Earlier text: General ArticlesThe Kingdom of God.
By Editor
If the importance of any subject is to be estimated by its prominence in the Scriptures, that of the kingdom is second to but few. When John, the forerunner of Christ, began to preach in the wilderness of Judea, he said, "Repent, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand." Matt. 3:2. When the Saviour himself began to preach, he used the same language, saying: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent ye, and believe the gospel." Mark 1:15. When he chose his twelve apostles and sent them out to preach, he committed to them the same words, saying, "And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of Heaven is at hand." Matt. 10:7. In his "Sermon on the Mount," it was the first of the beatitudes—the beginning of the promises, "Blessed are the poor in Spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven." Matt. 5:3. When he taught his disciples how to pray, it was the burden of the first petition: "Thy kingdom come." Matt. 6:10. The gospel of Christ, which is the power of God unto salvation, is called by the Saviour, "this gospel of the kingdom." Matt. 24:14. When our Saviour forewarned the Jews of their rejection for disobedience, and of the calling of the Gentiles, he did it by declaring the kingdom should be taken from the former, and given to the latter. Matt. 21:43. When the graces of the Christian character are enumerated and enforced, it is that we may have an abundant entrance into the kingdom. 2 Pet. 1:11. They who are rich in faith, who love God, are called "heirs of the kingdom." James 2:5. And finally, when the Saviour comes to call the faithful unto himself, he says unto them, "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom." Matt. 25:34. It is called the kingdom of Heaven because it is of Heaven and not of earth in its origin and principles. It is called the kingdom of God because it is set up by the God of Heaven. And it is called the kingdom of Christ because Christ is the king thereof. When man was created, he was appointed to have "dominion" over the earth, and everything upon it. But this, and his life also, he soon lost by disobedience; and for a long time thereafter the Lord, in his communications with men, said nothing about a dominion. A bare intimation of a future reign was given to Abraham when it was said to him, "I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee." Gen. 17:6. After the sojourning of the children of Israel in Egypt, the Lord brought them out and made a covenant with them to be their God, and that they should be his people and obey his voice. Ex. 19:3-8; Jer. 11:2-4. But they not only broke his covenant, but rejected him as their ruler, and asked for a king to rule over them, that they might be like all the nations. 1 Sam. 8:5, 19, 20. In this, the Lord said, they had rejected him, that he should not reign over them. Verse 7. He pointed out Saul to be their king, who reigned over them forty years. But Saul displeased the Lord, and he took the kingdom from him and gave it to David. By this it will be seen that the Lord did not forget his covenant with Israel and forsake them, though they rejected him, and departed far from his ways. He reserved to himself the right to choose who should be their king, and he promised that the crown should remain with David and his house. This promise is recorded in Psalm 89. "I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant, Thy seed will I establish forever, and build up thy throne to all generations." Verses 3, 4. "Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth. My mercy will I keep for him forevermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him. His seed also will I make to endure forever, and his throne as the days of Heaven." Verses 27-29. Nothing could be more positive and sure than this. There is a condition introduced in regard to the conduct of his people, Israel, but this affects them alone; it is as follows:— "If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments; if they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments; then I will visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes." Verses 30-32. That this cannot invalidate the promise is shown in the succeeding verses, 33-37. "Nevertheless, my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established forever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in Heaven." The descendants of David reigned something over 400 years; but they were not steadfast in the ways of God. They suffered many things of their enemies, and many things by reason of dissensions and rebellions. Truly were they visited "with the rod." And Zedekiah added to the iniquities of his predecessors, and in his day the chief of Israel followed the ways of the heathen; the house of God in Jerusalem was polluted; the prophets of God were despised and misused "until the wrath of the Lord arose against his people, till there was no remedy." 2 Chron. 