"WHEN ye see these things come to pass know that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand."—Luke 21:31.
It is thought by many who profess to love and serve our Lord and Saviour, that the second coming of Christ is an event that his church is to know nothing or little about, as to its character or nearness of approach; that it is one of "the secret things of the Lord our God," and hence does not belong to us.
But such a position is founded in ignorance of the Scriptures, for they abound with such teachings as that the church is not in darkness that that day and event should overtake them as a thief. (1 Thess. 5:4). And, besides, if we are to judge from past dealings of God, we shall find that it is contrary to his principle to bring any important event to pass without giving his people warning. There is no case recorded of an event occurring which involved the interests of God's people, that was not revealed to them. When God would destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, an event which materially affected the interests of his people of that time, he said, "Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do?" In Amos 3:7, there is what seems to be almost the answer to this question of whether it is his design to leave in darkness his people concerning such visitations. The prophet says, "Surely the Lord God will do nothing but he revealeth his secret to his servants the prophets."
God did not hide from Abraham that event which involved the destruction of the wicked, and the salvation of the righteous of those cities; but told him, and Abraham made intercession for them. (Gen. 18:23–33).
This fact declared by Amos seems to have been God's manner of proceeding with his ancient people from the beginning, and we candidly believe that that God who changes not, still adheres to that same principle. The second coming of Christ is an event of momentous importance, involving the eternal interests of his church, and in view of that fact, can it be treated as a matter unworthy of our attention and regard? In the text he teaches the knowledge of that event, by signs that are to precede it, "When ye see these things come to pass know that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand."
The people of God are to look for a literal kingdom, having Christ at its head as king. This is not that kingdom of grace which is established in the hearts of his people. For that reigning of Christ in the hearts of his followers was inaugurated effectually at his first coming or advent; but it is that kingdom that appears at his second coming. It is referred to by the Apostle Paul in his epistle to Timothy when he says, "I charge thee, therefore, before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and kingdom."
It is that one to which Christ refers in Matt. 25. He speaks then of a time when the king shall come in his glory, and sit upon the throne of his glory, and before him shall be gathered all nations, and he will separate the good and the bad, and shall say to the righteous, "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world."
There can be no mistaking the literality of such a kingdom. God's people have not inherited this kingdom yet, but will at the revelation of Christ, if there is any sense in the scripture just referred to.
Peter says of the event that ushers in the kingdom of God, and in view of those things which accompany it, "Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness; looking for and hastening unto the day of God." And again by Paul in Titus 2:13, "Looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ."
If the church are to be in a looking attitude for that event, and there are to be certain signs indicating its approach, how can she close her eyes to them and yet be said to be at her post of duty? "When ye see these things come to pass."
The Lord used a parable to illustrate the approach of his kingdom. He said, "Behold the fig-tree and all the trees; when they now shoot forth ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise, when ye see these things come to pass, know that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand." The figure is a very familiar one, and cannot be misapprehended. When we see vegetation springing forth into new life, and taking on its robe of green from the life-giving principle imparted by sun, rain, and atmosphere, and the herbage of the surrounding forests shoot forth those germs of life, indicating a waking up of nature from a long repose of a cold and frosty winter, which seems almost like a resurrection from the dead—summer is advancing and close at hand. We have a knowledge of such facts without a shadow of doubt—we know it. So by the signs that are given by the Saviour, when they take place, we can know that the kingdom is near, and very near.
The signs that the Lord gives are those in the same chapter. He commences with verse 25, and says, "There shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars." Some understand this to be figurative language, not meaning the literal sun, moon, etc., but these have been literally fulfilled, in harmony with the prophecy of Joel (see Joel 2:31), and referred to by the apostle Peter in Acts 2:19, 20.
"And upon the earth distress of nations with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring, men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth; for the powers of the heavens shall be shaken."
In verse 28, he says, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh." And so it is, these are, and have, been occurring in the earth, and hence the kingdom is nigh.
New Haven, Mich.
THE MORNING COMETH.
By Rev. John Cumming, D. D.
