Earlier text: THE WHOLE HOUSE OF ISRAELWE have said that this message alone embodies the truth, the love of which will save men from the deceivableness of unrighteousness of Satan's power and signs and lying wonders. When the truth of this message is presented to men, and is rejected, then the way is opened for Satan to work with the power of his deception as never before. This is a principle that accompanies the representation of the truth of God at all times, but much more now because Satan's power is to be manifested now to a greater extent than ever before. Jesus says, "Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you." John 12:35. When God presents light to men and they refuse to walk in it, then the darkness becomes greater to them than ever it was before. And as the darkness is greater, they are more easily deceived and led astray, because "he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth." Now the light of the Third Angel's Message is to lighten the earth with its glory (Rev. 18:1), and when that light is rejected and men refuse to walk in it, their darkness becomes greater than that of any age since the world began, and consequently the working of Satan will be more powerfully deceptive than it has ever yet been in the world; and this is emphasized by the fact that "he knoweth that he hath but a short time." Now see the deceitful working of Satan against this point of truth, the Sabbath of the Lord. The world, especially the Christian world, professes to have some respect for the ten commandments. The Third Angel's Message calls upon all men to keep these commandments, and in presenting this call, it points to the keeping of the Sabbath of the Lord as given in the fourth commandment. But just as soon as this duty is presented, all manner of opposition is raised against it. And it is a fact that cannot be denied, that the greatest opposition to it arises from the professed Christian world, the very ones who profess the greatest respect for the commandments of God. Any scheme that can be employed, is employed, to blind the minds and dull the consciences of men to the duty of obeying the fourth commandment and honoring God by keeping the Sabbath of the Lord; and in about nine cases out of every ten this opposition winds up with the argument that the law is abolished. When once people can be given to understand that the ten commandments are abolished, it is not hard then for such teachers to satisfy them that they are under no obligation to keep the seventh day, as the commandment of God enjoins. But such teaching as that cannot be set forth with safety. Its only effect is to loosen the restraints of the law and conscience, and lawlessness is the inevitable result. "They that forsake the law praise the wicked," and the wicked cannot be praised from the pulpit, without profiting by the praise. It matters not at all that the thing be not intended, when the pulpit sets forth the idea that the law of God is abolished, and thus loosens the wholesome restraints of law, the effect of it will be seen in the spread of lawlessness. And this is the effect of it in our land to-day. This is the secret of the prevailing lawlessness of all classes. Where it is not manifested in outbreaking lawlessness itself, it is manifested in the almost universal sympathy with the lawless. Nor is this confined to the wicked world as such; it prevails in the churches. Preachers cannot tell their congregations that the ten commandments are abolished, without the evil fruit being seen in a general letting down of conscientious respect for all things sacred; the church then loses its godly influence over the world, and then if it is to influence the world at all it must do it by ungodly means such as are seen everywhere in the fairs, the feasts, the carnivals, and the revelry which now characterize the efforts of the church, and which only increase unto more ungodliness. Well, having taken this turn to prevent people from keeping the commandment of God, and by it having given place to a general spirit of lawlessness both in the church and in the world, what next must be done? Oh, the civil power must be called to the rescue to enforce laws dictated by the church! For when the preachers tell the people that the Sabbath is a Jewish institution and has been abolished, and then try to impress upon them the duty of keeping Sunday as the Sabbath, they are met with the same arguments that they themselves have used against the Sabbath of the Lord. This was plainly stated by Dr. Pierson, of Philadelphia, in 1884, in these words:— "The sanctity of the Lord's day is but a remnant, if not a relic, of the past; and if this process goes on within the present century Sabbath sanctification will be among the curiosities of archaeology and paleontology! Christians apologize for this on the ground that the 'Sabbath is a Jewish institution' and is abrogated, making no distinction between the ceremonial and the moral law. . . . Other disciples do away with the consecrated seventh of time, as with the consecrated tenth of money, on the ground that all time and property are holy unto the Lord, and so the practical effect is that they consecrate nothing." This is the sober truth, but the people are not primarily to blame. These same apologies, in these very words, have been preached to them time and again all over the land. These very arguments have been put into the mouths of the people by the preachers in their efforts to persuade them not to obey the commandment of God, and now the ministers turn about and complain of the people for doing exactly as they themselves have taught them to do. Little did these men think all these years that in thus opposing the Sabbath of the Lord, they were brandishing a sword that would cut both ways. Little did they think that they were weaving a spider web, and hatching cockatrice's eggs that would