Earlier text: General ArticlesCan the Old Testament Be Trusted?
By A. T. J.
It is a historical fact that two hundred and eighty-two years before Christ, the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew into Greek, at Alexandria in Egypt, and it there consisted of the same books that compose the Old Testament of to-day. "Whence it is evident that we still have those identical books which the most ancient Jews attested to be genuine." We shall not take up separately each book of the Old Testament, as that would extend this article further than would be proper, but only some of the leading ones, and as the writings of the whole Old Testament are so intimately connected, if we establish a portion of it, we confirm the validity of the whole. First we will notice the book of Daniel, and, as an introduction, offer a few lines from an editorial in the New York Independent:— "A few years ago the critics with one voice refused to see anything in it [the book of Daniel] more than an apocalyptic composition of the date of Antiochus Epiphanes. Eichorn, Bertholdt, Gesenius, De Wette, Lengerke, Ewald, and Hitzig, with the more moderate as well as the rationalistic critics, agreed in its late date, some being so precise as to fix it at 167 B. C. 'There never was any Belshazzar,' they exclaimed, and we could bring nothing to corroborate our written record. The replies made to them were feeble and unsatisfactory. But the monuments of the kings of Babylon began to be read a few years ago." The critics could assert with a great deal of assurance, that "there never was any Belshazzar," because, aside from the Bible, in none of the authorities on the subject, was there any Belshazzar named. Therefore, as the historians failed to mention him, "there never was any" such king. But the Babylonian inscriptions make all plain, and exactly confirm the Bible account. They declare that Nabu-Nahid (Nabonadius) with an army took the field against Cyrus, and left Belshazzar, his eldest son, in command of the city. Nabu-Nahid, being defeated by Cyrus, was compelled to take refuge in Borsippa, and Cyrus went on against Babylon and Belshazzar, and the city, with Belshazzar, was taken, as recorded in Daniel 5. And this condition of affairs in Babylon is the only one that will agree with the record in Daniel; for Daniel was certainly made prime minister of the kingdom, the chain of gold being the insignia of that office. Yet for all his being prime minister, he is spoken of as the third ruler in the kingdom. Dan. 5 : 7, 16, 29. How can this be? Thus: Nabu-Nahid, the first ruler, Belshazzar his son, the second ruler, and Daniel, prime minister, yet the third ruler. And in no other possible way can the records of Daniel be met; for his office was really the second in the kingdom. But how fully this illustrates the perfect accuracy of the Scriptures. Here is an important point in the history of Babylon, wholly passed over by the historians, yet Daniel records it exactly as it is, and after more than two thousand years the inscriptions of that king of Babylon declare that Daniel is correct. This also fixes the date of the book of Daniel to the time that has been claimed for it, because there is no other time in the world's history when these points in Daniel could have been written. For shortly after, Babylon fell into decay, and these inscriptions were buried out of sight, and the historians made no mention of any of them; consequently they never could have been learned afterward; therefore they were learned in Babylon at the time when they occurred, and thus the claims of the book of Daniel are correctly placed, and absolutely fixed, at the date 538 B. C. (For proofs as to Belshazzar, see "Encyclopedia Britannica," ninth edition, article "Babylonia;" Rawlinson's "Seven Great Monarchies," Fourth Monarchy, chap. 8, par. 50.) The list of instruments mentioned in Daniel 3:5, 7, 15, is another proof; for this "very list is true to the time of Daniel, and would never have been thought of three centuries later." In short, "every historical or social allusion in Daniel is borne out by the facts discovered." The book of Ezekiel gives another instance of the exactness of the Bible writers, and of being true to the times in which it was written. In chap. 23:14, 15, we read: "For when she saw men portrayed upon the wall, the images of the Chaldeans portrayed with vermilion, after the manner of the Babylonians of Chaldea." Of this also we may say that it is true to the time of Ezekiel in the captivity in Babylon; and would never have been thought of later, nor in any other country. In Egypt, in Assyria, in Persia, and in Greece, their art was displayed in sculpture. From the gems upon which the carving was so minute as to suggest the employment of a magnifying-glass, to the colossal bulls that guarded the palace of Nineveh from the entrance of evil spirits, all, all was sculpture. But in Babylonia