EVERY created thing is under a repressive influence. And man also is degraded—he was not made for this state. But when the curse shall be removed, and Satan chained, possibilities of grandeur, of beauty, and of glory, inherent but repressed, shall be developed, and a beautiful creation shall be trodden by the sons and servants of God, countless as the dew-drops of a summer's morn, and reflecting the splendors of an unsetting sun. God allows us transient and incidental sights of the still hidden possibilities of nature. For instance, the hedge-rose is a very poor thing, but by the art and the nursing of man, that is, by his diluting the curse as much as he can, it grows into that beautiful flower, a moss-rose. In that hedge-rose was huddled up and buried all the beauties of the moss-rose. God thus lets man know transient gleams of hidden beauties in the works of creation, that he may see how beautiful every tree will grow, and every flower will blossom when the repressive incubus is taken off and Satan no more allowed to blight it by his breath, or sin, by its pestilential taint. The expression of a dying horse is, next to that of a dying friend, the most touching. He seems as if he felt that something unnatural was coming over him, and he looks and appeals and all but speaks to those around him, as if asking them to help and heal him.
It seems as if the brute knew that there was something wrong and abnormal in suffering. The dog, the bird, the cat—the domestic and the wild animals—as they feel the pangs of approaching death, generally run into a nook or a hole, as if the shame of man's sin had cast its shadow upon them. "The whole creation groaneth and travaileth." Nature is in travail—a woman with child about to give birth to the sons of God and to share in the glories and magnificence of their apocalypse. "The whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also which have the first-fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting"—for what?—"waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body."
"Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection; on such the second death hath no power." "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death." Now, over those who participate in the first resurrection, this second death shall have no power, there will be no fuel for its flames there. There will be nothing for it to lay hold of in redeemed and regenerated souls. They are "blessed and holy." "Blessed is he whose sins are forgiven," "blessed are the pure in heart," "blessed are the meek," "blessed are the peacemakers," "blessed are they that do hunger and thirst after righteousness," "blessed are they that hear the joyful sound;" all these benedictions scattered over the sacred pages, falling in their first slight showers upon
hearts quickened by the Spirit and redeemed by the blood of Jesus, will be compressed into one grand and lasting benediction, which shall rest upon soul and body of those who are blessed and holy, and have part in that first resurrection from among the dead. To them Jesus shall say, combining a thousand past blessings in one, "Come, ye blessed of my father,"—blessed, for ye have part in this first resurrection—"inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." THE MORNING COMETH.—Rev. John Cumming, D. D.
NADAB AND ABIHU.
WHAT WAS THE SIN OF NADAB AND ABIHU? 1. They offered strange fire before the Lord which he commanded them not. Here was an act of open and presumptuous disobedience. Every part of the priestly service was instituted and regulated by Divine command. The incense was probably in the custody of Moses, the fire had been kindled by an astonishing miracle upon the altar, and was designed, by being unceasingly replenished, to be always ready for sacred uses, and no other was ever to be allowed; the priests performed their offices each in his own appointed time and order. But disregarding all these regulations, Nadab and Abihu took incense without the knowledge of Moses, set fire to it in their own way, and usurped some other priest's place and authority in venturing to conduct an independent form of worship. Such disobedience sprang from pride. Puffed up with vanity and a sense of their own importance, these eldest sons of Aaron thought themselves superior to their priestly brethren and to the regular ordinances of the sanctuary. In the same spirit King Uzziah, when "he was strong in his heart and lifted up," attempted to burn incense in the temple, and was smitten with leprosy as a consequence. Behold to obey, said Samuel to Saul, is better than sacrifice. The root of all sin lies in the rebellion and antagonism of man's will to the will of God. It was not the fruit of the forbidden tree that caused all our woe, but the act of rebellion in eating it. Sin, says the apostle, is the transgression of the law.
2. Nadab and Abihu showed contempt for the fire that God had proclaimed holy. The miraculous origin and lofty purpose for which this fire was set expressly apart, made it sacred. By substituting other, i. e., strange fire in its place, they were guilty of the sacrilege that could only be the offspring of boldest irreverence and presumption. Here was no sin of ignorance at which God sometimes may wink; it was a deliberate and willful insult to God's majesty. That heavenly gift of fire before which all the people humbly fell on their faces was, in their conceited and self-righteous eyes, of no use nor meaning. And in despising it they despised its Author.
