Earlier text: General ArticlesCan the Old Testament Be Trusted?
By A. T. Jones
THE next point in the book of Second Kings is on the invasion of Samaria, by Shalmaneser (chap. 18 : 9, 10): "Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, came up against Samaria, and besieged it. And at the end of three years they took it; even in the sixth year of Hezekiah, that is the ninth year of Hoshea, king of Israel, Samaria was taken." The Bible chronology places this event "about 723 B. C." And the tablets of Shalmaneser, from the ruins of Nineveh, assert that his reign was B. C. 727-722, and that the "chief event of his reign was the campaign against Samaria. The capture of that city, however, was reserved for his successor, Sargon, in 720." This corresponds with the Scripture date exactly, as the attack was made about 723, and the siege continued three years, which gives the very date of the tablets of Shalmaneser. Besides extending this article to an immoderate length, it would be too tedious a task to give in full all the accounts confirming the Scripture record; in fact it would be only to rewrite that record. Therefore we shall mention the names, and give references to the passages of Scripture with which they correspond. The inscriptions declare that, in 710 B. C., Sargon, king of Assyria, overran Judea, and razed Ashdod to the ground (Isa. 20 : 1); that a year after the Judean war by Sennacherib, Merodach-Baladan was in command at Babylon (Isa. 39 : 1; 2 Kings 20 : 12); that in 740 B. C., Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria, overthrew the ancient kingdom of Damascus (2 Kings 16 : 9), and in his "inscriptions Ahaz of Judah appears among the names of those who acknowledged his sovereignty and paid tribute" (2 Kings 16 : 7-18; Enc. Brit., art. Ahaz; Rawlinson, Third Monarchy, chap. 9, par. 129); that in 730 B. C. he placed his vassal Hoshea on the throne of Samaria in the room of Pekah (2 Kings 15 : 30; 17 : 1); that Ben-hadad reigned in Damascus, while Ahab reigned in Israel, and that Hazael succeeded Ben-hadad (2 Kings 8 : 7-15). No less accurate and circumstantial is the testimony of the "Moabite Stone," discovered in August, 1868, and now familiar to many, which reads as follows:— "I am Mesha, king of Moab [2 Kings 3 : 4]; the Dibonite, my father, reigned over Moab thirty years, and I reigned after my father. Omri was king of Israel [1 Kings 16 : 16]; and he afflicted Moab many days, because Chemosh [1 Kings 11 : 7; Jer. 48 : 7, 13, 46] was angry with his land, and his son succeeded him [1 Kings 16 : 28]; and he also said, I will afflict Moab. In my days he spake thus: And I looked on him and on his house. [2 Kings 1 : 1; 3 : 4, 5.] And Israel kept constantly perishing. And Omri held possession of the land of Medeba, and there dwelt in it Omri and his son and his grandson, forty years. [1 Kings 16 : 23, 29; 2 Kings 3 : 1.] But Chemosh restored it in my days. And the king of Israel built for him Kiriathaim, and I fought against the city and took it, and brought from thence the altar of Jehovah, and put it before Chemosh in Kerioth. And Chemosh said to me, 'Go and take Nebo from Israel.' And I went in the night, and fought against it from the overspreading of the dawn till noon, and took it, and I utterly destroyed it, and I slew all of it, seven thousand, for to Ashtor-Chemosh had I devoted them. And I took from thence the vessels of Jehovah, and I presented them before Chemosh. And the king of Israel built Jahaz, and dwelt in it while he was fighting against me, and Chemosh drove him from before me; and I took from Moab two hundred men, all told, and I attacked Jahaz and took it, joining it to Dibon. Chemosh said to me, 'Go fight against Horonaim.'" Here, then, are the facts, strictly in accordance with the Scripture account of Omri, his son Ahab, and his grandson Jehoram; and of Mesha, king of Moab, and his father's servitude, and his own rebellion. Now it is utterly inconceivable how these statements of the Scripture could have been gathered from any other source than the actual events themselves. For there is absolutely no history of the Moabites, from which they could have been taken in later times. Therefore the perfect agreement between the occurrences as recorded in the Bible, and as recorded by Mesha, king of Moab, upon the enduring stone, proves, to a demonstration, that the records were made at the same time. This, then, carries us back 929 years B. C., as the date of this portion of the sacred word. However, we are not obliged to stop at this date for want of proofs of any earlier, for the decipherment of the inscriptions on the Egyptian monuments and tombs fully corroborates the record in the Pentateuch concerning Joseph and the exodus; so much so, in fact, that it is now considered as a most valuable auxiliary to the full understanding of the Egyptian