it was far different. While the Assyrians had stone in abundance, the Babylonians were obliged to import it from a distance. Brick-clay, on the contrary, lay ready at hand. Where the Assyrians employed sculptured alabaster to ornament their buildings, the Babylonians contented themselves with enameled bricks, and painted plaster. Sculpture was naturally developed by the one; just as painting was by the other; and ornamentation, which could be lavished on the exterior in Assyria, had to be confined to the interior in Babylon. (Compare Eze. 8:8-10 with the text quoted above.) "The few bas-reliefs of Babylon that exist are small and inferior in execution; but brilliant coloring and a lavish use of the metals, made up for this want. The walls were covered with the most costly materials, and 'images portrayed with vermilion' excited the admiration of the stranger. The love of bright colors, in contrast with the sober hues of the Assyrian palaces, led also to the cultivation of gardens; and the hanging gardens of Babylon, raised upon tiers of arches, were one of the wonders of the world."—Enc. Brit., art. Babylonia. At no time in the world's history later than this, could such a thing as Ezekiel describes be said of the Babylonians. For only a little while afterward the kingdom of Babylon was overthrown by the Medes and Persians, who took possession of it, and these Babylonish peculiarities were lost to the world. But how plainly these words of Ezekiel bring before us the Babylon of his day, when Nebuchadnezzar reigned, whose utmost endeavors were put forth in the building and decoration of his capital city, when all the skill of his splendid artists was employed in blending the brilliant colors that ornamented the walls of his pleasant palaces, and Babylon sat as mistress of the world in that pitch of pride and grandeur, "the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency!" And by all this we know of surety that the book of Ezekiel is correctly placed at B. C. 604-561. Now we turn to the books of Kings and Isaiah. In Isaiah 36:1 and 2 Kings 18:13, we read: "Now in the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah did Sennacherib, king of Assyria, come up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them." This is placed in our Bibles at the date 713 B. C., which does not exactly correspond with the Assyrian inscriptions, but is only twelve years out of the way, being that much too early. The native monuments state that Sennacherib ascended the throne the 12th of Ab (part of July and August), 705 B. C., and place his invasion of Judah in 701 B. C. In verse 14 of this same chapter in 2 Kings, we read:—
"And Hezekiah, king of Judah, sent to the king of Assyria to Lachish, saying, I have offended; return from me; that which thou puttest on me will I bear. And the king of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah, king of Judah, three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold." This is the only record that the Bible makes of this point, and so far as the Bible goes we do not know wherein he had "offended," nor why he should confess so readily, and offer to bear whatever Sennacherib should put upon him. Sennacherib, however, tells the whole story. The trouble arose as follows:— The Philistine city of Ekron revolted from Assyrian rule, but Padi, their king, still retained his friendship for the king of Assyria, and so opposed the rebellion. Thereupon the Ekronites entered into negotiations with Ethiopia and Egypt and obtained promise of their help, and also seized Padi, made him prisoner, and sent him to Hezekiah for safe keeping. By thus accepting this charge, Hezekiah made himself a partner in the Ekronite rebellion. So after Sennacherib had defeated the Egyptians, recovered Ekron, and punished the leaders in the rebellion, he went up against Hezekiah, not only to compel him to release Padi, but to punish him for his offense. Then it was, and this is why it was, that Hezekiah confessed to Sennacherib, "I have offended." A number of points could be given from Sennacherib's narrative, every one confirming that in the Bible, but this one will suffice to show the perfect veracity of the Scripture account. For the full account see "Rawlinson's Seven Great Monarchies," Second Monarchy, chap. 9, par. 164-168; Geikie's "Hours with the Bible," vol. 4, chap. 17, par. 4-21. Again, in Isaiah 37:37, 38 and 2 Kings 19:36, 37, it is said: "So Sennacherib, king of Assyria, departed, and went and returned, and dwelt at Nineveh. And it came to pass, as he was worshiping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezar his sons smote him with the sword; and they escaped into the land of Armenia. And Esarhaddon his son reigned in his stead." The inscriptions declare that Sennacherib was "building a palace for himself at Nineveh on a grander scale than had ever been attempted before. His works were interrupted by his murder, in 681, by his two sons, who, however, soon found themselves confronted by the veteran army of Esarhaddon, their father's youngest and favorite son, who, in January, 680, defeated them at Khaninabbat, and was proclaimed king."