break out into vipers to sting themselves. Little did they think that, in raising these objections, and appealing to popularity and worldly interest, against the Sabbath of the Lord, they were destroying respect for the whole law of God, and implanting a disposition of lawlessness that would break any commandment of God or men that conflicts with those interests. The ministers have taught the people to say, "If everybody else will keep Sabbath, I will." Now when they are called upon to more strictly observe Sunday, the teaching comes back to the teachers in the words, "If everybody else will keep Sunday, I will." Accordingly the church members go on Sunday excursions, read Sunday newspapers, and so on, because "everybody else" does the same. Therefore to have the church members keep Sunday, all Sunday trains must be stopped and all Sunday papers must be abolished. Thus to satisfy a demand which they themselves have created, and to meet arguments which they themselves have invented, the preachers are obliged to work up civil enactments and constitutional amendments by which everybody shall be compelled to keep Sunday. But Sunday is only a counterfeit of the Sabbath of the Lord. It has no sacred quality whatever. There is no authority from God for its observance at all as a sacred institution of any sort. Its only authority is that of Rome, pagan as well as papal. And that is simply no authority to the man who recognizes God and the authority of his word. Rome sets forth Sunday as the sign of her authority, as the sign that she has power to command men under penalty of sin for disobedience. As the Sabbath of the Lord is the sign of the true God, so Sunday is the sign of that false god, "the man of sin," "who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." The only image and superscription that the Sunday institution bears, is the image and superscription of Rome. As the keeping of the Sabbath of the Lord is an acknowledgment of the authority of the true God, so to refuse to do that, and deliberately choose to keep Sunday instead, is to acknowledge the authority of Rome instead of the authority of God, and is to worship Rome instead of God. For, "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." And whenever the people of the United States, or of any other country, whether by State or National law, try to compel men to keep Sunday, it is only trying to compel them to bow to the authority of Rome—it is only trying to compel them to worship the beast. And when the union of religion and the State is formed here, and thus an image of the Papacy is erected for the express purpose of compelling men to keep Sunday, then in that men will be compelled to worship the beast and his image. Through this evil channel, and to help forward this wicked work, Satan will develop his power and signs and lying wonders, and his deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish, because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved. But against it all, the Third Angel's Message utters the solemn warning of God, "If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation;" and to save men from this dreadful fate, it presents the supreme truth of "the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." ORIGIN OF SUNDAY OBSERVANCE.
By John Nevins Andrews
By way of introducing the investigation of this important subject, I will state two propositions:—- Among all the traditions and human innovations in the Christian church, there is none that can so clearly and positively be traced to paganism as the Sunday.
- Among all the institutions which have been foisted upon the church by the papal power, there is no one that is so clearly marked, so definitely outlined in its origin and enforcement, as the festival of the Sunday.
I wish here to have it understood that I shall not take the time or the space to examine all the other traditions and superstitions that obtained a foot-hold in the church, and passed for Christian doctrines and ordinances, so as to draw the comparison and show which is the most distinctively pagan and papal. I only take it upon me to fully and clearly show that the Sunday has its origin as a day of regard and observance in paganism and the Papacy. If any wish to have the comparison more fully traced, and think that they can show that other traditions have a better right to the claim of such origin, I shall be willing to carry the investigation further, for, though I hope to satisfy every reasonable requirement and every candid mind, I do not propose to exhaust the proofs which are in reach. 1. Is it a fact that the observance of Sunday as a day of rest from secular employment is distinctively and only of pagan origin? To all true Protestants, who take "the Bible and the Bible alone," who do not believe that their Christian character can be correctly formed by any standard but that which God has revealed, who do not believe there is any obedience where there is no precept or requirement,—to all such the plea of custom and tradition can have no weight. In regard to any custom, our inquiry is not, Did it exist? but, By what authority did it exist? We have little regard for what men have done; that does not reach our consciences; for that we go to history, and then we are often misinformed. We ask what they ought to have done, and to settle this we go to the Bible, and are never deceived. And none can be deceived in going there, unless its testimony is covered up793with inferences and traditions. I wish the reader to bear in mind what justly belongs to the examination of duty in regard to laws and institutions. The only question admissible is, What does the commandment of God say? Has it been as plainly amended or repealed as it was enacted? If not, no amount of tradition, custom, precedent, or reasoning can set it aside. But we are constantly going beyond what can be reasonably asked