history, and "Brugsch and Lepsius and Chabas and Mariette treat the Pentateuch as of prime historical importance." "It seemed, a few years ago, an almost incredible story told in Genesis of the campaign of the four kings of Elam and Babylonia—Chedorlaomer, Arioch, Amraphel, and Tidal—against the five kings of Sodom and the plain. The monuments confirm the story wonderfully. They tell us that at just this time [about 1900 or 2000 B. C.] there had been an Elamite (or Median) conquest of Babylonia; they tell us that Laomer was the name of an Elamite god, and that Chedorlaomer means worshiper of Laomer; and we find an account of this very Arioch mentioned on the monuments as king of Elassar, and we learn that his father's name was Chedormabug, and his grandfather's name was Simtissilhak; and we further learn that even earlier than this there had been Babylonian expeditions to the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. Every difficulty is completely removed, and confirmation supplied." "Abraham, we are told, came from Ur of the Chaldees. Such a town had become utterly lost, except in this Biblical mention of it, and in a pious tradition that had put it in an impossible place. The present generation has rediscovered it, and read its record on the monuments. We find it was the second capital of Babylonia, and was distinguished for its worship of the moon-god. The names could be mentioned of half a dozen of its kings, one of whom was Chedormabug, father of the Arioch of the Bible. Two seals, worn by gentlemen of Ur before the time of Abraham, and bearing the names of the first two kings, are in the British Museum. The Bible geography is proved no fiction."—Wm. Hayes Ward, D. D., in Sunday School Times, vol. 25, no. 42, article, "The Bible and the Monuments." We shall add no more. These evidences, wholly from outside of the Bible, prove beyond any possibility of reasonable doubt, that the Scriptures are authentic records of the things of which they treat, and all the researches in archaeology only serve to heap evidence upon evidence of their absolute truthfulness. It is a law of evidence that—
"Probable proofs, by being added, not only increase the evidence but multiply it."—Butler's Analogy, Part 2, chap. 7, par. 41. "When two independent writers witness to the same event, the probability of that event is increased, not in an arithmetical, but in a geometrical ratio," i. e., "Let it be ten to one that a certain fact is true upon the testimony of one witness, and likewise ten to one that the same fact is true upon the evidence of another, then it is not twenty to one, but one hundred and thirty to one, that the fact is true on the evidence of both. And the evidence to the same point, of a third independent witness of equal credibility with the others, would raise the probability [of its truth] to one thousand three hundred and thirty to one. 'By the mouth of two or three witnesses,' the word, to which such witness is borne, is 'established.'" "And the agreement is the more valuable, if it be (so to speak) incidental and casual—if the two writers are contemporary, and their writings not known to one another; if one only alludes to what the other narrates; if one appears to have been an actor, and the other merely a looker-on; if one gives events, and the other the feelings which naturally arise out of them: in these cases the conviction which springs up in every candid and unprejudiced mind, is absolute; the element of doubt which hangs about all matters of mere belief being reduced to such infinitesimal proportions as to be inappreciable, and so, practically speaking, to disappear altogether."—Rawlinson's Historical Evidences, lecture 1, par. 22, note 52. It is upon precisely such evidence as this that the Bible rests. Therefore, even though it be looked upon as merely a history of the times in which it was written, these evidences prove that the Bible is worthy of all acceptance as a faithful record of absolute facts as they actually occurred. So that it is verily true that he who, in these days, presumes to cast doubt upon the Scripture record, only thereby exposes his ignorance or his willfulness. But this is not all. In the Bible are recorded not only the things that had occurred in the times when its respective books were written, but also things which should occur for ages to follow, even to the end of the world. And when we read that which was written in these books away in ancient times, concerning what should come in ages to follow; and then take up the history of these ages and find events occurring exactly as written hundreds and even thousands of years before; this again, not only confirms the absolute faithfulness of the Scripture but carries it beyond the human for the spring of the knowledge of the facts, the record of which is therein given. Nor yet is this