—Enc. Brit., art. Babylonia; Seven Great Monarchies, Second Monarchy, chap. 9, par. 193; Ancient Empires of the East, chap. 2, par. 36. Here, then, is the confirmation of every point in these Scriptures, and in this single instance the slight difference in the dates will bear nothing against the truthfulness of the narrative, nor against the general correctness of the time in which the books were written. Indeed, the Scripture narrative would seem to demand more time than is there given for these occurrences. The invasion, return, and dwelling, of Sennacherib, are all placed by the dates, within 710-9 B. C., which is hardly time enough, especially as it is said that he "returned and dwelt at Nineveh;" and this short period would hardly justify the statement that he dwelt there. But the native monuments remove all difficulty, by showing that he did actually dwell at Nineveh after his return, being employed in building a palace in honor of his god. In this, therefore, is proof that Isaiah and this part of Kings were written as far back as the former half of the seventh century B. C. (To be concluded next week.) Great Ideas from Lowly Society
God does not permanently abrogate the law by which the superior sways the inferior mind. But temporarily, when inspiration and miracle cannot be interpolated into the working of affairs, he does suspend that law by making the low grounds of society the birthplace of great ideas.—Sel. Jonah and the Whale.
By Editor
WE remember to have heard, some years since, the following story from the lips of a clergyman, who told it in illustrating a point in his sermon:— A man had been troubled with doubts and difficulties in believing in the truth of the Bible. He had managed, however, to rid himself of all these doubts and difficulties, with the single exception of those that relate to the narrative given in the book of Jonah. He was not quite able to believe that a whale had ever swallowed Jonah, and, on a certain occasion, stated his want of faith to an elderly Christian lady, who had the habit of believing the Bible, and believing it just as it reads. "You don't believe that?" responded the simple-minded woman. "No, not quite," was his reply. "Well," said the lady, "that gives me no trouble. If the Bible said that Jonah swallowed the whale, I would believe it." We confess a decided sympathy with the general attitude of this good woman's mind, whatever may be the true interpretation of the narrative of Jonah and the whale. The Bible purports to be a revelation from God, through the medium of prophets, apostles, and his Son Jesus Christ. "Thus saith the Lord," is the stamp which it puts upon itself. The first question to be asked is whether this claim is true; and, if this question be answered in the affirmative, that, so far as faith is concerned, is the end of all questions, with the single exception of those that relate to the meaning of the language used in the Bible. What we are to do with the book, after having accepted it as of divine authority, is to read it, understand it so far as we can, and then believe what it says. God himself is the best possible authority; and what he says must be true. He can neither lie, nor be deceived; and, if we believe that the Holy Scriptures contain a record of his sayings through the inspiration of men, and through the teaching of Christ, then, in order to be consistent with ourselves, we must believe in the truth and authority of the sayings, and accept them as the infallible rule of faith and practice in respect to all the matters which they embrace. We are strongly of the opinion that this is just the sort of faith for men to have, whether as preachers in the pulpit or hearers in the pew; whether as actors in the duties and work of life, or as persons hearing the summons of death; whether as Christians rejoicing in the hope of glory, or as penitents coming to God through Christ for forgiveness and salvation. It is the only sort of faith that possesses real power either to rule the life or bless the soul with its comforts. The power of the Bible to affect and move the human heart depends in part upon the ideas which it contains, and in part—and by no means a small part—upon the authority which stands behind these ideas. The ideas are great and good, whatever may be their source; yet, being God's ideas, his thoughts, doctrines, and rules for man, they are of infinite moment. When he speaks, let the world hear. When he commands let men obey. A revelation from God is imperial in its source. It is his prerogative to dogmatize for humanity. Reason is never more reasonable than when it believes what God has said, and because he said it. A revelation from