of us, and proving that their traditions and customs are vain and their conclusions unjust. In answering the question I have asked on the first proposition, I shall show that the authority, the name, and the sacredness of Sunday are entirely of pagan origin. Everyone who has read the debate between Campbell and Purcell must have been struck with Mr. Campbell's perfect familiarity with church history. The bishop appeared to be unusually fair for an advocate of "the church," but on one point he was either inclined to take unjust advantage, or Mr. Campbell excelled him in a knowledge of Church history and the writings of the Fathers. Mr. Campbell was an advocate of Sunday-keeping; in his theology, Sunday was the Lord's day. But his learning often led him to make statements with which his theology was not in harmony. He was president of Bethany College, in Virginia, a denominational institution. Before a graduating class in the year 1848, he used the following language:— "Was the first day set apart by public authority in the apostolic age? No. By whom was it set apart, and when? By Constantine, who lived about the beginning of the fourth century." These words I copied from one of their journals published in Cincinnati, the lecture having been revised by Mr. Campbell himself before its publication. According to this, Constantine was the one—the first one—who set apart by authority the first day of the week. Constantine's Sunday decree was issued in 321. Dr. Heylyn, in his "History of the Sabbath," an extensive and reliable work, speaking of their holding meetings on Sunday, said:— "For three hundred years there was neither law to bind them to it nor any rest from labor, or from worldly business required upon it." In a subsequent section of the same part (2) of his work, he said:— "Tertullian tells us that they did devote the Sunday partly unto mirth and recreation, not to devotion altogether; when in a hundred years after Tertullian's time, there was no law nor constitution to restrain men from labor in this day, in the Christian churches." These testimonies are exactly in harmony with that of Mr. Campbell. He says that Constantine was the first to set apart the first day of the week. This was in 321. Heylyn says there was no law for three hundred years. This would throw it forward to the time of Constantine. He also says it was a hundred years after Tertullian's time. This is not definite, nor is the time of Tertullian's death known. Authorities point to about 321, or not long after; and this again points to the time of Constantine. Bishop Jeremy Taylor, who, with Heylyn, was a Church of England writer, said:— "The primitive Christians did all manner of work upon the Lord's day, even in the times of persecutions, when they were the strictest observers of all the divine commandments; but in this they knew there was none; and therefore, when Constantine, the emperor, had made an edict against working on the Lord's day, yet he excepts and still permitted all agriculture or labors of the husbandmen whatsoever." The Encyclopædia Britannica says:— "It was Constantine the Great who first made a law for the proper observance of Sunday; and who, according to Eusebius, appointed it should be regularly celebrated throughout the Roman Empire." Here are a very few of the very many testimonies at hand which definitely state that the law of Constantine was the first law which set apart the first day of the week, or required rest from secular work on Sunday. More are not necessary to quote, from the fact that not a single authority can be produced that gives any other date or authority for the first Sunday law. The value of these testimonies is better appreciated by considering the fact that the witnesses were all friends and advocates of Sunday-keeping. Next we will look for the origin of the name of the institution that Constantine set apart. It is found in the law itself, which is as follows:— "Let all the judges and towns-people, and the occupation of all trades, rest upon the venerable day of the sun; but let those who are situated in the country, freely and at full liberty, attend to the business of agriculture; because it often happens that no other day is so fit for sowing corn and planting vines: lest the critical moment being let slip, men should lose the commodities granted by Heaven." Thus in the first law for the observance of the day, it was designated the day of the sun. Not a very high or honorable title. How came this title to be given to it? The Religious Encyclopædia says:— "The ancient Saxons called it by this name, because upon it they worshiped the sun." According to this, the title originated in heathen idolatry. Do authorities agree upon this? Yes; there is not an author in all the rounds of history or literature who dissents from this. Webster says:— "The heathen nations in the north of Europe dedicated this day to the sun, and hence their Christian descendants continue to call the day Sunday." This is from the Sunday-school "Union Bible Dictionary":— "Sunday was a name given by the heathen to the first day of the week, because it was the day on which they worshiped the sun." Worcester, in his dictionary, says:— "Sunday; so named because anciently dedicated to the sun or its worship." These authors give an ancient origin to the name. Constantine was not the originator of the title which he gave to the day. Another historian, Morer, says:— "It is not to be denied, but we borrow the name of this day from the ancient Greeks and Romans, and we allow that the old Egyptians worshiped the sun, and, as a standing memorial of their veneration, dedicated this day to him." Thus it is shown that the title that Constantine gave to the day in the first Sunday law, is an ancient one, and is entirely of heathen origin. From this statement, also, there is no dissent. J. H. W. (To be continued.) JOB AND HIS FRIENDS.
