Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. 77, No. 19.

THE CALL TO THE FEAST
Earlier text: EXTRACTS FROM CORRESPONDENCE

STUDIES IN GALATIANS.

Gal. 4: 1–7.

“Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: but when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.”
“God sent forth his Son,” “made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law.” As we have seen abundantly, to be under the law is to be under the dominion of sin. And such are all men of themselves, because “all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God,” and “what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.”
Now, it is these people who are under sin: who are under the curse: who are condemned to death, because “the wages of sin is death;”—it was these whom God sent his son to redeem. And in order to redeem them, it behoved him to be made in all things “like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.” Heb. 2: 17. Therefore, that he might meet men just where men are and be a complete Deliverer, he himself came to men where they are, and was made like to men where they are. Therefore, he was even made to be sin. 2 Cor. 5: 21.
He took the place of the transgressor: he became flesh, just as is the transgressor: he was made to be sin, just as the transgressor is sin: he bore the sins of men, “for the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” He took the condemnation, because the sins of the transgressor were imputed to him. And, as to the transgressor himself, the consciousness of sin is accompanied with the consciousness of guilt and condemnation; so when these sins were imputed to him who knew no sin, it was the sin indeed, with its accompanying sense of guilt and condemnation. He bore the curse, for sin brings the curse; and he bore the curse even unto death, because sin brings the curse even unto death. Thus, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.” Thus he redeems them that are under the law. All the penalty, all the curse, all the wrath, all the condemnation, that the law can work upon the transgressor met upon him. And, in the divine sacrifice which he thus made, there was rendered all that the law can ever demand of the transgressor. So that everything that can possibly stand between the transgressor and God is swept away in the sacrifice of Christ.
In this, God has reconciled the world unto himself so completely that he can not impute their trespasses unto them (2 Cor. 5:19); and thus is extended freedom—absolute freedom—to every soul in the wide world. And every soul can have it, to the full and to all eternity, merely by accepting it. And, in accepting this redemption from under the law, every soul receives “the adoption of sons;” for, “as many as received him, to them gave he power [“the right, or privilege,” margin] to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” John 1:12. “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” Gal. 3:26.
And then, being sons of God, and “because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.”
Before this deliverance, we “were in bondage under the elements of the world.” The only elements of the world that there are, are the elements of sin; for “all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.” 1 John 2:16. But, when delivered into the glorious liberty of the sons of God, we “have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear;” but “have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself” bearing “witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God; and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ.” Rom. 8:15–17.
“Joint heirs with Christ.” That is, all that he had falls also to each one of the other sons. The inheritance is not divided up in equal shares among all the sons, as if they were equal heirs. No; all of the inheritance belongs to each one of the sons, because they are joint heirs. This because God has no favorites among his sons; but all that belongs to any one, belongs equally to every other one. Accordingly, all that falls to Christ the Son and heir falls also to each and every other son and heir. And this wonderful truth Jesus wants the world to know; for, in his great prayer for us all, he prayed, “That the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.” John 17:23.
And, this wonderful fact: that God has no favorite nor preference among his sons, but that all are equal, and, therefore, that each redeemed soul is, in his estimation, equal to Jesus, and takes his stand on a plane, and, in the reward, equal in all things to Christ: it is this wonderful fact that causes John, in beholding it, to exclaim: “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God. . . . “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” 1 John 3:1, 2.

A Protest Against Home Study

At a session of the International Kindergarten Union, held in New York City, April 19, Mrs. Charles N. Chadwick made the following vigorous and deserved arraignment of the present popular educational system:—
“The school is absorbing the interest of the home. I would like to have my boy run in the open air. I would like him to retire early, but he can not. The work of the day must be carried into the night. I would like him to sleep when he does retire, but even his sleep is disturbed. I would like him to know and experience the best and the holiest of motives, but he has no room for motives, except to pass his examinations. I protest against home study. I protest against the delusion of the gymnasium. When a boy has spent hours, night and day, on Greek, Latin, science, and mathematics, twenty minutes twice a day in a gymnasium is useless matter crowded into our children’s curriculum.”

BIBLE DATE OF THE SABBATH LAW.