36:11-16. Accordingly, Ezekiel the prophet was sent with a message, foretelling, not only his overthrow, but the subversion of the kingdom. "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. Three years after this prophecy was uttered, viz., in 590 B. C., the king of Assyria was exalted over him; the king of Israel was abased; the crown was removed; the temple of Jerusalem was burnt, and its vessels and all its treasures carried away; the sons of king Zedekiah were slain before his eyes, his own eyes were put out, and he, in fetters of brass, was carried captive into Babylon. This is, in brief, a history of the kingdom of Israel from its establishment under Saul to its overthrow under Zedekiah, since which time the throne of David has not been restored nor occupied by any of his sons. By permission of the kings of Persia, into whose hands they had fallen on the overthrow of Babylon, the Jews returned to Jerusalem, and, amid many perils, built again the house of the Lord. When the Romans became strong, so that it was an object to secure their favor, the Jews made a league with them, and were under their control at the birth of the Saviour. In the prophecy of Daniel, chapter 2, is the declaration that the God of Heaven shall set up a kingdom. By a comparison of the scriptures, we learn that this refers to a restoration of the kingdom which was overturned on account of the wickedness of Israel. And here a controversy has arisen, one party affirming that the expression, "these kings," in verse 44, refers to the four kingdoms without defining either, and that the fulfillment shows that it refers to the fourth, to wit, the Roman. In other words, that the God of Heaven set up this kingdom at or near the first advent of the Saviour. In favor of this view, it is further said that the feet and toes, or divided state of the Roman Empire, are not called kings in this chapter, and, therefore, it must refer to those which are called kings. This reasoning we think is faulty. For, 1. If "these kings" refers to the four parts of the image, that is, to Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome, then it could not be fulfilled if set up in the days of the fourth, or Roman. It was not, then, set up in the days of Babylon, nor of Persia, nor of Greece; and the phrase, "these kings," cannot refer to the fourth one, the Roman. 2. The margin of Dan. 2:44, has "Chald., their days." Dr. Clarke says that from Dan. 2:4, to the end of chapter 7, it was written in Chaldee, or Syro-Chaldaic. The reader will notice that in these chapters, the margin constantly refers to the Chaldee, while the margin of the rest of the book refers to the Hebrew. Therefore, the literal, original reading is, "In their days shall the God of Heaven set up a kingdom." No one can doubt that the pronoun "they," in verse 43, refers to the powers represented by the toes of the image. And in verse 44, "their" certainly refers to the same. These divisions of verse 43 are the only antecedent of "their" in verse 44. 3. But that the divisions of the Roman Kingdom do themselves mean kingdoms, we learn from Dan. 7, wherein is shown four great beasts, representing four kingdoms, as in Dan. 2. The fourth, the strongest of all, with great iron teeth, is the same as the iron part of the image; and the ten horns, the same as the toes of the image. But these horns are, in chapter 7:24, called ten kings, or kingdoms. 4. The "stone" of the dream of chapter 2, is a symbol of this kingdom which the God of Heaven shall set up. But in the order of events, this stone is not brought into notice until after the development of the feet and toes of the image. Thus, the first that was seen of the stone, in the dream, it "smote the image upon his feet" that were of iron and clay; and the interpretation says, "In the days of these kings shall the God of Heaven set up a kingdom." Now there is no harmony of the prophecy in any view that does not make "these kings" refer to the divisions of the Roman Empire. 5. There is no force in the objection that has been urged, that the "ten kings" have not existed in the form and number necessary to fulfill the prophecy, if they were the kings referred to. The prophecy says, "They shall mingle themselves with the seed of men; but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay." This certainly contemplates a state of change, without the possibility of consolidation; just what has always been seen in the European States which grew up out of the ruins of the Roman Empire. And this is further shown in chapter 7:8, where the prophet beheld "another little horn" come up among them; then there were at that time eleven in all; and before this last one were three of the first plucked up; which left in view seven of the original horns, and eight in all. The prophecy evidently reveals the fact that in the days of the kingdoms rising out of the Roman Kingdom, should the God of Heaven set up a kingdom; and though there may sometimes be more and sometimes less than ten, it does not destroy their identity as "these kings," as this transition was clearly pointed out. 6. A confirmation of this view is found in the fact