all—nay, it is merely the beginning. For there is a "scheme of doctrine bound up with these facts"—absolutely dependent upon them, inseparably connected with them, and "null and void without them"—which stands fully established, just as soon as the record of the facts is shown to be worthy of acceptance; that doctrine is the doctrine of Jesus Christ the Son of God. Therefore it stands proven to a demonstration that, "All Scripture," whether doctrinal, prophetical, or historical, "IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD." Having by these evidences, which might be greatly multiplied, demonstrated the absolute trustworthiness of the Bible record, we now propose to take our stand upon this "sure foundation," and from it, as our point of observation, to trace, by the outline therein given, the course of the history of this world from the Babylonian ascendancy to our own day. A. T. J. Odd Sermon Advertisements
By Christian at Work
This is the way some Western people advertise their sermons, according to the Occident, of San Francisco. It doesn't hurt the other clergy in the denomination to state that the advertiser is the minister of the Baptist Church at San Jose, Cal. This is the notice:— "Services at 11 A. M. and 7 P. M. Morning subject, 'Eating Butter and Honey the Instrumental Means of Knowing to Refuse the Evil and Choose the Good.' Dairymen and bee-keepers specially invited. Evening subject, 'The Trinal Nature of Man.' All interested in human destiny invited." Now we advise that parson that if there is any butter and honey that forms "the instrumental means of knowing to refuse the evil and choose the good," he sell all that he has and buy that butter and honey and eat nothing else the rest of his days. What odd sticks do get into pulpits at times. Betting and Gambling.
By Christian Union
ONE of the most potential, subtle, and widespread passions of the day is the spirit of gambling. It pervades all classes, it enters all doors. Not many years ago one sporting paper—of which respectable people knew nothing—was a sufficient organ for the craft; how many now of the kind does New York alone publish? And besides these official mouth-pieces, large spaces in the daily papers are occupied in chronicling the doings on the race-courses, the bets in the billiard saloons, the result of "sparring" and "bruising," and walking matches. Our cities are also full of men who lounge about street corners and the bars and lobbies of hotels, picking up the "strait tips" for the morrow's race. They are betting men, who have nothing else to do, who would not do it if they had, who live by "preying" on their fellow creatures. And one of the saddest things about this army of social bandits is the youthfulness of its personnel. All of them could do honest work if they would. Is it not a shameful and astounding thing that thousands of men can be profoundly exercised about the weight of a jockey, and consider the "going" mettle of a colt the grandest fact extant? Why? Not because they are sportsmen in any natural or honest sense of the word, but because they expect by the mere magic of the horse's name to clear more money in one shameful transaction than many a preacher or professor gets for a year's hard labor. And it is not only on the race-course, at the green tables of the billiard-room, at "rings," and "mains" and "bars," in club-houses and drinking saloons, that betting and gambling are to be found. Its slang is heard in all the highways and byways of life, in schools, and in households; it mingles in the affairs of religion and the business of the church. What are lotteries for the building of churches, etc., but gambling? Will calling the church after some saint, or dedicating it with splendid ceremonies, ever make the place "holy"? Have we received any new dispensation by which it is lawful for us to do evil that good may come? The "operations" which, in money and bonds, form a great proportion of the day's business, and influence immensely the city's legitimate trading, are not, perhaps, illegal, but they are unholy; for it is money made without labor, or obtained without equivalent from the incautious, the ignorant, or the unfortunate. And if the material of this legalized gambling could be traced to its source, it would too often be found to have come from the safes of employers, the pocket-books of country traders and farmers, who jeopardize their lawful gains for the chance of unreasonable returns, and so deserve the ruin they find. It is the product of fraudulent bills, forged acceptances, loans at ruinous interest, money borrowed from confiding relatives with lies—it is all as ill gotten as it is ill applied. The terror of gambling is the hopelessness of its cure when the passion is once established. It makes the heart as hard as the nether millstone, and renders the man perfectly