3. The sin of Nadab and Abihu was magnified because committed under the influence of strong drink. That they were intoxicated is inferred from the enactment in this very connection of a perpetual law (v. 9.) that neither Aaron nor any of his sons should ever drink wine or strong drink when intending to officiate in the Tabernacle. They were to keep their minds sober and clear, so as to be able to discriminate between what was holy and unholy, what was clean and what unclean. This fearful example of muddled brains, leading to irreverence, presumption, impiety, and shocking violation of the Divine order in worship, was to be prevented by total abstinence in the future. Never was there a more painful instance of the mockery of wine. No wonder Ezekiel forbade every priest to touch it when about to enter into the inner court of the temple (Eze. 44:21); no wonder God here excludes its use while worshiping, under penalty of death. Inflamed to pride and recklessness by drunken indulgence these priests had dishonored themselves, disgraced the whole nation, and brought unspeakable sorrow upon their family and friends. Nor were they allowed to excuse their transgression under the plea that they did not know what they were about, and so were not quite responsible. They ought to have known, and they were responsible for yielding themselves to a drunken condition in which they could not know, or would not care. Their guilt, therefore, instead of being lessened, was only increased and intensified by their previous love of ardent spirits.
THE PUNISHMENT OF NADAB AND ABIHU. It is noteworthy they were consumed by that very fire which they had dared to despise. Their retribution497was sudden and awful; but it must be remembered that their privileges and position had been exalted. They only of the sons of Aaron had been distinguished with the honor of going up with their father and Moses and the seventy elders to hold communion with God on the Mount. There they saw the God of Israel, under whose "feet was, as it were, a paved work of sapphire-stone, and as it were, the body of heaven in his clearness." They had been elevated to the dignity of the priestly office; they stood before the vast congregation pre-eminent as representatives of Jehovah; and they were moreover, acting for the first time in that official capacity, from which all succeeding generations would take example and instruction. Surely, if ever men had reason to be pure and obedient, these eldest sons of Aaron had; and if ever drunken recklessness deserved to be punished, theirs did. Sin is bad enough in any one, but it is especially heinous in a minister from whom the world justly expects blameless deeds and guileless speech. And again, the Lord had previously said (Comp. Ex. 19:22, and 28:43), "I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified." He is a jealous God, demanding purity and sincerity of worship, and only by such worship can he be sanctified, i. e. revealed as a holy Being. And so when his worship and sanctuary were defiled, supernatural fire leaped from the Shekinah, and "burned their souls," says the Targum of Jonathan, "but not their bodies." While slain, their bodies were not devoured nor their clothes.
HOW THE PUNISHMENT WAS REGARDED. 1. Aaron, though bereaved in this tragic manner of his own eldest sons—held his peace. The considerations urged by Moses, that the priest should glorify his God, swallowed up parental grief, and caused him to recognize the justice of the punishment. And since any bewailing of the slain sinners might be interpreted as sympathy with their sin, or as a complaint against the righteousness of their condemnation, Aaron and his remaining sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, were forbidden to uncover their heads, i. e., to dishevel their hair or to rend their clothes, which were the usual expressions of mourning.
2. They were all forbidden, under the penalty of death, to leave their services in the Tabernacle to attend the funeral of their relatives. They had been publicly anointed and solemnly set apart for the ministry of the Tabernacle. No earthly relation must be allowed to interfere with their Divine duties, nor must they by forsaking these duties show more respect to the dead than to the living God. "Follow me," said Jesus, "and let the dead bury their dead."
3. The remaining relatives and all the camp were to engage in mourning. The sin committed was calculated to fill them with shame and profound sorrow. Drunkenness and disobedience on the part of their leaders were certainly humiliating enough. Nor was this all. The swift and severe judgment that had fallen as a consequence was so striking that they felt like lamenting the Divine displeasure, and praying that all others, themselves included, might be graciously kept from further deserving it. "Aaron and his sons," says another, "were in danger of being too much affected with the providence, and therefore they are forbidden to mourn; the house of Israel were in danger of being too little affected by it, and therefore they are commanded to lament. Thus nature must always be governed by grace, according as it needs to be either constrained or restrained.
Lessons: 1. God ordains his own method of worship and men have no right to intermingle their notions with it.
2. Official stations cannot secure any one from just punishment. Nadab and Abihu, though the eldest sons of Aaron, and though previously so highly favored, and though now in the priesthood, were struck dead when they disobeyed.