that the prophecies of the two chapters are not only identical in their main features, but their finale is the same. In the second chapter, the God of Heaven sets up a kingdom; which, as will be hereafter shown, is fulfilled by his investing the Lord Jesus with kingly power; and it "shall be left to other people," that is, it shall be given to a people who shall possess it forever, without losing it or leaving it to others. And so of chapter 7, the vision concludes with giving the kingdom and dominion to the Son of man; and the interpretation concludes with giving the kingdom to the saints. But in this latter chapter it is clearly shown that the dominion passes from one of these beasts to another, and so on through the four; that the fourth is divided as represented by the horns, and the dominion, of course, is then found in these divisions. But "another little horn" arises, which takes great authority, and wears out the saints of the Most High. The characteristics of this little horn plainly show it to be the papal power, or ecclesiastical government of Rome, and this wearing out of the saints of the Most High was fulfilled in the unparalleled persecution carried on against those who believed and obeyed the word of God, contrary to the dogmas of the Roman Catholic power. But it is after the action of this little horn in persecuting the saints that the kingdom is given to them. And, therefore, any theory which has the kingdom set up, and the saints inducted into it before the papal persecution, must be wrong. Bishop Newton, in tracing the parallel between the second and seventh chapters of Daniel, says:— "The legs of iron, and the fourth beast with great iron teeth, correspond exactly; and as iron breaketh in pieces all other metals, so the fourth beast devoured, and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it; and they were both, therefore, equally proper representatives of the fourth kingdom, or the Roman, which was stronger and more powerful than all the former kingdoms. The ten toes, too, and the ten horns, were alike fit emblems of the ten kingdoms, which arose out of the divisions of the Roman Empire." In his Dissertation on Chapter 2, he says:— "The Roman Empire was at length divided into ten lesser kingdoms, answering to the ten toes of the image,497 as we shall see hereafter. These kingdoms retained much of the old Roman strength, and manifested it upon several occasions." And, after giving his own enumeration of these ten kingdoms, he remarks upon the change or transition we have noticed:— "Not that there were constantly ten kingdoms; they were sometimes more and sometimes fewer; but, as Sir Isaac Newton says, 'Whatever was their number afterward, they are still called the ten kings from their first number.'" Bishop Newton gives five different enumerations of the ten kingdoms, of different writers, to wit, Machiavel the historian, Mr. Mede, Bishop Lloyd, Sir Isaac Newton, and his own. And while the difference of these enumerations may raise a query in some minds, they are in truth but a confirmation of the view we advocate. And so he says:— "The few variations in these accounts must be ascribed to the great disorder and confusion of the times, one kingdom falling, and another rising, and scarce any subsisting for a long while together. As a learned writer [Danbuz on Rev. 13] remarks, 'All these kingdoms were variously divided, either by conquest or inheritance. However, as if that number of ten had been fatal in the Roman dominions, it hath been taken notice of upon particular occasions. As about A. D. 1240, by Everard, bishop of Salisburg, in the diet of Ratisbon. At the time of the Reformation, they were also ten. So that the Roman Empire was divided into ten, first and last.' Mr. Whiston, who published his Essay on the Revelation of St. John, in the year 1706, further observes 'that as at the number of the kingdoms, into which the Roman Empire in Europe, agreeably to the ancient prophecies, was originally divided A. D. 456, was exactly ten; so it is also very nearly returned again to the same condition; and at present is divided into ten grand or principal kingdoms or States. For, though there are many more great kingdoms or dominions in Europe besides, yet they are out of the bounds of the old Roman Empire, and so not so directly within our present inquiry.'" And so it appears that, though writing at different times far apart from each other, and viewing them under different circumstances, while great changes were effected among these powers, they yet all speak of them as "the ten kingdoms." And this marks the wonderful precision of the fulfillment of this prophecy, while transition and change was ever going on, as marked out by the prophecy, their identity as "these kings" is unmistakable. Indeed, there is no point on which historians and commentators better agree than this; the wonderful uniformity with which they call the divisions of the Roman Empire, represented by the feet and toes of the image of Dan. 2, "the ten kings." A Review of Jesus's Trial and Condemnation.