indifferent to everything but his stake. The gambler will dice with the devil on the banks of perdition until he falls into it forever. Has history in all its pages a more awful death-bed scene than that of Cardinal Mazarin? The last bulletin had been issued; "the pallid specter with the equal footsteps" was at his door; he had had absolution, tears, blessings, extreme unction; what was he doing? Not waiting in solemn or prayerful awe the moment of his release. Not even like the pagan Hadrian murmuring, Animula vagula blandula! He was sitting up in bed playing cards with the court ladies in their frizzed hair and low dresses; holding the cards against death, till death won, and they fell from his clayey hands. Death's approach softens most men; even the old drunkard Falstaff "babbled of green fields" and his innocent youth in his presence; but the gambler thinks only of his trumps and his dice until he drops into the grave. The fact that so many young men are thronging all places where they can live by perilous "chances" is a matter assuming a grave aspect, both in a moral and economical sense, and constitutes a social problem of deep and far-reaching significance. Individually, it seems hopeless to contend with it; and yet it has been by individual efforts that all great moral triumphs have been won. Here a convert and there a convert, and the Christian Church was formed. Seven men, only, started the "teetotal" crusade; a still less number the anti-slavery movement. We must never forget that individual effort is as powerful for good as for evil. Every good man can frown upon a bet, or a gambling transaction of any amount or any kind, as something wicked and disreputable. He can refuse to touch a "book" or dabble in a "pool," or even make a "corner." He can be satisfied with honest gains, and never take enormous chances to make stupendously wicked failures. He can frown upon all trading whose element is dishonest, whatever the profits may be; for all such gain is sin; and without controversy the end of sin is death. Idols and Miracles.
By Madame Sofia Bompiani
"WHERE," asked Redshid Pasha on his visit to the Pantheon, "are the statues of the heathen gods?" "Of course they were removed when the temple was Christianized," was the natural answer. He replied, "I would have left them standing to show how the true God had triumphed over them in their own house." This extract from a book written by Cardinal Wiseman is a specimen of the way in which the Roman Church feigns innocence of idol worship. The statues of all the pagan gods and of Venus, with the marvelous pearl of Cleopatra in her ears, no longer fill their ancient marble niches in the Pantheon; triumphant Mars is jostled from his pedestal, the trident of Neptune is broken, and proud Minerva is abased, but Rome is full of idols yet. Wherever one head was cut off, the hydra sprouted a hundred new ones not more noble nor more beautiful than the old. Not without good reason have the teachers of this people suppressed in their oral instruction the second commandment: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;" for they know that almost every one of the 365 or more churches in Rome would be shamed by their teaching. Shrine rivals shrine; one idol vanquishes another, and is in turn subdued by a third; the favorite statue or picture winning for the friars or priests who own it uncounted wealth. This was the case with the celebrated statue of the Madonna with the child in her arms, on the altar near the tomb of Raphael in the Pantheon. This statue wears a gemmed crown decreed to it by the Chapter of Saint Peter's, to which is intrusted the care of awarding honors and decorations to the various statues of the Madonna. Sometimes, but rarely, the child in her arms receives a crown also, but a similar honor is never awarded to a statue or picture of Christ. This Madonna was the favorite miracle-working statue of the people of Rome until a rival caused it to be almost forgotten. It still wears the gemmed crown, and a dim light is burning before the altar, but the votive offerings are few, and the constant crowd of worshipers has been transferred to the neighboring church of Saint Agostino. There the statue by Sansovini of the Madonna seated with the child in her arms, glitters with necklaces, that reach to the waist, and bracelets that almost cover the arms; the walls on each side are hung with silver hearts and small paintings of doubtful art representing accidents from which the devout have been saved by the wonder-working statue. Once a whole army of assassins' daggers decorated the wall near a dozen large lamps, hung in a semicircle before it, threw a bright light continually upon the gems and the flowers. Rarely is the open space before the Madonna without a crowd of devout kneeling worshipers. I have seen an old man rise with pain, leave