By Uriah Smith

Many times the proof has been presented in the Review and Herald that the Sabbath is a primal and original institution, and that the law of the Sabbath bears even date therewith; that the Sabbath is not an institution that originated with the Jews, and that the law of the Sabbath was not first promulgated in the wilderness of Sin. The reason that the proof of those propositions has been so often given, is because they are so often denied. And there is still call for the evidence to be repeated; for the Review is set for the support of that day which inspiration has called the “holy of the Lord, honorable;” and the paper is constantly breaking new ground; and the same questions concerning the Sabbath and its law are constantly agitating new minds.
“No Sabbath before Moses,” is a common cry of those who wish to avoid the obligation of observing the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath. By this they mean that the institution was not founded before the time of Moses, and that previously to his day, there was no law for its observance; and that, consequently, the Sabbath was only a local and temporary institution designed for the Hebrew people alone, having no claims whatever upon people at the present time.
To any one who has thought upon the subject with an unbiased mind, this assumption and this conclusion are not a little marvelous. But the plea is urged, “We find no Sabbath law till the time of Moses; therefore the Sabbath was not an original and universal institution, but only a local and temporary duty, binding on the Jews alone.” It is true that, till we reach the time of Moses we find no record of the law drawn out in formal and specific terms; but this would by no means prove that the law itself did not exist before that time. With Moses, the writer and the law became contemporary, and there was the time for the law to be drawn out in definite and specific terms, the occasion for which did not exist before. But we have a record which reaches far back of that time; and that puts a very different phase upon the question.
At this point, let one question be definitely settled: Though we have the law drawn out in full, for the first time in the days of Moses, still, if Moses, in giving an account of the institution of the Sabbath, should tell us in connection therewith, that God did give a law for its observance, and enjoined upon Adam, and through him upon all his posterity, the duty of keeping it, would not that settle the whole point in question?—It certainly would. And this is just what Moses has recorded. So, though we have no record of the wording of the law till the time of Moses, we do have a record that a law—the Sabbath law—was given far back of that time, even from the beginning; and that in plain and indisputable terms. And the record that such a law was given, will certainly be enough for any willing and obedient mind.
What account, then, does Moses give of the institution of the Sabbath?—Sabbath day means “rest day;” and to make a divine institution, consisting of a rest day as its essential feature, it would be necessary as the first step, that a divine being should rest upon that day. This Moses tells us that God did on the first seventh day of time: “And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.” Gen. 2:2. This was the first step; and the second is recorded thus: “And God blessed the seventh day;” the fourth commandment, recording the same event, says, “the Sabbath day.” To “bless” the day, as God did, was to pronounce it “holy time.” The third and last act was this: “And sanctified it.” Sanctified what?—That seventh day upon which he had rested, and which he had blessed. And here we find the law for the observance of the day; for this is what the word “sanctify” means; that is, to “sanctify,” is to set apart to a holy or a sacred use. And when God wants a thing used in a holy and sacred manner, and tells his people so, what is he doing for the thing and for his people?—He is giving a law for the thing; and for his people, he is giving a rule for them to observe how to use it.
Well, all this God did in reference to the seventh day. Suppose the record had been worded this way: And God blessed the seventh day, and gave to Adam, and to all men through him, a law as to how he should regard it, and how he should use it. Would not this be sufficient?—Well, this is just what Moses affirms God did do for the Sabbath. Shall we believe the record?
Thus God separated the seventh day from all other days. He set it apart by itself. It was to be devoted to a separate and distinct use; and as it was made for man, as the Saviour declares, man was to use it in that manner,—for that purpose. But that never could have been carried out, unless man had been told how he should regard and treat it; and when he was thus told, as the record declares that he was, that was a law for the observance of the day. When?—Not in the days of Moses, but in the days of Adam. The evidence is therefore incontrovertible that when God instituted the Sabbath, he gave to Adam, as the representative of the whole human race, a definite and specific command to keep it; that is, to devote it only to holy and sacred uses. That is the Sabbath law. That is a part of the “law of liberty,” and by that law James tells us we are to be judged; that is, by it our characters are to be estimated, and our destiny to be decided. These are the plain facts in the case; and they can no more be discounted, moved, or set aside, than can the great facts of creation itself.