The following partial review of the events preceding the crucifixion of Christ is from “Andrews' Life of Christ.” It is well worth a careful reading:— After Jesus was brought back to Pilate, the latter calls together “the chief priests and the rulers and the people.” (Luke 23:13.) He now designs to pronounce him innocent and end the trial, and therefore seats himself upon his judgment seat. (Matt. 26:19.) There was a custom that at this feast, a prisoner chosen by the people should be released from punishment. As to the origin of this custom nothing definite is known. From the language of the Synoptists, kata eorteen, it has been inferred that at each of the feasts a prisoner was released. John, however, confines it to the Passover, and it might have had some special reference to the release of the people from Egyptian bondage. No traces of it are to be found in later Jewish writings. It may possibly have been established by the Romans as a matter of policy, but more probably it was of Jewish origin, and continued by the Roman governors. Whether Pilate had this custom in mind when he took his seat upon the tribunal, is not certain; but his words (Luke 23:16) strongly imply this, as well as the fact that he had gathered the people together with the chief priests and rulers. Ascending the tribunal, he formally declares that, having examined Jesus, he had found no fault in him, neither had Herod, to whom he had sent him; and after chastising him, he will therefore release him. It seems from the scope of the narrative that he intended to chastise Jesus, thus to propitiate the priests, and then to release him under the custom without further consulting the people. In this way, apparently, Pilate thought to satisfy all: the people by releasing him; the priests and the elders by chastising him; and himself, by delivering him from death. But he satisfied none. The people, reminded of their claim, began to clamor for it, but they did not demand that Jesus should be released. To satisfy the priests and rulers, his chastisement was far too light a punishment. The cry is raised, “Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas.” Pilate, who knew how well affected the people at large had been to Jesus, cannot believe that they will reject him and choose Barabbas; and he therefore accepts the alternative, and leaves them to elect between the two. Of this Barabbas, son of Abbas, little is known. According to some authorities, the true reading (Matt. 27:16 and 17) is Jesus Barabbas. From the statements of the Evangelists respecting him, it appears that he was one of that numerous and constantly growing party who detested the Roman rule, and who afterward gained such notoriety as the Zealots. In company with others, he had stirred up an insurrection in the city, and had committed murder, (Mark 15:7; Luke 23:19.) John speaks of him as a robber also; but this crime was too common to attract much attention, or bring upon its perpetrator much odium. Josephus, speaking of Florus says that “he did all but proclaim throughout the country that every one was at liberty to rob, provided he might share in the plunder.” It is remarkable that this man was confessedly guilty of the very crime with which the priests and rulers had falsely charged Jesus—that of sedition; and no plainer proof of their hypocrisy could be given to the watchful Pilate than their efforts to release the former and to condemn the latter. And this it was easy for them to effect; for the tide of popular feeling ran very strong in favor of national independence, and one who had risen up against the Romans, and had shed blood in the attempt, was deemed rather a hero and a patriot than a murderer. On the other hand, Jesus, so far from encouraging the rising enmity to Roman rule, had always inculcated obedience and submission—teachings ever unpalatable to a subject nation. It is probable, too, that most of those present were the citizens of Jerusalem, rather than the pilgrims from other parts of the land; and, if there were some from Galilee, that they did dare, in opposition to the rulers, to express openly their wishes. The Synoptists agree that Pilate made three several attempts to persuade the people to release Jesus, though the order of the attempts is not the same in all. The events may be thus arranged: Pilate presents to the people the two, Jesus and Barabbas, between whom they were to choose. A little interval followed, during which he received his wife's message. He now formally asks the people whom they wished to have released. (Matt. 27:21; Mark 15:9; Luke 23:16-18.) They answer, Barabbas. Pilate, hoping that by changing the form of the question he could obtain an answer more in accordance with his wishes, says, “What shall I do then with Jesus, which is called Christ?” (Matt. 27:22; Mark 15:12. Luke 23:20, does not give the question; but the answer shows that it must have been the same in Matthew and Mark.) To this they reply, “Let him be crucified.” Alexander (on Mark 15:13) suggests that the cry, “Crucify him,” arose from the fact that, as Barabbas, by the Roman law, would have been crucified, Jesus should now stand in his stead and bear his punishment. Bynaeus (iii. 118) explains it on the ground that crucifixion was the usual punishment of sedition, of which he was accused. Pilate now sees that not only do the people reject Jesus, but that they insist upon the most severe and ignominious punishment. They call for crucifixion. He had not anticipated this, and will reason with them. He therefore asks, “Why, what evil hath he done?” (Matt. 27:23; Mark 15:14.) Luke (23:22) adds: “I have found no cause of death in him; I will therefore chastise him and let him go.” This judicial declaration of his innocence, and attempt to substitute the milder punishment, only cause the people to cry out the louder, “Let him be crucified.” We infer that Pilate, having