the solemn group, lean on his cane and slowly mount the steps of the pedestal, upon which is inscribed: "Our Holiness Pius VII. concedes perpetually one hundred days of indulgence to all those who once a day shall devoutly kiss (or touch) the foot of this holy image, reciting a hail Mary, for the needs of the holy church." The old man, with bowed head and trembling hand, awed by the lights and flowers and gems, kissed the foot of the holy image, gained his one hundred days of indulgence, and no doubt returned the day after to secure more immunity from the pains of purgatory. "The poor and holy virgin of Nazareth," says David Silvagni, in his remarkable work, "The Court and Society of Rome from 1769 to 1869," "is now no longer seen humbly dressed like the Madonna of Beato Angelico, of Raphael and of Sassoferrato, but covered with brocades, wide laces and royal mantles, like a queen in a theater." More deference is paid to the gem-crusted, ugly modern image of the Bambino Gesù, kept by the friars of the church of Ara Coeli, than to any other image of Christ in Rome. It is supposed to work miracles, and the gems are offerings from the sick whom it has healed. It is taken in a splendid carriage with servants in livery—often lent for the purpose by Prince Torlonia—to the sick person, and if, when laid upon the body, it remains red in the face, a cure will be effected. If it becomes pallid the sick person will inevitably die. The bronze statue of St. Peter is worshiped devoutly by the peasants and lower class of the population, who kneel long on the marble floor before it and then reverently approach to kiss the worn toe that records the millions of kisses it has received. This is a dignified idol and does not condescend either to be carried about, to roll its eyes, shed tears, or give other signs of benevolence. It allows itself, however, on the festival of Saint Peter to be dressed in the brocade mantle of the pope, and to wear his triple crown and pastoral ring upon the uplifted finger.—Madame Sofia Bompiani, in N. Y. Observer. The Mission of the Church.
"It is the mission of the church to preach to all nations, to convert the world, and not confine its efforts to its own vicinage or community." We have a very high regard for Dr. John Hall, and rejoice that so clear-toned and able a preacher of the gospel occupies the high place now filled by him. But surely Dr. Hall did not ponder these words. Surely they must be an inadvertent utterance. Doubtless the church has for its mission "to preach to all nations"—but not for the conversion of the world. The Master says, it is "for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." Does that teach the conversion of the world by the preaching of the gospel? Does the parable of the sower? Does the parable of the wheat and the tares? Does his description of the state of the world before and at his coming teach it? Did "the apostles and elders, with the whole church," believe it, when they affirmed Peter's declaration that "God did visit the Gentiles to take out of them a people for his name"? Acts 15:14. Will the church in glory believe it when they sing the new song to him that redeemed them unto God by his blood, "out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation"? No; the church's mission is, to go "everywhere preaching the word;" and then leave all results with him who sent it forth.—Sel. NOTES ON THE INTERNATIONAL LESSON.
HAVING learned in last week's lesson that Elijah stood on the Mount of Transfiguration as the representative of those who shall be translated at the coming of the Lord, we turn now to a study of the times of Elijah just before his translation, and we shall find in them a representation of the times in the days just before the coming of the Lord and the translation of the righteous who shall then be alive. THAT there will be a company of people alive on the earth, when the Lord comes, who will hail him with joy and meet him with gladness, is abundantly shown in the Scriptures. Paul says plainly, "This we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent [go before] them which are asleep [the dead] . . . the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them . . . and so shall we ever be with the Lord." 1 Thess. 4: 15-17. Again he says, "We shall not all sleep [not all die], but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; . . . Then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory." 1 Cor. 15: 51-54. Where is that "saying" written? Read Isa. 25: 8, 9. "He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away455from off all the earth; for the Lord hath spoken it. And it shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us; this is the Lord; we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation." LESSON FOR THE PACIFIC COAST—AUG. 22. Inheritance of the Saints.—Continued.
