he might inquire, "Is it possible that my sin is so great that I can be saved only by such a great sacrifice?" By this it will be seen, as we shall yet more fully consider, that the value of the Atonement—its efficacy as a vindication of the justice of the law and the honor of the Government—consists entirely in the dignity of the offering. And this is by no means a reflection on the requirements or the sacrifices of the Levitical system. If considered as a finality—as having no relation to anything to follow—they do indeed appear insignificant and entirely worthless. But if considered as types of a greater offering yet to be made; as illustrations of man's desert for his transgression, and of God's abhorrence of sin, by which the sinner subjects himself to the penalty of death, they served a useful purpose. And in the prophecies of the Old Testament we find that a greater and more honorable sacrifice was set forth to Israel, as in Dan. 9:24-26, where it was announced that the promised Messiah should be cut off, but not for himself; and in Isa. 52 and 53, where he who was to be exalted very high, before whom kings should shut their mouths, was to be "wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities." How impressive are the words of the prophet: "Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he has poured out his soul unto death; and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." We insist, and we think with the very best reason, that the Mosaic law reaches its logical conclusion only in the Christian system, even as the prophecies of an exalted sacrifice find their fulfillment in Jesus of Nazareth, the son of David. And the objection raised against the idea of the Son of God dying for man, for the transgression of his Father's holy law, is as contrary to reason as it is to the Scriptures. Were all men thoroughly imbued with a sense of the justice and the just requirements of the law of God, and would accept just conclusions in regard to those requirements, they could not fail to admire, with wonder and with awe, "the mystery of godliness" as presented in the offering of the Son of God as our ransom. The law of God must be honored and vindicated by the sacrifice offered for its violation; therefore the death of Christ, the Son of the Most High, shows the estimate which he places upon his law. We can have correct views of either, the offering or the law, only as far as we have correct views of the other. Now, as the glory of God was the first great object of the gospel, Luke 1:14, and, as we have seen, the honor of the law must be the chief object of an atonement, we shall best be able to estimate the value of the law of God by having just views of the price paid for man's redemption from its curse. And it is also true that they only can properly appreciate the gift of Christ who rightly estimate the holiness and justice of that law for which he died. They who accuse us of lightly esteeming the Saviour because we highly esteem the law of God, only prove that their study of governmental relations, and of the Bible conditions of pardon, has been exceedingly superficial. What, then, was the sacrifice offered for us? the price paid to rescue us from death? Did Christ, the Son of God, die? Or did a human body die, and God's exalted Son leave it in the hour of its suffering? If the latter be correct, it will greatly detract from the value and dignity of the Atonement; for the death of a mere human being, however sinless, would seem to be a very limited sacrifice for a sinful race. But, however that might be, we should not question God's plan, if that was the plan. But what say the Scriptures? This must be our inquiry. To these we appeal. It is by many supposed that the pre-existent being, the Son of God, could not suffer and die, but that he left the body at the moment of its death. If so, the only humiliation the Son manifested was to leave Heaven and dwell in such a body; and so far from the death of the body being a sacrifice on the part of the higher nature, it was only a release and exemption from the state of humiliation. This would hardly justify the Scripture declarations of the amazing love of God in giving his Son to die for the sins of the world. The Methodist Discipline has a statement concerning the Son of God, which we think is quite in harmony with the Scriptures. "Two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead and buried." We can only regret that we seldom meet with a Methodist author who takes a position as Scriptural as this of the Discipline. The view which we call in question supposes that there were two distinct natures in the person of Christ; but we do not so read it in the sacred oracles. But if it be so—if there were two distinct natures united for a season, and separated in death, we must learn it in the revelation concerning