him ascertained is the end of all dispute touching the matter to which it refers. If we refuse to believe that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, then, so long as we thus refuse, we will not apply to Christ for salvation, and will not be saved by him. Belief in the doctrine of redemption by his blood is the first condition of profit from that doctrine. So, if one substitutes blind and unintelligent laws and forces for the Christian doctrine of God's direct and immediate providence, alike general and particular, and the former only because it is the latter, and thus manages in thought to get God out of the world, he will practically have no God for the world; certainly none to whom he can pray, or whose forgiveness he can ask or enjoy. If a man has a theory of inspiration which divorces God from the words of the Bible, then these words have lost their power with him as divine words, and he can play with them at his pleasure. If he denies the Bible doctrine of future punishment, then he assumes to know more on this subject than the author of the Bible, and in effect cancels that fearful emergency in human condition, for the relief of which Christ came down from Heaven. There was no need of the atonement made on the cross, and there is no need of pardon, if the punishment of sin be a mere fable. The plain dictate of common-sense is that, if we accept the Bible at all as of divine authority, we should accept it absolutely, believing what it says and doing what it commands. We must not in the same breath accept and dispute a divine revelation. He who is afraid of his doubts, and yet has not the courage of faith, is in a sad plight. He is troubled with the one, and not comforted by the other. There is no danger that we shall believe God's word too strongly. It is only when we believe it with all the heart that we shall be able to say from experience: "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." Then we can look up to the great Father of spirits and say, "In the multitude of my thoughts within me, thy comforts delight my soul." Ah! then the Bible, with its high authority and sweet message of love, is a power alike to govern and to comfort. Those who believe with conditions, qualifications, modifications, and reservations, and, hence, mingle what faith they have with a set of half-way cavils, which at best are semi-disbeliefs, and may be even worse, know very little of this power. They do not treat the word of God in a way to get the power out of it. Its blessings may lodge in other souls, but not in theirs. They are too wise in themselves to be the best sort of believers. They know too much in and of themselves to be well taught of God. If there is any one thing which we would emphasize more than another, that one thing is simple, child-like, trustful, unhesitating, loving, and complete faith in the word of God. This will do more for the soul, for its sanctification and its joy, than all the speculations of all the speculators that ever lived or died. It will answer more questions than they can answer were they to live a thousand years. It will place the soul in the guest chamber of the Great King, and feed it with manna that comes from the skies. Try it, ye doubters and cavilers, and after that you will have no heart to try anything else.—Independent. SOME one has said that growing old is the worst of life. It is the worst of life if we bring no ripened sheaves to the harvest. To remain light-hearted, showing no trace of weariness as the years go on, is not an easy thing. We tire of the failure and conflicts that mark the way, and find every worldly comfort, at best, unsubstantial and unsatisfactory; and why should we grieve, except for wasted moments and lost opportunities? When youth lies far away down the backward path, and the friends who were young with us, and those who made the sunlight of our lives, are no longer near—some of them have passed on, it may be, to the other side—if Christian love has made beautiful the vanishing years, growing old will not be very dreadful. An infidel who has been successful, financially, wrote above his office door the other day, "Life is a failure if there is nothing beyond." He has learned that earthly possessions are perishable, and is appalled at the thought of severing ties. This life is indeed the saddest of all sad failures if it is the sum of our being. We need an eternity; this life is enough for our differences and our heartaches, but not enough for our love; we need the never ending years that lie beyond. In our heart of hearts we are glad because of the promise, "I go to prepare a place for you." In the fulfillment of that promise we shall hear again the patter of tiny feet and the voices that were lost to us long ago. If silver hairs do not become brown or gold again "over there," it will not trouble us, for each face will be radiant with immortal youth.—Sel. Forced Revivals.