3. God demands of his ministers that they should sanctify him, i. e., cause him by their pure and unimpeachable conduct to appear as the author of holiness; and the demand is just.
4. Punishment often bears a strong resemblance to a man's sin. The sin of despising the fire is met with a judgment of fire. Jacob deceives and tricks his father and is himself deceived and tricked by his own children. David's guilt in the matter of Uriah is reflected again in the similar guilt of Absalom his darling son.
5. Truth and obedience are more precious than any human life.
6. Aaron, the stricken father, is comforted by consolations drawn from the Lord's word. And his self-control in this dreadful affliction is an example for us to imitate.
7. The Apostle in the light of this history urges us to seek "grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear; for our God is a consuming fire."
8. Drunkenness is the prolific cause of manifold sins, and in a minister it is absolutely inexcusable. No drunkard shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.
9. Crime is not palliated by drunkenness, but aggravated rather. A man is responsible for not keeping sober.
10. God is to be first in our services and affections, all things else—even the rite of burial—must be secondary.—Prof. T. S. Doolittle, in Christian at Work.
GATHER THEM IN.
WE often tell over with a smile the old-fashioned ways of Sabbath-school teaching in vogue when we were children. Our young folks smile too, and almost wonder we could have been induced to attend of our own free will. Perhaps the latter consideration had less weight than now, in deciding how children should spend the Sabbath. But though far from saying that “the former times were better than these,” we have yet many of us cause to remember, with grateful emotions, that souls were born into the kingdom in those antiquated Sabbath-schools. Where this is a leading result, a school has a fair record. Where it is wanting, no matter how brilliant the system, the school is a signal failure. If it is not a means of saving souls, it does little more than give the children a kind of Sabbath entertainment.
One Sabbath-school made its strong point happiness. “The happy Sabbath-school” was its chosen motto; all the hymns sung in it were of a joyful order. The superintendent preached to the children in the happiest strain, and all the teachers were exhorted to make the hour as full of happiness as they could. It might have seemed a little uproarious to a stranger, and there seemed no place for the serious, earnest pleadings of the Spirit to come in. But the superintendent was entirely satisfied with his system. If the children were only happy, was it not the next thing to being safe? Very likely this, too, would come in time, but one would almost think that it was counted a secondary consideration. Men do not reason that way when a ship is exposed to fearful peril by the winds and waves. It is not enough that we teach them that God is a merciful, loving Father; we must also teach them the grounds on which this mercy is offered to us. You may desire to go to St. Louis, but if you take the train for New York it will be of no avail that you think you are going right; you will never reach your destination. Beware that you are not blind guides to any of these little ones. “Gather them in,” not only to Sabbath-school, but also into the heavenly kingdom.—Augsberg Teacher.
The Sabbath School.
By Rev. Dr. Steel
THE TEACHER'S REWARD.
THE teacher is rewarded by the diligence and attention of his class. These encourage his efforts, his prayers, and his zeal. When docility, affection, and progress characterize his pupils, the teacher believes that his labor is not in vain. The opening intelligence, the impressed heart, and regular attendance of his class, reward his preparations and effort. When the outward life of his scholars seems to improve, and is a manifest result of lessons given in the school, the soul of the teacher swells with thankfulness, and reaps a harvest for his pains.
But the faithful teacher is not satisfied with these results. His aim is directed towards the salvation of the souls of his scholars, and the joy for their conversion would be indeed a reward sufficient to content his heart. When the holy and painstaking teacher sees inquiry arise, or deep convictions move among his class, he is conscious of a high recognition of his efforts. For this he earnestly prayed; for this he untiringly labored; for this he ceaselessly watched. Like the husbandman, who walks daily near the ground where he has cast his seed, and looks for the blade to rise, so the pious Sabbath-school teacher watches, in faith and prayer, for the first token of concern—the first motion of spiritual life in the souls of his scholars. That sight would amply repay his labors. That result would be his highly valued reward.