yielded to the priests and rulers, sent him to be scourged as preliminary to his crucifixion, which was done by the soldiers in their usual cruel way; that beholding him bloody from the scourge, clothed with the purple robe, and wearing the crown of thorns, his own compassion was awakened, and he resolved to make one last effort to deliver him from death. He leads him forth, and after an emphatic declaration for the third time that he finds no fault in him, presents him to the people, saying, “behold the man.” He hoped that the sight of one so meek, so helpless, so wretched, would touch the hearts of all as it had touched his own. Stier gives rightly the meaning of his words: “Is this man a king? An insurgent? A man to be feared, or dangerous? How innocent, and how miserable? Is it not enough?” It is probable, as said by Jones, that as he wore the crown of thorns and purple robe, so he also bore in his hand the reed. But nothing could touch the hearts of his imbittered enemies. As they saw him, the chief priests and officers raised anew the cry, “Crucify him, crucify him.” It is not said that the people at large joined in it; and perhaps for a time, through fear or pity, they were silent. Angry at the implacable determination of the rulers that Jesus should be crucified, Pilate tauntingly responds to the cry, “Take ye him and crucify him, for I find no fault in him.” Lardner (1. 54) paraphrases these words: “You must crucify him, then, yourselves, if you can commit such a villainy, for I cannot. He appears to me innocent, as I have told you already, and I have now punished him as much as he deserves.” The Jews now perceived that Pilate, knowing that the charge of sedition was baseless, and deeply sympathizing with Jesus, would not put him to death; and are compelled to return to the original charge of blasphemy. “We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.” This mention of the fact that Jesus made himself the Son of God, had a power over Pilate, who now heard of it for the first time, which the Jews little anticipated. Was then his prisoner, whose appearance, words, and conduct had so strangely and so deeply interested him, a divine being? Full of fear he returns to the judgment hall, and commands Jesus to be brought, and demands, “Whence art thou?” His silence at first, and still more his answer afterward, confirmed Pilate in his determination to release him; and he may probably have taken some open step toward it. But the rulers threaten that if he release him he thereby shows that he is Cæsar's enemy, and that they will accuse him before the emperor. Pilate now perceives the danger of his position. Such an accusation he must, at any cost, avoid. His administration would not, in many respects, bear a close scrutiny; and the slightest suspicion that he had shown favor to a claimant of the Jewish throne, falling into the ear of the jealous and irritable Tiberius, would have endangered, not only his office, but his life. Such peril he could not meet. The shrewd elders and priests, who knew the selfish weakness of his character, pressed their advantage, and Pilate dared do no more. Jesus must be crucified. He now prepares to give final sentence. But he will first clear himself of the guilt of shedding innocent blood. He takes the water and washes his hands before all, to show that he is clean. “Then answered all the people, His blood be on us and on our children.” At this moment, about to give sentence, Pilate could not give up the poor satisfaction of mocking the Jews in what he knew well to be a most tender point: their Messianic hopes. He cries out, “Behold your king.” His contemptuous words only bring back the fierce response; “Away with him; crucify him.” Still more bitterly he repeats, “Shall I crucify your king?” The answer of the chief priests, for the people are not said to have joined in it, “We have no king but Cæsar,” was an open renunciation of their allegiance to Jehovah, and of the covenant which He had made with the house of David (2 Sam. 7:12). Thus had the Jews been led, step by step, not only to reject their Messiah, to prefer a robber and murderer before him, to insist mercilessly that he should be put to a most shameful death, but even to accept and openly proclaim the Roman emperor as their king. This was the culminating point of national apostasy. WISDOM is the principal thing.—Bible. Scriptural Meaning of the Word Soul.
THE following additional instances we give of the use of the word soul in connection with death. Job 33:22. His soul draweth near unto the grave.
Job 36:14. They die in youth. Heb., their soul dieth, etc.
Ps. 7:2. Lest he tear my soul like a lion, rending it in pieces.
Ps. 22:20. Deliver my soul from the sword.
Verse 29. And none can keep alive his own soul.
Ps. 35:17. Rescue my soul from their destructions.
Ps. 78:50. He spared not their soul from death.
Ps. 116:8. For thou hast delivered my soul from death.
Ps. 119:175. Let my soul live, and it shall praise thee. Compare Ps. 115:17, and 6:5.
Prov. 28:17. A man that doeth violence to the blood of any person shall flee to the pit. Heb., to the blood of any soul.
Isa. 53:10. When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin.
Verse 12. He hath poured out his soul unto death. Compare Acts 2:31.
Jer. 2:34. In thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the poor innocents.
Jer. 38:17. If thou wilt assuredly go forth unto the king of Babylon's princes, then thy soul shall live.
Verse 20 the same.
Jer. 40:14. Dost thou certainly know that Baalis the king of the Ammonites hath sent Ishmael the son of Nethaniah to slay thee? Heb., to smite thy soul.
Verse 15. Wherefore should he slay thee? Heb., smite thy soul.
Eze. 13:19. To slay the souls that should not die, and to save the souls alive that should not live.
Eze. 18:4. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. Verse 20 the same.