In view of these affirmations of history and revelation, what becomes of the claim that there was no Sabbath law till the time of Moses, and that therefore the Sabbath was only a local, temporary, and Jewish, institution, and not binding on the followers of God to-day at all?—It becomes an absolute impertinence.
Besides this, in the history of the first twenty-five hundred years of time, from creation to Sinai, condensed into the marvelously brief space of sixty-six chapters of the Bible,—fifty in Genesis, and sixteen in Exodus,—the remarkable fact appears that at least three times the reckoning of time by periods of sevens of days, is referred to. This could have been derived from nothing else but the institution of the Sabbath in the beginning, and consequently its observance from that time.
(1) Gen. 4 : 3. “In process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.” The margin reads, “At the end of days.” Cain and Abel mutually brought their offerings at this time; and the fact that they came together, and came for worship, leads to the conclusion that it was a stated and well-known time for such worship. The seventh day, according to the record just quoted, was set apart for just such a purpose; and that day came at the end, and marked the end, of every week, making very appropriate, as applied to it, the expression, “At the end of days.” And we have previously to this no record of any definite cycle of time being marked off, except the week, ending with the Sabbath. Therefore there is no question but that the sons of Adam, at least till the death of Abel, kept the Sabbath; and this is the record of it. Patrick Fairbairn, D. D., in his “Typology of Scripture,” speaks on this point, as follows:—
“In process of time.” As there was a worship appointed before Jehovah’s presence, there was also a special sacred time appointed for it; so that, in his cares in tilling the ground, and his wearisness from having to eat his bread “in the sweat of his face,” the worship should not be neglected. At the end of days, says the Hebrew, Cain and Abel brought their offerings. When it is remembered that already the seventh day had been ordained of God, even before Eden; that we find the division of time into periods of sevens of days universal, though there is no mark in nature, as in the case of days, and months, and years, for such division; and that subsequently the seventh day was thus specially re-ordained of God, there is no room left for doubt that this “end of days,” was the end of the week,—the Sabbath day,—on which Adam had taught his sons to come for special worship before Jehovah.
(2) Coming down to the time of the flood, we find another indication that the Sabbath was known and regarded among men, at least among the worshipers of Jehovah. The record that Noah sent forth the dove after periods of sevens of days shows that he reckoned time in such periods. And as time is divided into such periods, only on account of the Sabbath, the inference is absolutely necessary that all those who regarded such periods kept the Sabbath. And this is not an inference of our own. John Harris, D. D., in his “Man Primeval,” says:—
There is strong probable evidence, from the practice of measuring time by weeks, that the Sabbath was never entirely lost sight of, and that in certain families at least, it continued to be applied to holy purposes. Not only did the original reason of the Sabbatic appointment remain, it increased with every addition which was made to man’s knowledge of God. The impartation of such knowledge to the young, would form part of the appropriate employment of the patriarchal Sabbath. For the pious among the patriarchs could not fail to perceive that the highest design alike of the Sabbath, and of the family economy, was that they should make (such truths) known to their children, that the generation to come might know them, that they might set their hopes in God, and keep his commandments.
(3) And, finally, in Exodus 16, the Sabbath is expressly mentioned, and taken by the Lord as the commandment by which to test the people whether they would walk in his law, or not. And it is not introduced on this occasion as a new and strange institution, but as a part of his (God’s) commandments, statutes, and laws, which he asks them how long they are going to “refuse” to obey. Moreover, it is not introduced as their Sabbath, but as the Sabbath of the Lord. And this was a month before they reached Mount Sinai, where the law was audibly proclaimed.
No further reasoning is necessary to show that the experience of Israel in the wilderness of Sin, and the giving of the law on Sinai, had nothing to do with the origin of the Sabbath; but that this heaven-ordained institution far antedates all these things, and is coeval with creation itself. The Sabbath is the great test of this generation; and as we approach the culmination of the crisis, the enemy will work harder and bring stronger temptations to bear upon believers, to lead them to turn away “from the holy commandment delivered unto them.” It has been our object to show that no one can do this on the common and often-urged ground, that there was no Sabbath law before the time of Moses.
U. S.