By w.
Human nature in the days of Job was just the same as it is now. We have proof of it in the way that Job was treated by his friends. He himself tells how he was regarded in the days when he was "the greatest of all the men of the East," when the rock poured him out rivers of oil. He says: "The young men saw me, and hid themselves; and the aged arose, and stood up. The princes refrained talking, and laid their hand on their mouth. The nobles held their peace, and their tongue cleaved to the roof of their mouth." Still further he shows how ready men were to fawn upon him, and how glad to be noticed by him: "Unto me men gave ear, and waited, and kept silence at my counsel. After my words they spake not again; and my speech dropped upon them. And they waited for me as for the rain; and they opened their mouth wide as for the latter rain. If I laughed on them, they believed it not; and the light of my countenance they cast not down." That was when he was wealthy; but now that he had lost everything, and was afflicted, his friends had changed. He says: "But now they that are younger than I have me in derision, whose fathers I would have disdained to have set with the dogs of my flock." The friends of his prosperity had gone, and the vilest men heaped contempt upon him. More than this, he says, "My kinsfolk have failed, and my familiar friends have forgotten me." But this state of things did not always last, for "the Lord turned the captivity of Job;" "also the Lord gave Job twice as much as he had before." Now read what happened when this turn had taken place in Job's fortunes:— "Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house; and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the Lord had brought upon him; every man also gave him a piece of money, and everyone an ear-ring of gold." Plenty of friends now. "All they that had been of his acquaintance before" came to see him, "and did eat bread in his house." They had no doubt eaten bread in his house before; they knew how hospitable he was, and what a good table he always set, and so they were wonderfully rejoiced to learn of the restoration of his fortune. "And they bemoaned him." Yes, they were very ready to bemoan him then; but if they had come when Job was suffering the greatest poverty and affliction, their comfort would no doubt have been more acceptable. Doubtless they had a plausible excuse for not coming to his aid when he was in distress; they were "very sorry that circumstances made it impossible for them to come," etc., but they would now show that their affection for him had not waned in the least, by everyone giving him a piece of money, when he had no earthly need of it. The story of Job and his friends is true to the life. Job must have known more of human nature after his affliction than he did before. The friends of his prosperity do not commend themselves to us any more than do those of his adversity. But we do not read that Job became sour and cynical over this revelation of human fickleness. He didn't jump at the conclusion that there was "not an honest man in the world." Many people say that or its equivalent; yet there never was a man who said it, who believed it. Every man who said so mentally excepted himself. But while Job learned much of human nature he had also learned much of the divine nature, and he knew there were many in whom the image of God was not wholly obliterated. So we can believe that since Job had seen that "the Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy," he had learned to have charity for the failings of others. The man who allows affliction to make him sour and morose, fails to learn the great lesson which affliction is designed to teach. If the love of God is shed abroad in the heart, tribulation works only patience. The Missionary.