Verse 27. He shall save his soul alive.
Eze. 22:27. To shed blood, and to destroy souls, to get dishonest gain. The same method of expression is found in the New Testament. Jas. 5:20. He which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death. And the New Testament also gives evidence that the soul expresses the selfhood or personality of the man or being to which it refers. Matt. 10:28. Fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matt. 16:26. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul. Other texts the same. Note the parallel in the following passage.
Luke 9:25. For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? The import of the many passages cited is unmistakable. They show that the soul is wearied, faints, hungers, eats and drinks, may be killed, and if incorrigibly sinful, shall die or be destroyed. So plain and harmonious is their testimony that it would seem that no one, having any reverence for the word of God, would ever make an effort to evade their force. It cannot be done by any just construction of the language; and yet the effort is constantly being made. The language is spiritualized, that is, it is made to mean something which it does not express. But to this process of accommodation, as it is called, we should never resort. We do not say that figures of speech, symbols, etc., should not be used or considered as such; but we do say that plain language, should never be construed to mean something which it does not say, unless in the nature of the subject, or from the context, it appears that the apparent meaning is not the true one. In this case no such reason exists. 1. We have the concessions of the ablest Bible critics, the best scholars, the most ardent believers in the immortality of the soul, that the word is used in reference to all creatures possessed of animal life, down to the very lowest grades. 2. There is no text in all the Bible which connects the two words, soul and immortality; that is, the Scriptures do not say or even intimate that the soul is immortal. 3. Death is the penalty of transgression, and penalties, even as laws, must be taken literally unless an explanation of some term gives to it a different signification. But in such case the explanation itself must be in terms clear and explicit. 4. Almost every word which language contains has been used in the Scriptures to express the utter destruction of the soul or being which falls under the curse of the divine law. 5. Not a single term or instance occurs by or in which the terms die, destroy, perish, etc., are shown to be modified when they are used in reference to the punishment of the soul, or the sinner. Such facts as these ought to have due weight in the consideration of the subject. In regard to the fact marked 4, above, inasmuch as the power and force of language is exhausted to express the utter destruction, or death, of the sinner, it is revealed as clearly as language can be made to express ideas. Were we to state it in our own language, with the purpose to make it as strong as we possibly could, we would know of no method of statement which we could adopt which is not found in the Bible. On the other side, every believer in the immortality of the soul must confess that, if it were his privilege to frame the testimony which should reveal the assumed fact that the soul is immortal, he could express it in many forms of language which the Bible does not contain. In the first place, we have no doubt, they would directly say, “The soul is immortal, and cannot die.” Such a statement in the Bible would be a great relief to the advocates of that doctrine. Any equivalent to such language would be accepted by us as a final settlement of the question. But when the Scriptures contain no such statement, and no statement from which such an idea may be justly or necessarily inferred, but do contain the statements, reiterated over and over, that the soul shall die, that it shall perish, that it shall be destroyed, we insist that those who have opposed the doctrine of the soul’s entire mortality ought to candidly accept the testimony, and cease to argue that the soul is immortal. That they do not yield to the force of these statements, but tenaciously hold on to a doctrine of which Plato, the pagan philosopher, is admitted to be the best exponent, causes us to believe that their belief in and reverence for the statements of the Bible are not so strong as they profess; perhaps not so strong as they themselves believe it to be. For it is a fact that people do not always understand the motives which influence their actions, or the reasons underlying their belief. The main point of dissent from this plain testimony of the Bible is on the definition of die, or death. On this we say it is just and reasonable that all terms in a law should be plain and explicit. In reference to this very point that great Christian reasoner, John Locke, said:— “It seems a strange way of understanding a law which requires the plainest and directest words, that by death should be meant eternal life in misery. . . . I confess that by death, here, I can understand nothing but a ceasing to be, the losing of all actions of life and sense. Such a death came upon Adam and all his posterity, by his first disobedience in Paradise, under which death they should have lain forever had it not been for the redemption by Jesus Christ.”—Reasonableness of Christianity. And Dr. Taylor well said:— “Death was to be the consequence of his [Adam’s] disobedience, and the death here threatened can be opposed only to that life God gave Adam when he created him.” Webster gives the following as the definition of die:— “To pass from an animate to a lifeless state; to cease to live; to suffer a total and irreparable loss of action of the vital functions; to become dead; to decease; to expire. 2. To suffer death; to lose life. 3. To cease; to become lost or extinct.” And of death as follows:— “That state of being, animal or vegetable, but more particularly of an animal, in which there is total and permanent cessation of all the vital functions, when the organs have only ceased to act, had lost the susceptibility of renewed action; cessation of life; extinction of bodily life; decease; demise; departure; dissolution; exit. 2. Total privation or loss; extinction, as the death of memory.” In our next we will endeavor to point out further the necessity of giving these terms their obvious meaning, and to show that violence is done to the language and to the facts of Scripture in imagining unnecessary and so-called “theological meanings.” Tithes and Offerings.