1. GIVE a brief outline of the kingdom of Israel from the time of Saul till its final overthrow. As stated in last week's lesson, Saul was succeeded by David and Solomon. At the death of Solomon, Rehoboam took the kingdom, but in consequence of his imprudent stubbornness, a large portion was taken from him. The two kingdoms, Israel and Judah, continued together, sometimes at war and sometimes at peace, until 721 B. C., when the kingdom of Israel was obliterated. In B. C. 606 Jerusalem, the capital of Judah, the southern kingdom, was besieged and conquered by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and the captivity of Judah was made final in B. C. 588. The Biblical history of these kingdoms may be found as follows: The book of 1 Samuel contains the history of Samuel and Saul; 2 Samuel, entire, is devoted to a history of the kingdom under David; the first eleven chapters of 1 Kings contain the life of Solomon; and the remainder of 1 Kings, and the whole of 2 Kings contain the history of the kings after the division. In the books of Chronicles, the history of the same period is repeated, but after the division no further mention is made of the wicked kingdom of Israel. 2. Into the hands of what power did the dominion then pass? "Zedekiah was one and twenty years old when he began to reign, and reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord his God, and humbled not himself before Jeremiah the prophet speaking from the mouth of the Lord. And he also rebelled against king Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by God; but he stiffened his neck, and hardened his heart from turning unto the Lord God of Israel. Moreover all the chief of the priests, and the people, transgressed very much after all the abominations of the heathen; and polluted the house of the Lord which he had hallowed in Jerusalem. And the Lord God of their fathers sent to them by his messengers, rising up be-times, and sending; because he had compassion on his people, and on his dwelling-place; but they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against his people, till there was no remedy. Therefore he brought upon them the king of the Chaldees, who slew their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no compassion upon young man or maiden, old man, or him that stooped for age; he gave them all into his hand. And all the vessels of the house of God, great and small, and the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king, and of his princes; all these he brought to Babylon. And they burnt the house of God, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem, and burnt all the palaces thereof with fire, and destroyed all the goodly vessels thereof. And them that had escaped from the sword carried he away to Babylon; where they were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia." 2 Chron. 36: 11-20. "And command them to say unto their masters, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Thus shall ye say unto your masters; I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power and by my outstretched arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me. And now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzer the king of Babylon, my servant; and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him. And all nations shall serve him, and his son, and his son's son, until the very time of his land come; and then many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of him." Jer. 27: 4-7. 3. Into whose hands did it subsequently pass? When the Jewish kingdom fell, it passed into the hands of the Babylonians, at that time the ruling nation of the world. In 538 B. C. the Babylonian kingdom was overthrown, and, with the Jews, passed under the dominion of Medo-Persia. In 331 B. C. another revolution took place, when all the world passed into the hands of Alexander the Great, king of Grecia. The Jews, although mostly in their own land, were under Grecian rule until B. C. 161, when they came within the power of Rome, which was then taking its place as the ruler of the world. 4. How was this foretold by one of the prophets? "And thou, profane wicked prince of Israel, whose day is come, when iniquity shall have an end, thus saith the Lord God: Remove the diadem, and take off the crown; this shall not be the same; exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high. I will overturn, overturn, overturn it; and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him." Eze. 21: 25-27. The taking off of the diadem from the profane, wicked prince of Israel, Zedekiah, was the taking of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. Then three "overturnings" are spoken of. The first of these was in 538 B. C., when the Babylonian monarchy was overturned, and the Medo-Persian succeeded; the second was when Medo-Persia gave place to Grecia; and the third was when the Romans assumed the sovereignty of the world. Since then no other power has exercised universal sway over the earth, nor will such a state of things exist again, "until he come whose right it is;" then the uttermost parts of the earth will be given to him for a possession. 5. Who is the one "whose right it is"? "I will declare the decree; the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." Ps. 2: 7, 8. 6. What did Isaiah say concerning the continuation of the kingdom of David? "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this." Isa. 9: 6, 7. 7. Where is this successor of David named? "And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shall call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David; and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end." Luke 1: 31-33. 8. Where had the promise of such a successor been made directly to David? "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. 9. Did David understand to whom this promise referred? "Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; he, seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption." Acts 2: 29-31. 10. Did Christ receive and restore this kingdom at his first advent? "When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." Acts 1: 6, 7. "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now is my kingdom not from hence." John 18: 36. 11. To what did he liken the reception of the kingdom? "And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear. He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return." Luke 19: 11, 12. 12. Has he yet received this throne? "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." Rev. 3: 21. 13. When will he have received it? "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory." Matt. 25: 31. 14. What will the righteous then also receive? "Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." Matt. 25: 34. The Coming Controversy