By W. C. Grainger
THE fall term, which has now closed, has been a very successful one. The number in attendance has been large, notwithstanding the General Conference recently held in Oakland prevented many from attending, who would otherwise have done so. No better results have been obtained in the work of any previous term. Feeling grateful to God for the measure of success we have attained, we are not content that our school should simply remain at the point of excellence it has reached, but shall labor as earnestly as ever to reach a still higher standard of excellence in all departments of our work. Our teachers are Christian men and women, who are earnestly devoted to the work to which they have consecrated themselves, and they will leave nothing undone that is possible to be done for the intellectual and spiritual welfare of our students. A larger number of the students than usual this year were without any religious experience when they entered the College. Nearly all of these have either taken their stand for God and his truth, or are under deep conviction of their duty to do so. Religious instruction occupies a very important place in our school work. Everything is done to impress upon the minds of the students that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom"—that the great end to be reached by our efforts in this life is to secure a home in the kingdom of Heaven. The spring term will open January 2, 1888, and will continue seventeen weeks. In addition to the stated work of the last term, which will be continued, the special biblical and historical work of the Biblical Department will be begun with the opening of the term, and will be continued through to the close. All who desire to prepare themselves for labor in the ministry, or as missionaries and Bible workers, and those who desire a better knowledge of the Scriptures, should not fail to enter this department. Elder A. T. Jones, one of the editors of the Signs of the Times, will be the teacher in charge of this department.794 In connection with this biblical instruction, there will be given instruction and drill in methods of doing missionary work, conducting Bible-readings, book canvassing, newspaper correspondence, and short-hand reporting. Miss M. L. Huntley, secretary of the International Tract and Missionary Society, will have charge of the missionary instruction. Miss Huntley brings to her work many years of experience in practical missionary labor, and also as a teacher and trainer of mission workers. Everyone who realizes that he is his brother's keeper, and that God has a work for him to do in securing the salvation of others, ought, if possible, to attend this instruction. There is a large and increasing demand for earnest and devoted men and women to engage in the work of teaching, not that there is a great scarcity of those who profess to be teachers, but there is a lack of those who have the right mould of character to rightly train our children and youth that they may become symmetrical men and women, who will become a blessing to those with whom they may become associated—who, instead of yielding to every wrong influence that may come in their way, will have the power to lead others away from evil influences into paths of virtue and honesty. To meet this demand, the stockholders, at their meeting last May, resolved to establish a Normal Department in connection with the College, where all who desire to become teachers may obtain just that discipline that will enable them to successfully engage in the work of their choice. The teachers of the College are well qualified to give the special instruction necessary, as the majority of them have had a special training in the best Normal Schools of this country, besides years of experience in the school-room. There will be given daily instruction in methods of teaching, school management, and other special subjects. We hope to see many new students at the opening of our next term. THE famous Eddystone light-house, off the coast of Cornwall, England, was first built in a fanciful way by the learned and eccentric Winstanley. On its sides he put various boastful inscriptions. He was very proud of his structure, and from his lofty balcony used boldly to defy the storm, crying, "Blow, O winds! Rise, O ocean! Break forth, ye elements, and try my work!" But one fearful night the sea swallowed up the tower and its builder. The light-house was built a second time of wood and stone by Rudyerd. The form was good, but the wood gave hold for the elements, and the builder and his structure perished in the flames. Next the great Smeaton was called. He raised a cone from the solid rock upon which it was built, and riveted it to rocks, as the oak is fastened to the earth by its roots. From the rock of the foundation he took the rock of the superstructure. He carved upon it no boastful inscriptions like those of Winstanley, but on its lowest course he put: "Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it;" and on its key-stone, above the lantern, the simple tribute, "Laus Deo!" and the structure stood firmly, holding its beacon-light to storm-tossed mariners. Fellow-workers for the salvation of men, Christ, the Light, must be held up before men or they will perish. Let us, then, place him on no superstructure of our own device. Let us rear no tower of wood, or wood and stone. But taking the word of God for our foundation, let us build our structure upon its massive, solid truth, and on every course put Smeaton's humble inscription, and then we may be sure that the light-house will stand. "When thou saidst, Seek ye my face, my heart said unto thee, Thy face, Lord, will I seek." Ps. 27:8. "My heart said;" that is the sort of reply God wants. He looks at and listens to the heart. For me to acquiesce with my lips is nothing if the heart is not in the words. Lip-service is no better than the eye-service we are warned against in Eph. 6:6. In the parable of the man who told both his sons to go and work, that son is commended who, although he said he would not go, afterwards repented, and went, but the son whose words consented, while his heart refused, came into condemnation. I may say I believe God, or I may say that I am fully consecrated, but if my acts and my life subsequently do not agree with my profession, what does it profit? God tries the heart, and nothing escapes his all-seeing eye. To the Christian this knowledge is very sweet, he is glad that God should know all his heart; far from shrinking back, his prayer is, "Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my thoughts." Let me see that in my converse with God my heart says all there is to say. When the heart is right there is no fear about the life being wrong; but let me beware of mere empty words. God does not hear us for our much speaking. How many go to church, and repeat prayers, and sing hymns that come from no deeper source than the lips! There is no heart in their service, and God says of such, "With their mouth they show much love, but their heart goeth after their covetousness."—Selected. LESSON 1.—SABBATH, JANUARY 7.
1. WHAT did God do in the beginning?
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Gen. 1:1. 2. By what means was this accomplished?