By Editor
GIVING to the cause of God is a genuine Christian grace. A Christian character is not formed by any one act or habit. Many professed Christians have one-sided or ill-formed and unbalanced characters because they are satisfied to discharge a part of their duties, and strangely think they can be accepted as disciples of Christ while knowingly neglecting some things which are required in the Scriptures. A man may do many things which are right and good, and yet, by refusing or neglecting to do other things which are right, his character be far from that of a consistent Christian. A man may give all his goods to feed the poor, and yet lack that charity without which he is nothing. He may have faith to remove mountains, and yet lack as to be nothing. But we must not therefore conclude that faith and sacrifices are of no use. They are both important graces. Some say in their hearts, if they do not speak it, that the Lord does not need what little I can give to carry on his work. Indeed he does not; he is not reduced to such straits. Nor does he need your faith, your services, your prayers; he does not need your salvation. The minister may say the same thing: My labor of preaching is not necessary to the triumph of the cause of God. That is true. The cause of God will triumph if we all leave it. It was not absolutely necessary that the disciples cry “Hosanna,” when Jesus rode into Jerusalem. The prophecy could be fulfilled without them, for God could give voices to the stones, and thus have his word honored. But God has appointed to save men through faith, and by the foolishness of preaching to effect that work; and he has committed that work to men. If we do not do the work he has given us, somebody else will be appointed unto it, and we will lose our crowns. Though God does not need our service, we need it in order to our salvation. God does not need that we shall be saved; his purposes of grace will be vindicated, and his truth will triumph though we are lost. But this throws back upon us the terrible question, Shall we be lost? If we presume upon the Lord’s mercies, and neglect our duties, we shall be lost as certainly as if we were the most incorrigible unbelievers. Paul presents this subject in this light. “Not because I desire a gift,” said he; for he had proved his ability and willingness to supply his own wants; “but I desire fruit that may abound to your account.” We all stand in need of that which shall abound to our account. Man is naturally selfish and covetous. By living to himself he becomes still more selfish. By acting with generosity he cultivates a generous spirit. By self-denial he overcomes the world. We have reason to be thankful that the financial standing of the California Conference is as good as it is at the commencement of this Conference year. But we have no reason to be satisfied with what has been done the past year. A larger sum ought to be on deposit, or loaned to our College. The cause is moving forward, and increasing in magnitude. Its wants must increase. There was so much more done in establishing the College, during the past year, than the friends of the enterprise thought it possible to do in one year, that they have yet hardly realized the greatness of the work, and what is necessary to keep it progressing. Who, that loves the cause, does not rejoice at the progress of the work in California during the past year?499 But much more can be done and ought to be done. The tithe money raised in this Conference is far less in amount than it ought to be. This we know, because there are many Seventh-day Adventists who pay no tithes at all. Why do not the officers of the several churches look to this matter? The churches might be stronger in spiritual strength than they are if all the members were mindful of this important duty. We have not the remotest doubt that, if our people had done something in this matter, there would have been raised, during the past year, from $3,000 to $5,000 more in this State. And this without burdening anybody, for tithes burden nobody; but, to the contrary, the brethren would have been greatly blessed. Blessed in the growth of a spirit of liberality, and blessed because God has promised to bless those who love and serve him in self-denial and renunciation of a spirit of worldliness. What a benefit it would be to the cause, also, at this time, to have so much more means to use. It could be used in aid of the College, and of the Health Retreat, which is just now in great need of help. These institutions might be placed where they could sustain themselves, and as new calls were made to spread the truth, the officers could draw on this fund, and not stand in doubt of the propriety of enlarging the work for fear the means would not be supplied. And our Seaman’s Mission needs to be enlarged, and more time spent and labor performed, and more means must be appropriated. It is now too limited in its operations. What shall be done? Will the officers of the Conference and of the churches take this matter in hand? We hope they will, and without loss of time.