By Alonzo T. Jones
We are here making no argument as to what is the beast, nor what is his image, nor what it will be to worship them. We simply draw a parallel between the events of the times of Elijah and those which immediately precede the coming of the Lord. Nor do we here present any argument to show that the coming of the Lord is near; we simply show by the Scriptures that, whenever his coming shall be near, then, as in the days of Elijah, the commandments of God will be the one subject of controversy between those who will serve the Lord, and those who will not. A. T. J. The Controversy Over God’s Commandments
ZEPHANIAH says of that time: “The great day of the Lord is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the Lord; the mighty man shall cry there bitterly. That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness. A day of the trumpet and alarm against the fenced cities, and against the high towers. And I will bring distress upon men, that they shall walk like blind men, because they have sinned against the Lord.” Zeph. 1 : 14–16. ZEPHANIAH tells exactly why the terrors of this great day come so upon men. It is “because they have sinned against the Lord.” This is what brought all the trouble in the days of Elijah. For when Ahab cried out to Elijah, “Art thou he that troubleth Israel?” Elijah replied, “I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father’s house, in that thou hast forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou hast followed Baalim.” And it was because Elijah had held up before the people the commandments of God, and had insisted on obedience to them that he was now accused of troubling Israel; and it was Israel’s persistent violation of the commandments that brought upon them all the trouble. Here then, in the days of Elijah, was a controversy over the commandments of God. On one side was Jezebel wielding all the power of the state in behalf of the violation of the commandments; on the other side was Elijah and a few others maintaining the honor of God by strict adherence to the precepts of his law. INTELLIGENT, purposeful teaching includes the idea of two persons, both of them active. Nor is it enough that there be two persons, both of them active; both active over the same lesson. This may be secured by hearing a recitation, and commenting on it; but that is not, necessarily, teaching. The scholar, in such a case, may be merely exercising his memory, reciting what he has memorized verbally without understanding a word of it; he learns nothing; he is not taught anything; he is not caused to know a single fact or truth, by his teacher's hearing him recite; nor does he learn anything by his teacher's wisest comment, if he pays no attention to that comment, or if he is unable to understand it. "Teaching," as causing another to know, includes the mutual effort of two persons to the same end. The teacher must endeavor to cause the pupil to learn a particular fact or truth which he wants him to know; the learner must endeavor to learn that particular fact or truth. Until the two are at this common work, the process of teaching has not begun; until the learner has learned; the teacher has not taught. Teaching is by no means all of a teacher's work; nor is it always the most important work of a teacher. Impressing one's pupils, and influencing them, are important factors in a teacher's work, when we speak of "a teacher," as one having children in charge, in a school—on a week-day, or a Sunday. A teacher's spirit, a teacher's character, a teacher's atmosphere, and a teacher's life, impress and influence a pupil quite as much as a teacher's words. It is a teacher's duty to love his scholars, and to show his love for them; to have sympathy with them, and to evidence it; to gain a hold on their affections, outside of the class-hour, as well as during it; and to pray for them specifically and in abiding faith. There is no technical "teaching" in all this; but what would technical teaching be worth without this? There are teachers who do a great deal of good without teaching; they perhaps do a better work than many of their fellows, who do teach. Their work ought not to be undervalued because it is not teaching; neither ought it to be confounded with teaching. Impressing and influencing members of a class is one thing; teaching a Bible-lesson is another thing; the two may go on together, or again there may be the one without the other. Whether the one or the other is wanted, or both together are desired, it is important to bear in mind what teaching is, as distinct from any other desirable work of a teacher. If a Bible-lesson is worth teaching, it ought to be taught; if it is taught, it must be by the process of teaching; and there is no such thing as teaching by a teacher, unless at the same time there is learning by a learner. The question, therefore, at the close of each recitation, is—not, Were you with your class? not, Did you prepare yourself on the lesson of the day before coming to your class? not, Did you state and illustrate important truths which it would have been well for the members of your class to know? not, Were your hearers attentive, and seemingly impressed? but—Did you cause anybody to know anything about the lesson of the day? That question you cannot properly answer, unless you have proof that some one of your hearers learned what you tried to make him know. Until you can speak with positiveness on this point, you cannot say whether or not you have taught the lesson, or any part of it, to all of your class, or to any one scholar.—Teachers and Teaching.