By George B. Gow
LET every church that would grow and bring forth abiding fruit beware of the kind of religious movement, called a revival, which needs to be forced upon an unwilling, disorganized, untrained church by the labors of strangers. Strangers, wise Christian laborers from abroad, may at times greatly aid a church, may, indeed, be the means of arousing its members from the spiritual sleep of years, but such laborers, if indeed they are wise, will begin with the prime difficulties in the case,—the practical unbelief, the dearth of devotion, the ignorance of truth, the neglect of gospel labor,—causes which have brought the church down to its low place. They will endeavor to awaken the church to permanent habits of holy living. Such labor may not indeed show so many hands lifted up in the enthusiasm of a religious profession at the end of a fortnight, but it will show fewer hands hanging down in spiritual paralysis at the end of six months. There are men and there are churches that will not endure the appeal to engage in thorough gospel work. It costs too much of real self-denial and godly living. But they think something must be done from time to time for the prosperity of the church, and they enjoy a few weeks of religious interest when trade is dull, farm work impossible, and the holiday season is past. They are therefore very glad if a so-called revival can be superinduced upon the sleeping church by a month or so of special labor with assistance from abroad. Some good may come from such efforts, for Christian labor is never fruitless. Anything is better than death. That which is unwisely begun may grow to something permanently good. But it is very sad when such revival efforts are made a substitute and excuse for the regular, organized, and systematic work of a church properly qualified in faith, love, knowledge, and skill in labor. It is very painful to hear men professing godliness talk sentimentally of the great need of a revival in the church of which they are members, when their own vices, personal alienations, spiritual ignorance, and perversity are the greatest possible hindrance to the true spiritual growth and fruitfulness of the church. They are fond of any methods that will leave them as they are. There are genuine revivals of religion, but the thing so-called is too often a lenten substitute for godliness, that leaves a church farther than ever from a living, fruit-bearing state. The very name "revival" has been made offensive by these counterfeits. No one knows this better or feels it more keenly than those men who have labored most widely and successfully as evangelists. Religious counterfeits, like counterfeit dollars, are cheaper than the genuine, but they are frauds, and only men who are frauds themselves will deal in them.—Geo. B. Gow, in the Watchman. Tithes and the Promised Blessing
"BRING ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not . . . pour you out a blessing." Mal. 3: 10. Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration
In Matt. 17:1-5, Luke 9:28-35, and Mark 9:2-7, we have the account of the Saviour’s transfiguration, and all three agree in recording439 the fact that Elias (Elijah) and Moses were there talking with him. Nor were they simply the spirits of these two men. Luke says plainly, “There talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias [Elijah]; who appeared in glory,” etc. They were two glorified men therefore. LESSON FOR THE PACIFIC COAST—AUG. 15.
Inheritance of the Saints.—Continued.
OVERTHROW OF THE ANCIENT KINGDOM OF ISRAEL.
1. Who succeeded David as king of Israel? 2. How long did he reign? “And the time that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years.” 1 Kings 11: 42. 3. Before Solomon’s death, what had been prophesied concerning the kingdom? “And it came to pass at that time when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, that the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him in the way; and he had clad himself with a new garment; and they two were alone in the field; and Ahijah caught the new garment that was on him, and rent it in twelve pieces; and he said to Jeroboam, take thee ten pieces; for thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee.” 1 Kings 11: 29–31. 4. To whom did the prophet say ten parts of the kingdom should be given? 5. How much was to be left to the house of Solomon? “But he shall have one tribe for my servant David’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel.” 1 Kings 11: 32. 6. Why was the division to be made? “Because that they have forsaken me, and have worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom the god of the children of Ammon, and have not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in mine eyes, and to keep my statutes and my judgments, as did David his father.” 1 Kings 11: 33. 7. Then what kind of kingdom did the Lord design the kingdom of Israel to be? Since the kingdom of Israel was divided because the people had forsaken God, and had not walked in his ways, and yet one part was preserved to the house of David, because he kept the commandments of God, it is evident that God designed the kingdom of Israel to be one in which his law should be universally adopted as the rule of life. 8. When was this division to be made? “Howbeit I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand; but I will make him prince all the days of his life for David my servant’s sake, whom I chose, because he kept my commandments and my statutes; but I will take the kingdom out of his son’s hand, and will give it unto thee, even ten tribes. And unto his son will I give one tribe, that David my servant may have a light alway before me in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen me to put my name there.” 1 Kings 11: 34–36. 9. For what reason was the kingdom kept entire during Solomon’s lifetime? See preceding reference. 10. How many instances can you cite, in which wicked people received blessings because of the goodness of others? All the wise men of Babylon were saved from destruction, because of Daniel and his three companions, who feared God. Dan. 2. A whole ship-load of reckless and wicked men escaped death in the sea, because Paul, the servant of God, was on board. Acts 27. And the presence of ten righteous persons in Sodom, would have preserved that city from destruction. Other instances may be cited. 