Such a result an archbishop, who had filled the highest offices in church and State, confessed that he would have esteemed more than all the honors which his king had heaped upon him. But this may be yours, O teacher! You may lead a soul to Christ; you may be the means of converting a sinner from the error of his way; you may be the spiritual parent of your class. Seek this reward. Lose not sight of such a prize. Strive to win it. By prayer and pains, at home and in your class, you may be wise to win souls, and have, in the day of the Lord, those whom you have taught on earth as your joy and crown of rejoicing. To stand among them before the Lord, and to say, “Behold me and the children whom thou hast given me,” must be a conscious dignity, surpassing all that ever gained laurels or crowns on earth. The humble, unobserved, yet faithful teacher, may reach that height. Many unknown here beyond the few their labors influenced, shall at last realize that satisfaction before an assembled world.—Rev. Dr. Steel.
The Coachman’s Reproof
A PROFANE coachman, pointing to one of his horses, said to a pious traveler, "That horse, sir, knows when I swear at him." "Yes," replied the traveler, "and so does your Maker." The coachman seemed to feel the reproof, and immediately became silent.
MARKING TIME.
Two sailors happened to be on a military parade ground while the soldiers were on drill, going through the evolution of marking time. One observed the other watching the movements of the company very attentively, with eyes fixed and arms akimbo, and asked him what he thought of it. "Well, Jack," replied his comrade, "I am thinking there must be a pretty strong tide running this morning, for these poor fellows have been pulling away for this half an hour, and have not got an inch ahead yet." We fear that in many of our Churches and Sabbath-schools this is a kind of movement that is very common. There is activity, regular and orderly, a "going through the motions" according to the latest edition of the manual, but no real progress, nor any real thought of it. Each service is only a "performance," and the leading idea is to have it artistically "rendered." The proprieties may be preserved, but there is no lofty conception of an ultimate end, no glimpse of a serious goal, no steadfast pressing forward to it with utmost strain of faculty ; there is only a martinet issuing orders, and a company marking time."—Baptist Teacher.
Qualities of Faithful Teachers
Do WE find the teachers intelligent, serious, diligent in their preparation for their work; meek, anxious to learn as a privilege, but willing to teach as a duty; giving evidence that they feel how sacred and important is the trust they have assumed; availing themselves of every means of improvement; giving themselves completely up to the business of teaching, so far as a faithful discharge of duty requires it; punctual and steady in their attendance at school, and on such meetings as are profitable to themselves and conducive to the prosperity of the cause. Do they maintain towards each other, on all occasions and in all circumstances, a spirit of kindness, forbearance and confidence; discarding envyings, jealousies, evil surmisings and desires of personal fame or credit; giving courteous consideration to the views and opinions of others; maintaining with Christian mildness what one believes to be right, without endeavoring for the sake of reputation or triumph to show another to be wrong; and thus securing that harmony of feeling, and unity of purpose, without which any co-operation must be perplexing, feeble, and fruitless?—Sel.
Teachers’ Attendance and Duty
By Westminster Teacher
Suppose the pastor, every few Sabbaths, should fail to appear in his pulpit at the hour of service, with no substitute and no notification of his absence, leaving the elders to hold some kind of a meeting or send the people away—how long could such a pastor retain his place? Teachers who stay away from their classes and make no provision for them, can work out the meaning of this paragraph.—Westminster Teacher.
THE LOST TRIBES.
THE Banner of Israel, published in London, England, attempted to reply to our comments on the pamphlets concerning the lost tribes; but, as far as meeting the points made against their theory, the reply is a failure. The editor, who appears to be the writer of the pamphlets, says:—
“The notice, an editorial, appeared on ‘fifth-day, May 12, 1881,’ which, we suppose, meant Thursday. Why it should be called fifth-day instead of Thursday, we are unable to conjecture.”
This is good proof that he is not an Israelite—not of the Hebrew stock. Can a true Israelite be so ignorant of the Hebrew Scriptures and Hebrew traditions as not to know what “fifth-day” means? Must we use the language of gentile mythology to be understood by this self-styled Jew? We advise him to look up an old Mosaic account of creation, and read the first chapter of the book called Berashith, and he will not need to “suppose” what fifth-day means.
He takes issue with us on the new covenant, denying that it is yet made. He might, with equal propriety, deny that the first covenant was ever made; for every step that was taken to establish the first, was taken to establish the second. Every provision made for the first was made for the second.
1. Both were ordained in the hands of a mediator.
2. Both were dedicated, or established, with blood. Heb. 9:18. When the first was confirmed, Moses said, “Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you.” Ex. 24:8. When the new covenant was confirmed, Jesus said: This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.” Matt. 26:28.