him. What, then, are the terms in which this distinction is revealed? What terms express his higher, or divine nature, and what terms express his mere human nature? Whoever attempts to answer these questions will find the position utterly untenable. "Christ" expresses both combined. "Christ, the Son of the living God"—"The man Christ Jesus," both refer to the same person or individual; there are no forms of speech to express his personality higher than the Son of God, or Christ; and the Scriptures declare that Christ, the Son of God, died. The divinity and pre-existence of our Saviour are most clearly proved by those scriptures which refer to him as "the Word." "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made." John 1:1-3. This expresses plainly a pre-existent divinity. The same writer again says: "That which was from the beginning, . . . the Word of life." 1 John 1:1. What John calls the Word, in these passages, Paul calls the "Son," in Heb. 1:1-3. "God, . . . hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power." In other places in this letter this same exalted one is called Jesus Christ. In these passages we find the divinity or "higher nature" of our Lord expressed. Indeed, language could not more plainly express it; therefore it is unnecessary to call other testimony to prove it, it being already sufficiently proved. The first of the above quotations says the Word was God, and also the Word was with God. Now it needs no proof—indeed it is self-evident—that the Word as God, was not the God whom he was with. And as there is but "one God," the term must be used in reference to the Word in a subordinate sense, which is explained by Paul's calling the same pre-existent person the Son of God. This is also confirmed by John's saying that the Word "was with the Father." 1 John 1:2; also calling the Word "his Son Jesus Christ." Verse 3. Now it is reasonable that the Son should bear the name and title of his Father, especially when the Father makes him his exclusive representative to man, and clothes him with such power—"by whom he made the worlds." That the term God is used in such a sense is also proved by Paul, quoting Ps. 45:6, 7, and applying it to Jesus. "But unto the son, he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever, . . . therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." Heb. 1:8, 9. Here the title of God is applied to the Son, and his God anointed him. This is the highest title he can bear, and it is evidently used here in a sense subordinate to its application to his Father. It is often asserted that this exalted one came to earth and inhabited a human body, which he left in the hour of its death. But the Scriptures teach that this exalted one was the identical person that died on the cross; and in this consists the immense sacrifice made for man—the wondrous love of God and condescension of his only Son. John says, "The Word of life," "that which was from the beginning" "which was with the Father," that exalted, pre-existent One "which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled." 1 John 1:1, 2. This testimony of inspiration makes the Word that was with the Father from the beginning, a tangible being appreciable to the senses of those with whom he associated. How can this be so? For an answer we turn to John 1:14: "And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." This is plain language and no parable. But these are not the only witnesses speaking to the same intent. Says Paul, "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself," more literally, divested himself, i. e., of the glory he had with the Father before the world was. Phil. 2:5-8. Again Paul speaks of him thus: "Forasmuch557 then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself took part of the same." Heb. 2:14. The angel also announced to Mary, that her son Jesus should be called the Son of the Highest; and, "That holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Luke 1:35. Not that the "Son of the Highest" should dwell in and inhabit that which should be born of her, but her son was the holy, pre-existent one, thus by the energy of the Holy Spirit "made flesh." Now if the human nature of Christ existed distinct from the divine, the foregoing declarations will not apply to either; for, if that were so, the pre-existent Word was not made flesh; it was not the man, nor in the fashion of a man, nor did the man, the servant, ever humble himself, or divest himself of divine glory, never having possessed it. But allowing that the Word—the divine Son of the Most High—was made flesh, took on him the seed of Abraham, and, thus changed the form and manner of his existence by the mighty power of God, all becomes clear and harmonious. EDITOR. The Sabbath-School.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
Lesson for Pacific Coast.—December 22.
"Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." 1 Cor. 16: 1, 2. Paul does not here command the church at Corinth to make a collection, but simply gives them directions as to the manner of making it; the text shows that they had previously understood the necessity for such a collection. When Paul was at the council at Jerusalem, and received "the right hand of fellowship" from the apostles and elders there, that he should go unto the heathen, it was desired of him that he should remember the poor (Gal. 2: 9, 10); it was in accordance with this wish that he had previously asked the Corinthian brethren to give of their means. THIS text is considered by first-day writers as the end of controversy on the Sunday question. Dr. Barnes remarks: "There is here clear proof that the first day of the week was observed by the church at Corinth as holy time." It is not claimed by him or any one else, so far as we know, that there is here anything like a commandment for Sunday observance, but simply that Paul recognizes the observance of Sunday as something already established. Now we wish to call attention to two things: 1. If the Sunday-Sabbath was then a fixed institution in the church, there must have been a time when it originated,—a time when the commandment was given. This cannot be denied, for it is well known, and admitted by all men of judgment and candor among first-day people themselves, that there was a long period when the first day of the week was considered only a working day, and the seventh was the only recognized day of rest. See Ex. 20: 8-11, and others. We repeat, then, that if this order of things were changed, a commandment to that effect must have been given. But since no one can find such a commandment, or any hint of such a thing, we deny that any such change was made. 2. From Dr. Barnes himself we will show that his "clear proof" that Sunday was observed by the Corinthians as a day of rest is an assumption unwarranted by the facts in the case. After quoting the Greek of the phrase, "lay by him in store," he says: "Let him lay up at home, treasuring up as he has been prospered. The Greek phrase, 'by himself,' means, probably, the same as 'at home.'" [All the best authorities agree on this; they make no question but that the apostle's words literally mean that the offerings should be laid by and treasured up at home.] Let him set it apart; let him designate a certain portion; let him do this by himself, when he is at home, when he can calmly look at the evidence of his prosperity." Now the moment it is admitted (and it cannot be denied) that the laying by was a personal affair with each individual at home, and not at church, then all that is assumed for first-day observance vanishes into nothingness. Moreover, to "calmly look at the evidence of his prosperity" is not generally considered to be the proper manner in which to keep the Sabbath. The Bible teaches a different way. See Isa. 58: 13. The passage under consideration is the last place in the Bible where the first day is mentioned; there are seven other places where it is found, and all of them give just as much support to the Sunday cause as this one does, and no more. "I BESEECH you, brethren (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first-fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints), that ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboreth." 1 Cor. 16: 15, 16. Paul here shows that those who are addicted to the ministry of the saints are worthy of the highest regard; others are to submit themselves to such. There is consistency in this, for Paul says that those who sow bountifully shall reap also bountifully; not simply in temporal things, but in spiritual. The amount given does not matter; that will depend on circumstances; but those who devote themselves to the services of the Lord, by caring for his saints, are by him especially honored even here. THE reader must not fail to compare the two verses just quoted, with the 16th verse of the 1st chapter. Paul says there that he baptized the household of Stephanas, and our Pedobaptist friends find in that statement proof that Paul baptized infants; "for it is not probable," say they, "that there were no children in the family; and if there were, then of course they must have been baptized, since they formed a part of the household." This is to many sufficient evidence in favor of so-called infant baptism. But let us apply the same reasoning in 1 Cor. 16: 15, 16. Here the word "house" is used instead of "household," but no one will dispute that in both instances family is meant. Paul says in this place that the house of Stephanas "have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." Consistency requires that those who find infant baptism in 1 Cor. 1: 16 should on this text reason thus: "Of course there were infants in this family, and consequently we have here undoubted proof that in the early church children were so precocious that from their earliest infancy they worked diligently for the support of the saints." Remember that Paul is speaking of the same family in both instances. But concerning the latter text Pedobaptists would say, with all reason, that if those of the family who had come to years of discretion were given to hospitality, and to the service of the church, it is all that is required by the text; and thus they demolish their previous argument for infant baptism; for in order to reap any benefit from the statement that a household was baptized, they must prove that in every instance where something is predicated of a household, the same action is predicated of all the infants of that household, should there be any. This they would not attempt to do. When we remember that the strongest proof for infant baptism is found in the baptism of the households of Lydia and the jailer, we see that nearly the whole theory is evaporated by the consideration of this one text. "FOR as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation also aboundeth by Christ." 