11. Who was Solomon’s successor? “And Solomon slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David his father; and Rehoboam his son reigned in his stead.” 1 Kings 11: 43. 12. After he had been made king, who came to him? “And Jeroboam and all the congregation of Israel came, and spake unto Rehoboam. 1 Kings 12: 3. 13. Relate the conversation that passed between them and the king. “And Jeroboam and all the congregation of Israel came, and spake unto Rehoboam, saying, Thy father made our yoke grievous; now therefore make thou the grievous service of thy father, and his heavy yoke which he put upon us, lighter, and we will serve thee. And he said unto them, Depart yet for three days, then come again to me. And the people departed.” 1 Kings 12: 3–5. 14. When they came the third day, what answer did king Rehoboam make? “So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king had appointed, saying, Come to me again the third day. And the king answered the people roughly, and forsook the old men’s counsel that they gave him; and spake after the counsel of the young men, saying, My father made your yoke heavy, and I will add to your yoke; my father also chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions. Wherefore the king hearkened not unto the people; for the cause was from the Lord, that he might perform his saying, which the Lord spake by Ahijah the Shilonite unto Jeroboam the son of Nebat.” 1 Kings 12: 12–15. 15. When the people saw that their plea was disregarded, what did they do? “So when all Israel saw that the king hearkened not unto them, the people answered the king, saying, What portion have we in David? neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse; to your tents, O Israel; now see to thine own house, David. So Israel departed unto their tents. But as for the children of Israel which dwelt in the cities of Judah, Rehoboam reigned over them. Then king Rehoboam sent Adoram, who was over the tribute; and all Israel stoned him with stones, that he died. Therefore king Rehoboam made speed to get him up to his chariot, to flee to Jerusalem. So Israel rebelled against the house of David unto this day. And it came to pass, when all Israel heard that Jeroboam was come again, that they sent and called him unto the congregation, and made him king over all Israel; there was none that followed the house of David, but the tribe of Judah only.” 1 Kings 12: 16–20. 16. When was this division effected? About B. C. 975. 17. What was the subsequent history of the kingdom of Israel, now divided into two kingdoms? The northern division, called the kingdom of Israel, in distinction from the southern division which was called Judah, had scarcely a redeeming feature. Without any exception, its kings were bad, some of them outrivaling the heathen. Because of this wickedness, the people were overcome and carried to Assyria, their places being filled by Assyrians. This was in the year 721 B. C. Of the kings of Judah, some were eminent for their piety, while some were very wicked. The character of the later kings, with the consequence of their wickedness, is described in the last chapter of 2 Chronicles. Jerusalem was conquered by Nebuchadnezzar in B. C. 606, and the people were all removed to Babylon by the year 588. At the close of the seventy years’ captivity, they were permitted to return, but the Jews were never afterward an independent nation. They were subject to the various ruling monarchies until Jerusalem was totally and finally destroyed by the Romans, A. D. 70. Since then the Jews, as a people, have had no place on earth. 18. Yet what positive promise had the Lord made concerning Israel? “Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established forever before thee; thy throne shall be established forever.” 2 Sam. 7: 10, 16. 19. In view of the final complete overthrow of the kingdom of Israel then in existence, to what must we conclude that the Lord referred in the text last quoted? We must conclude that the Lord referred to some future kingdom, in which a people called Israelites should dwell, and in which the will of God should be done perfectly; even the kingdom which the Lord had in mind when he taught his disciples to pray, “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in Heaven.” NOTES ON THE INTERNATIONAL LESSON.
THE life of Elijah, up to the time of his translation, is the subject of the greater part of the lessons during the remaining part of the present quarter. It is well; for Elijah and his times form one of the most interesting subjects that can be studied by the people of the present day. THE very last words of the Old Testament are a prophecy concerning Elijah: “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord; and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.” Mal. 4 : 5, 6. Elias and John the Baptist
As THEY came down from the Mount of Transfiguration the disciples asked Jesus about this prophecy, as follows: "And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead. And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist." Matt. 17: 9–13. John the Baptist and Elias
According to these words of Christ, therefore, this prophecy referred to John the Baptist, and Luke gives a fuller view of its application to him. “But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias; for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb. And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” Luke 1 : 13–17. But this is not all that Elijah has to do with the work of the Lord Jesus. As this prophecy, fulfilled by John the Baptist, referred to the times just preceding the first advent of the Saviour, so the times of Elijah, and Elijah himself, bear an important part in relation to the times just preceding the second advent of the Saviour and in connection with that advent itself. Elijah’s Experience Before Translation
But this is not all, the experience through which Elijah passed just before his translation was also representative. His experience then is, in many points, an exact representation of that through which those will have to pass who shall be translated as he was. This experience will be the subject of several of the following lessons, and therein we shall endeavor to make the subject plain. Again we say the life of Elijah is one of the most important studies in which the people of the present day can be engaged. Sabbath-School Contributions.