3. Paul said that a covenant is of force after men are dead; and this he spoke in reference to Christ as mediator of the new covenant. As the blood of bulls and goats ratified the first covenant, so the blood of Christ—his death—ratified the second.
4. The first covenant had a sanctuary and a service of priesthood therein. So has the second; for Christ is a priest in the Sanctuary where he has entered by his own blood. Heb. 8:1–5; 9:24–26.
5. Paul declares that the first covenant has passed away; it was abolished; its sacrifices were rejected; its priesthood no longer serves.
The Banner takes upon itself a difficult task in this denial. It must show where we are; whether we are under any covenant at all; whether Christ is or is not a priest—“a minister of the sanctuary;” whether he is or is not “the mediator of a better covenant;” whether it was (has been) established upon better promises, or remains to be; whose death will ratify it when it is established; by what blood will it be dedicated; if it will have any priestly service, and what will be the order of its priesthood. All this is easy of solution admitting the fact, which the Scriptures make evident, that we are under the new covenant. We invite him to try to reconcile the Scripture statements here referred to with his denial.
The editor of the Banner entirely misapprehends the promise in Jer. 31:31–34. He thinks when this promise of the new covenant is fulfilled every Englishman will know the Lord! The reception of the blessings of the new covenant is an individual work; it is of faith—not of birth. The terms of this covenant, as Paul shows, do not embrace all who are “of Israel,” but those only who accept it, and this without any regard to national descent. All the world, or all of any nation, will not “know the Lord” in the sense of the promise; but those referred to, in whose hearts is written his law. But this is a personal work—a work of faith. John says: “Hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.” 1 John 2:3. Such are in the new covenant—they know the Lord. We hope the editor will follow up this covenant question, and define his position clearly. If the new covenant has not been made we wish to be informed how it will be made, and who will be its mediator, etc. Again he says:—
“Christ's mission to the lost sheep of the house of Israel only, and his journeyings to seek them only, did not exhaust his mercies to that race; else, where would be the remnant of whom Paul wrote in Heb. 8:10, to whom the blessings were yet future in A. D. 64?”
If he could successfully meet the issue which was raised, why evade it by assailing one which never was raised? We did not intimate that the work of Christ and of his apostles exhausted his mercies to that race; we never believed it; that question was not in issue. The question is this: Did they go and preach to the lost sheep of the house of Israel? If not, they did not fulfill their mission. If they did, then these lost sheep were in Palestine, and not lost at all in the sense in which the Anglo-Israelists use the term. And this question: Are the promises to Israel as a nation yet to be fulfilled? or are the gentiles fellow-heirs and partakers of the same promises? If the latter be true, then Hebrews by birth may be accepted of God only on the same conditions on which gentiles are accepted, namely, acceptance of Christ by faith. This is, indeed, the case, and therefore there is no advantage in proving one's self the seed of Abraham “according to the flesh.”
It was our intention in comparing the prophecies of Jeremiah and of Daniel with the facts of the New Testament, to show that Christ and the apostles preached “only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” in order to fulfill the promise made to Daniel, that the Messiah should confirm the new covenant with many of Daniel's people for one week—the last of the seventy which were “cut off” upon that people. Paul said “it was necessary” that the gospel should first be preached to them; not because they needed salvation more than the gentiles; not because Christ did not come to bring salvation to the gentiles; but because this prophecy of confirming the covenant during that week must be fulfilled. When it was thus confirmed to many of the house of Israel and the house of Judah, then the apostles turned to the gentiles; then the middle wall of partition was fully removed; Jews and gentiles were made “both one,” in the gospel; all special and national privileges to the Jews were forever done away. Now the gentiles are “fellow-heirs, and of the same body.”
The following paragraph from the Banner is interesting:—
“The editor's avowed unconcern for God's glory in the matter of the discovery of the lost sons of God (his first-born, Ephraim) is on a par with the selfish satisfaction he expresses that he himself is a son of Abraham and partaker of the promises in Christ. But the promises in Christ are those God gave “to Abraham and his seed forever,” and we opine that if our editor is not one of Abraham's seed, a Hebrew by birth, or, at least, by adoption, he is not yet one with the Hebrew God-man.”