"By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." "For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast." Ps. 33:6, 9. 3. Are we to understand from these words that the matter of the earth was not in existence before he spake?
"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." Heb. 11:3. 4. Who was the active agent in creation?
"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 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." Heb. 1:1, 2. 5. Is there anything that the Son did not make?
"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him, and for him; and he is before all things, and by him all things consist." Col. 1:16, 17. 6. Since it was by the Son that the Father created all things, what is his rightful title?
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." "All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made." John 1:1, 3. 7. How has the Father addressed the Son?
"But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom." "And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands." Heb. 1:8, 10. 8. Then how should he be regarded by all creatures?
"And again, when he bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." Heb. 1:6. 9. In what condition was the earth when it was first spoken into existence?
"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Gen. 1:2. 10. After the creation of the substance of the earth, what was the first thing done?
"And God said, Let there be light; and there was light." Verse 3. 11. What next?
"And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness." Verse 4. 12. What did God call the light and the darkness?
"And God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." Verse 5. 13. What do a period of darkness and a period of light together constitute? See verse 5. 14. Which always comes first in the formation of a day? The darkness. Can you explain why? See notes. 15. What was done on the second day?
"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day." Gen. 1:6-8. 16. How is this day's work referred to by Job?
"He bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds; and the cloud is not rent under them." Job. 26:8. 17. What was done on the third day?
"And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so. And God called the dry land earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he seas; and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind; and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day." Gen. 1:9-13. 18. What was made upon the fourth day?
"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years." Verse 14. 19. What were these lights to govern?
"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also." Verse 15. 20. Then what kind of days were these days of creation? 21. Does the sun make the day, or simply rule the day? 22. Tell what makes the day, and how there could be days before the sun was. NOTES.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
THE reverent reader of the Bible, who accepts the historical portion of the Old Testament, as a narrative of what actually took place, and not as a fiction, can arrive at no other conclusion than that the days of creation were literal days of twenty-four hours each. They were days composed of an evening and a morning,—a period of darkness and a period of light; and they were such days as are governed by the sun and the moon. Now in order that there should be any show of reason in the claim that the days of creation were long, indefinite periods of time, those who make such a claim ought to be able to point to some time when the sun ruled such days as that. That, of course, would be an impossibility, and so is it an absurdity to claim that the days of creation were anything other than literal, twenty-four-hour days. Nobody can get any other idea from the text. BUT the question is presented, "How could there be days before there was any sun?" Such a question implies ignorance, or at least forgetfulness, of what forms the day. The day is made by the revolution of the earth on its axis. Each complete revolution makes one day. As a matter of fact, the sun has nothing whatever to do in forming the day. If it should suddenly become a body of darkness, instead of a body of light, there would be days just the same, and they would be just the same length that they now are. So there were days before the sun was appointed to rule the day. This appointment was not made until after the earth had completed three revolutions, or until three days of time had passed. The very statement that God set the two great lights in the firmament, "to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness," shows that there were days independent of the sun. These great lights were to rule in the day and in the night, which had been arranged before they were given their office. WHEN does the day begin? At evening, according to the record in Genesis 1; in Lev. 23:32 we read that the Jews are directed to celebrate their Sabbaths "from even unto even," and this could not be unless they regarded other days as beginning at the same time. But why is this? Is it an arbitrary requirement? or is there a fixed reason why the day begins at evening? It is not an arbitrary matter, but the natural day begins at evening because it cannot by any possibility begin at any other time. When the earth was created "darkness was upon the face of the deep." The phrase, "in the beginning," marks the beginning of time, as distinguished from God's eternity. The speaking of the matter of the earth into existence, marked the beginning of the first day of time. BUT darkness covered the chaotic mass, and consequently the first day of time began in darkness. Before the earth had completed its first revolution, however, light was created. "And God said, Let there be light; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. And the evening [the darkness] and the morning [the light] were the first day." Gen. 1:3-5. The first revolution of the earth was completed just at the dividing line between light and darkness; and so, just as the first day began in the unbroken darkness, the second day began with the darkness that had been separated, and put within bounds. And as a matter of necessity, this order must always follow. To make the day actually begin at any other time than evening, would involve a change in the earth's revolution; and in order to count the day as beginning at midnight, a portion of time had to be ignored. Thus it is evident that the present popular mode of reckoning time is not of God's arrangement. W.