2 Cor. 1: 5. There is in this verse a wonderful amount of comfort to the Christian, if it only be appreciated. It is simply a fulfillment of the promise, "As thy day, so shall thy strength be." Dr. Clarke well says that from this "we learn that he who is upheld in a slight trial, need not fear a great one; for if he be faithful, his consolation shall abound as his sufferings abound. Is it not as easy for a man to lift one hundred pounds weight as it is for an infant to lift a few ounces? The proportion of strength destroys the comparative difficulty." The angel said to Daniel, "The people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits." Dan. 11: 32. The Lord himself said to the Jews that if they would obey him, five of them should chase an hundred, and an hundred of them should put ten thousand to flight. Lev. 26: 8. Would there be anything that the people of God could not do or endure, if they only had faith in God? With each new trial, fresh consolation would come, and each new duty entered upon would bring strength for its own accomplishment. What reason is there, then, in discouragement? Suppose the way is rough; "as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation also aboundeth by Christ." If a man be in Christ, he can do all things. Phil. 4: 13. Christ himself said, "In the world ye shall have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." John 16: 33. Why should the fact that Christ has overcome the world, impart courage to us? Because it is an assurance that we can do the same, for all his strength is freely given to us, if we will but accept it. "This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." 1 John 5: 4. Is it, then, proper to say of any one man that he is a "weak Christian"? To be a Christian is to be in Christ, and those that are in this condition are partakers of his power, which is infinite. Just to the extent then that a man is weak in the Christian life, is he out of Christ, and, consequently not a Christian. This does not mean, however, that a man must be strong in himself; "our sufficiency is of God." "BUT we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us." 2 Cor. 4: 7. This shows that there is a purpose in our being weak. We are compared to frail earthen vessels, that might be easily broken. If such vessels were subjected to rough usage, and were still preserved intact, it would indicate that some special care had been exercised, for the destruction of the vessels would be the natural result. So if we are preserved from the snares of the enemy, it will indicate that some power far superior to ourselves is entitled to the credit. But Christ cannot work in us, if we feel so strong as to make the attempt to do the work ourselves. And since, having no strength, we often act as though we had it, it is certain that if we had any strength of our own, we would not give the Lord a chance to work at all, and we would be lost. We therefore repeat that it is a wise providence that has made us as weak as we are, in order that the power of Christ may rest upon us. Instead of becoming discouraged over our natural weakness, we ought rather, with Paul, to take pleasure in the fact, and "glory in infirmities; for when I am weak, then am I strong." Clarke's Commentary, 6 vols ........................................ $24 00
Barnes' Notes, 14 vols............................................. 21 00
Smith's Comp. Dictionary, sheep ................................... 6 00
“ “ “ “ cloth. .......................................... 5 00
History of Reformation............................................. 5 00
“ “ “ (condensed)........................................ 1 50
“ “ “ Romanism, cloth,..................................... 4 00
Young's Concordance................................................ 3 00
Cruden's “ ........................................................ 2 00
Whiston's Josephus, large.......................................... 3 00
“ “ “ small.......................................... 1 75
Hand Book of Bible Geography ...................................... 2 50
“ “ “ “ Manners, etc....................................... 2 50
Dictionary of Bible ............................................... 1 75
Smith's New Testament History...................................... 1 75
Geikie's Life of Christ, large..................................... 1 75
“ “ “ “ “ small ........................................... 75
Blunt's Coincidences............................................... 1 50
Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress........................................ 1 50
Sketches of Jewish Social Life..................................... 1 25
The Temple and its Services ....................................... 1 25
From Exile to Overthrow ........................................... 1 25
Life of Apostle Paul (C. and H.).................................... 1 00
Sketches from the Life of Paul (Mrs. White)........................ 80
Giant Cities of Bashan............................................. 1 00 Address, PACIFIC PRESS, Oakland, Cal. THE YOUTH'S INSTRUCTOR.
By Editor
AN ILLUSTRATED WEEKLY PAPER FOR YOUTH AND CHILDREN, DEVOTED TO MORAL, MENTAL, AND RELIGIOUS CULTURE. This paper is not devoted to insipid stories and religious fiction, but is filled with a great variety of that kind of reading which tends to the healthful development of the youthful mind. Its pages are made bright by the choicest illustrative pictures, and its columns are always full of useful information. As a Sabbath-school and Lesson paper, it is suited to the wants of scholars and teachers, and is calculated to increase the interest of all who read it, in thorough Bible study. The Sabbath-school Department contains two series of lessons, one for children and one for youth. SUBSCRIPTION PRICE, 75 CENTS A YEAR. All new subscribers paying the above price will receive the "Child's Poems" as a premium without extra charge. TERMS TO CLUBS, PAID IN ADVANCE. Price per Copy, Post-paid. 5 to 10 copies....................................60 cents a year.
10 copies and upward ...........................50 cents a year. Subscription for 5 to 10 copies will be taken for six months.
Larger clubs may be paid for quarterly. Address YOUTH'S INSTRUCTOR, Battle Creek, Mich.