We are not at all unconcerned for God's glory; but it is yet to be proved that we shall glorify God by confessing that the English people are the direct descendants of Abraham, or in looking for those descendants anywhere. Nor do we see any selfishness in expressing our satisfaction that we are a son of Abraham through faith in Christ. This is according to our idea of glorifying God. And it is a sufficient condemnation of his theory that he condemns this expression. And here the editor raises another false issue. We never intimated, nor believed, that any one will be “one with the Hebrew God-man,” who is not of Abraham's seed. But his language surely does imply that to be Abraham's seed by adoption is quite secondary to being his seed by birth. “If our editor is not one of Abraham's seed, a Hebrew by birth, or, at least, by adoption, he is not yet one with the Hebrew God-man.” Now the question: Are there two ways of being Abraham's seed with the Hebrew God-man, that is, in Christ? Is “by birth” one way of being Christ's, and “at least by adoption,” another way? Will the Banner distinctly explain its language? We affirm that there is no way of being or becoming Abraham's seed “with” Christ—properly in Christ—but that of faith and adoption. “If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” “They which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.” In this condition “there is neither Jew nor Greek.” The Banner speaks of “the lost sons of God.” Will it please to read: “They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God.” “He that is born after the flesh” may become a child of God by faith in Christ; so may a gentile. One has no claim above another. So far from seeking God's glory in this “identity” theory, it really denies the gospel of the Son of God. The next paragraph of the Banner's reply is equally strange:—
“To make sure even of his adoption, the Hebrew root-tree must be found and identified. But this is just the thing he declares he cares nothing for! though the Saviour he says he loves tells us “his whole heart and his whole soul” is set upon the inquiry, the discovery, and the restoration to honor and glory of his chosen people, twelve-tribed Israel.”
So then it appears that we cannot be sure that we are Christ's unless we are able to identify the literal descendants of Abraham! If this is not belittling faith in Christ we know not what could be. If we are Christ's then our adoption is sure; but this, the Banner thinks cannot be assured unless we know that the English are “the lost tribes!” We pass this as a rare instance of fanaticism.
He refers to two bishops who, he says, thought that Peter addressed the ten tribes in dispersion; but he does not notice the fact to which we referred, that Peter addressed those who had obtained the “precious faith” with him; who were “established in the present truth;” and to whom had been made known “the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ;” who, in their afflictions, were partakers of Christ's sufferings, etc. Not very much “lost” when Peter addressed them.
Few readers would ever imagine how the editor of the Banner meets our calling attention to the fact that James addressed “the twelve tribes scattered abroad,” instead of the “ten tribes,” as his pamphlet asserted. He says:—
“St. James spoke of the twelve tribes as under dispersion in his day. If so, the ten (included in the twelve) were part of the diaspora, and we were right, therefore, in so describing them as mentioned by St. James. There are eleven lost or hidden tribes, and we believe a quota of Judah, too, were dispersed with them (Jer. 30), making ours in truth a microcosm of twelve tribes in Britain, lost or gentiled.”
His pamphlet said that James addressed the ten lost tribes. We pointed out the falsity of the statement,—that he addressed “the twelve tribes,” but not lost ones,—and the editor is thereby strengthened in his pet theory; for how could he address the twelve and not address the ten? Was he not right in his statement of “the ten,” seeing the ten were included in the twelve?
The editor may think this reply is ingenious, but it is far from ingenuous. It certainly looks like a determination on his part to have his own way—proof or no proof. And finally he says:—
“In regard to the Cui Bono argument contained in the penultimate paragraph of our opponent, all we can say is, that the bonum of the discovery, or identity, of “Israel in Britain” is God's glory, since he requires Israel to be found to prove the stupendous fact that he is God (Isa. 43:12).”
We read that “every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” That in “the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony” is the power of the saints. But such testimony as this is worth comparatively nothing with the Anglo-Israelists. The summum bonum—the all in all—with them is to confess “the identity of Israel in Britain.” Without this we cannot prove that Jehovah is God; without this we can have no assurance of our interest in Christ; without this we cannot know that we are Abraham's seed by faith; in fact, without this all the truths and promises of the gospel of the Son of God are a nullity. We have been brought into contact with many delusions in these last days; but none to exceed this in blindness as to the grace of God in the gospel of Christ.