“THE DECLINE IN THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH.”

In the Christian Advocate of April 24, is an article by a contributor, touching the cause or causes of the decline in the Methodist Church. Much of what he says is of interest to more people than those of that particular church; for the evils mentioned are not at all peculiar to that church. We, therefore, present the main portion of it for the benefit of the readers of the REVIEW. It answers well to the sermon in this paper:—
I have been a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church for sixty-five years, and my memory goes back several years further. I have witnessed its wonderful growth and prosperity, and have been an active worker as a layman in the cause for the whole period. I have thoughtfully noted the serious changes that have taken place among the ministry and the laity in the last few years, and anticipated the coming of evil days. It seems there has been a decline in the membership the last year. Is it possible the church has passed its zenith of prosperity, and is now going into the decline and senility of old age? We should all, ministers and laymen, solemnly pause, and seriously inquire, What causes have operated to weaken our strength and arrest our onward march?
The bishop’s address contained some excellent things; but while reading it, I thought it touched with a too gentle hand the main causes of the decline.
In my judgment the paramount cause of the decline was the loss of the revival spirit in the church; and this was the result of two causes: first, worldliness in the laity; and second, lack of spirituality in the ministry. I say the loss of the revival spirit; it is more than a decline. The old revival spirit has gone out of fashion—is abandoned—lost. The growth of the church was chiefly through protracted revival meetings, of heart-preaching,—the soul of the preacher all on fire, intensely earnest for the awakening and conversion of sinners, and the building up of the church. . . . Now how is it?—The unconverted join, scarcely hear a word about conversion, and never have any personal religious experience. What Jesus said to Nicodemus is forgotten—the new birth is seldom referred to in the pulpit.
Why is all this?—Because so many have joined the church who are satisfied with being members of the church without experiencing the new birth or having any personal religious experience. They are very respectable people, generally of wealthy and fashionable families. They participate in the fashionable amusements of the day, frequent theaters, operas, etc. They do not want to hear from the pulpit the plain old gospel. They want a fine church, select choir, good society. The preacher must give them nice, pleasing sermons on such themes as do not touch their daily life or intimate they are not all good Christians. As they pay the preacher well, he gratifies them, and is perfectly happy.
This worldly spirit—conformity to the world—has gone so far that there is no difference between church members and respectable people who are not church members. In all our wealthy societies class meetings are unknown, love feasts have nearly died out, prayer meetings are slimly attended, and there are no experience meetings. The energies of the church, for some years, have been directed to the building of fine churches, and securing the attendance of wealthy men. I do not object to clean, neat, beautiful churches; they should all be so. I do not object to rich men and families joining the church; I wish there were more of them. What I mean is, that the worldly spirit,—conformity to the world,—which has crept into the church (and for which the preachers are mainly responsible), has extinguished the revival spirit. Revivals now mean simply gathering in names.
John Wesley was something of a prophet. He said, “Let all our churches be plain, and not more expensive than absolutely unavoidable; otherwise the necessity of raising money will make rich men necessary to us; but if so, we must be dependent on them; yea, and governed by them; and then farewell to Methodist discipline, if not doctrine, too.” This was in our Discipline from 1784 to 1872. It was about that latter date when our church started on its worldly career.
The great revivalists in our church, from the start to the present time, the men who made the great Methodist Episcopal Church, began their ministry with a common education. Some few were graduates of colleges, but not one a graduate of a theological school. I believe in a good education and an educated ministry. But I would have as my preacher a man of common school education, if full of the Holy Spirit, rather than the most highly educated and talented preacher with no personal piety. I have recently been reading about the teachings of some in our theological schools. If this is the character of all, I could heartily wish they would all suffer the same fate as Cokesbury College. I have wondered at the lack of spirituality in many of our ministers. I shall wonder no longer. They have caught the spirit of the “higher criticism.” They do not believe in one half the Old Testament, and give an interpretation to the New that harmonizes it with Unitarianism. Preaching, with them, is merely a vocation, a means of earning a livelihood. . . . How a minister of our church who entertains these views can remain in the church is a mystery to me. . . . A theological school which teaches young ministers to doubt the inspiration of the Scriptures, to disbelieve in many parts of the Bible, and to question the essential Divinity of Christ, is no school for a Methodist. Such schools will make the Methodist Episcopal Church only an ornamental corpse, like the Protestant Episcopal Church. I hope the next General Conference will take such action as will require all our theological schools to teach Methodist doctrine, or else free the church from them. The boasted claim of “higher scholarship” is only the death knell to Methodism.