By Editor
This subject has received considerable attention during the past few months, and the feeling seems to prevail that we have adopted the right plan in donating a part of our class contributions, every quarter, to some missionary enterprise. We feel thankful for the hearty responses to our call in behalf of the Australian Mission. Some feared that there would be a reaction, and that the contributions the next quarter would be less than ever before. But from reports received thus far, this fear seems to be unfounded. We find that in most schools the contributions largely exceed those of any previous quarter, excepting the one when the contributions all went to the Australian Mission. Having adopted this plan, the question now arises: To what object shall we donate a part of our contributions the present quarter, beginning with July? In conversation with the president of the General Sabbath-school Association, we find that our brethren are entering new fields where there are no Conferences, and are holding Bible-readings, etc., and that people are becoming interested in the truth. In many cases a Sabbath-school or a Sunday-school could be started to good advantage if they only had the necessary supplies. The same work is being carried on in the Old Country, and they need assistance there. At present there is no fund from which to draw, and the work is likely to suffer. In view of this, and after carefully considering the matter, the Executive Committee of the California Sabbath-school Association would recommend that all the schools in this Conference donate a part, or all, of their class contributions for the coming quarter to the General Sabbath-school Association, to be used in establishing schools in mission fields. We want each school to act on this, and decide for itself what part of the contributions shall be used in this way. Some may feel that they cannot give more than a tithe, some may give a quarter or one-half, and others may wish to donate all they receive. The Oakland school has decided to donate one-half of the class contributions for the coming quarter to this enterprise. Now let us not lose sight of the object in giving. It is not merely to help these different enterprises, but, if rightly used, it may be the means of teaching our children valuable lessons of sacrifice and benevolence. We know that by helping others we help ourselves. The matter should be carefully explained to the children, pointing out the object and the necessity of accompanying our donations with our prayers. How many of our children who donated to the Australian Mission, know where Australia is; to what nation it belongs, what its peculiarities are in climate, soil, etc., and what the prevailing religion is? Parents, have you taken the time (we will not say trouble) to explain these things to your children? Have you taken the map and pointed out this country to them? Have you told them that this is the place to which our missionaries have gone? Have you spoken of the sacrifice these persons have made, and the object they had in view in leaving kindred and friends and going to this distant land? Was it to satisfy worldly ambition or to accumulate property? If not, where do they look for their reward? Here is a field open before us, and we should not neglect the privilege of impressing these things upon the minds of our children, and thus turning their attention from the vanities of this world to matters of eternal interest. And now, during the coming quarter, as we give of our means for the establishment of schools in mission fields, let us remember the work and the workers, and pray continually that God may bless their efforts, and bring many to a knowledge of the truth. Send all contributions, at the close of the quarter, to Miss Josie L. Cochran, Pacific Press, Oakland, Cal.
C. H. JONES,
E. J. WAGGONER,
C. C. RAMSEY,
Ex. Com. Cal. S. S. Association. The Meaning of the Transfiguration
Now if we can learn what the transfiguration meant, then we can learn also what was the meaning of the appearance there of these two men. We turn to 2 Peter 1:16-18, and read: "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount." Eyewitnesses of Christ’s Majesty
HERE the apostle is writing of the coming of the Lord in his everlasting kingdom (verse 11), and says, "We have not followed cunningly devised fables" when they made known "the power and coming" of the Lord. Why have they not followed fables, that is, "made-up stories"? Because they "were eyewitnesses of his majesty," as he shall then appear. When were they eyewitnesses of his majesty? Answer, "When we were with him in the holy mount." When the voice came from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." What did they see there? Jesus "was transfigured before them; and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light." Matt. 17:2. "And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them." Mark 9:3. "Behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them." Matt. 17:5.