The American Union

In New York City there has been organized and set in operation a religio-political combination called the “American Union,” which announces its principal designs as follows:—
The union is a political organization, based on political principles. The members are all voters, and a majority are taxpayers. You can rest assured that their power will be felt in the coming election, and, in fact, in all elections. We will send delegations to the candidates whom we expect to indorse, and learn if they approve our principles. If they do, all well and good; if not, then we can not give them our votes. We shall not, however, put any candidates in the field for office. Each lodge, of which there are seventy-six at the present time, has one representative on the executive committee. The members of the union will be expected to support the candidates selected by the executive committee.
Other objects of the Union are:—
To enforce the law demanding the reading of the Protestant Bible each day at school-opening to or in the presence of all scholars, in a tone of voice that shall be audible to all.
To resist the appropriation of public funds for sectarian purposes.
To resist the appropriation of public funds for private use.
To oppose sectarian discrimination in the personnel of the board of education, superintendents, teachers, etc., in public schools.
To oppose governmental aid in favor of sectarian appropriations for religious or educational purposes in the newly acquired countries or territories now governed by the United States.
How that organization can enforce the reading of “the Protestant Bible each day at school-opening,” or anywhere else, and at the same time “resist the appropriation of public funds for sectarian uses,” and “oppose governmental aid in favor of sectarian appropriations for religious or educational purposes,” etc., etc., can perhaps be explained by just such a religio-political order as this is; but it is certain that no such antagonistical things can ever be done.

GOSPEL LIBERTY IS TAUGHT IN BABYLON.

By William Warren Prescott

(Concluded.)
It was through the direct providence of the God of heaven that Nebuchadnezzar held a universal dominion. Through the prophet Jeremiah the Lord had said: “I have made the earth, . . . and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me. And now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant. . . . And all nations shall serve him.” And in his interpretation of the dream Daniel had said, “The God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.” It is evident, therefore, that the Lord expected all the people of the earth to be obedient to Nebuchadnezzar. Why, then, did he work in such a wonderful manner to deliver from death those who had refused to obey the king’s decree?
The key to the answer is found in the words of the Lord, “the king of Babylon, my servant.” These three Hebrews were servants of the most high God, and they were loyal, faithful servants. The king of Babylon was also a servant, but he was disloyal; and his unfaithfulness could not absolve the faithful few from their allegiance to the God of heaven and earth.
When God gave the dominion of all the earth into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, he did not resign any of his own authority over the universe. “The Lord is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king; at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.” “The Lord is a great God, and a great King above all gods. In his hand are the deep places of the earth: the strength of the hills is his also. The sea is his, and he made it; and his hands formed the dry land.” “He is to be feared above all gods. For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the Lord made the heavens. Honor and majesty are before him: strength and beauty are in his sanctuary. Give unto the Lord, O ye kindreds of the people, give unto the Lord glory and strength.” “O worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness: fear before him, all the earth. Say among the heathen that the Lord reigneth.” “Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all ye lands. Serve the Lord with gladness: come before his presence with singing. Know ye that the Lord he is God; it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.”
In the beginning God gave man authority over all the earth, and over every living creature; but this authority was only under God as supreme. As soon as man ceased to be loyal to God, he lost the dominion. Now to Nebuchadnezzar had God given the dominion (compare Ps. 8:4–8 and Jer. 26:6; Dan. 2:37, 38); but Nebuchadnezzar had no power except as he received it from God. “There is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” Nebuchadnezzar’s great dominion was but a proof of the fact which he ignored, that he was but an instrument in the Lord’s hands, with no power of his own. See Isa. 10:5–18. Nebuchadnezzar’s obligation to “fear God, and keep his commandments” was not lessened, but rather increased, by his being placed in high position. As an individual, he owed to God the same allegiance that the most despised Hebrew captive did; and as a king over all the nations of earth, there was upon him the far greater responsibility of setting to all men an example of loyalty to the Creator and supporter of all. The disregard of the three Hebrews to the edict of the king was in reality an exhibition of the highest kind of loyalty; namely, to God, the King of kings.
Moreover, the three Hebrews were more faithful to the interests of Babylon than was the king himself. When they were taken captive, God said to them, “Seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the Lord for it: for in the peace thereof ye shall have peace.” But peace comes only to those who keep the commandments of God. “Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall cause them to stumble.” “There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.” “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.” Babylon’s safety depended solely on its loyalty to God and his commandments. Its fall was foretold, only because of its sins. Therefore in refusing to worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up, the Hebrew captives were showing greater solicitude for the safety of Babylon than its king was.
This is a lesson for to-day for all the dwellers, the rulers, and the captives in Babylon,—the whole earth. In the obligation to be subject to the powers that be, no man is absolved from the obligation to be subject to God, from whom all rulers hold their power. The injunction to every soul to be subject to “the higher powers,” includes subjection to the most high Power. All men alike, both high and low, owe to him common allegiance; and if the king whom God has placed or allowed to be placed in the position of “a little brief authority” forgets his dependence upon God, and presumes to exalt himself above him, by setting at naught any of his laws, then the subject must remember that his duty can not possibly rise higher than obedience to God; and he must show the way of life to the disloyal ruler who is jeopardizing the peace of his own dominions.
“Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king’s word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God. Therefore I make a decree, That every people, nation, and language, which speak anything amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a dunghill: because there is no other God that can deliver after this sort. Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, in the province of Babylon.”
Through the loyalty of “his servants that trusted in him,” the God of heaven made himself known again in the kingdom of Babylon, and in the case of which was on trial the verdict was in his favor, the judgment being given by Nebuchadnezzar himself. “For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges.” But by thus bearing testimony to the greatness and power of the King of heaven, these men themselves became great, for they “changed the king’s word,” and surely those who can change the word of a king are greater than the king himself. Thus it was with these three men as it was in the case of Daniel. By what was revealed in and through them, it was shown that they were greater than Nebuchadnezzar, and he acknowledged the fact. And thus was the true gospel of the kingdom again proclaimed in Babylon, and so throughout the world.
It is well to notice how this was done. It was not accomplished by appealing to courts or armies to set aside the unrighteous decree, and to enforce their rights. Such a course as this would simply have resulted in setting one earthly power against another, and the warfare would have been wholly carnal, and the glory of any victory would have been given to men. But these men “yielded their bodies,” and by yielding they became the conquerors, and “out of weakness were made strong.” And so the gospel truth was taught that “God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to naught things that are: that no flesh should glory in his presence.” 1 Cor. 1:27–29. “Not unto us, . . . but unto thy name give glory.”
But, although Nebuchadnezzar recognized that “there is no other God that can deliver after this sort,” he really held himself as still above even that God, by threatening to destroy any who should speak against him. Any god who needs the assistance of an earthly king in order to maintain his standing among men, is certainly not so great as the king, and the king who offers such assistance shows that that is his view of the matter. Nebuchadnezzar was just as much out of his place in seeking to enforce the worship of the true God, as in commanding the worship of his image. God himself does not compel men to worship him. He invites, and seeks to win by a wondrous revelation of his own character, and he commissions every man who hears the invitation to invite others; but he does not need, and will not accept, the assistance of any earthly power to enforce obedience to him. Every such effort hinders rather than advances the kingdom of God in the earth. The state may make a man a hypocrite, but only the creative power of God can make a man “a new creature.”
The last which we hear of these three men is that they were “promoted,” “in the province of Babylon.” When they stood before the angry king, and witnessed for the true God, they had no assurance that they would not seal their testimony with their lives; but the flame of the furnace was to them simply the light of the glory of God in which their true character was revealed to the king of Babylon, who gave them the place to which their worth entitled them. “He that humbleth himself shall be exalted.” W. W. P.
Continue reading: NETHERLANDS INDIES