Earlier text: General ArticlesDAVID AND HIS SIN.
By Eld. W. H. Littlejohn
BY ELD. W. H. LITTLEJOHN. WHEREVER the Bible is read, the writings and history of King David are destined to occupy a conspicuous place in the thoughts of men. In what he has written and said in the Psalms and elsewhere, the devout mind finds a spiritual aliment which affords consolation and instruction adapted to nearly every want and circumstance in life. In what he has done, the infidel finds a weapon which he employs with more or less effect in his warfare against the inspiration of the Scriptures. On one occasion the Lord declared that "David was a man after his own heart." This declaration has furnished the text for many a labored attack upon the character of the God of the Bible. "Why," says the caviler, "if David was indeed a man after the heart of the God of Israel, then that God furnishes us with an adulterer and a murderer as a model of the highest type of manhood of which he can conceive. But such a statement we cannot accept as a true representation of the ideal of manhood which the God of the universe does really hold; and we therefore reject the whole statement, and the scriptures which contain it, as a sheer fabrication and a libel upon the character of the great Author of all things." With this declaration, the issue is squarely made between those who are believers in the inspiration of the Old Testament and those who are deistical in their way of thinking. At first blush it would seem, also, that the rejecter of God's word possesses an advantage in the argument which it would be hard to overcome. No unprejudiced mind can believe for a moment that murder or adultery is right. When, therefore, the objector fastens the one squarely, and the other at least by complicity, upon an individual who was not only a king but also a prophet of the Most High, it is difficult to see how it would be possible to vindicate the God of David if, indeed, it is true, as charged that David was approved by him as holy while in the continued commission of these wrong acts. But before we surrender all faith in a book which purports to be a revelation from Heaven to fallen man, and which in its teaching is, as a whole, as outspoken in its condemnation of the sins in question as the infidel possibly can be, let us first inquire whether his premises are well taken and his conclusions correctly drawn therefrom. We inquire, therefore, Was David guilty of adultery? The answer is necessarily in the affirmative. We inquire again, Did he connive at the destruction of Uriah the Hittite for the purpose of shielding himself from shame? The reply is once more in the affirmative. We ask still further, Did the God of Heaven ever approve David for the commission of either of these deeds? Here the reply is positively in the negative. So far was he from doing so that he sent to the king the prophet Nathan, to declare to him the parable of the little ewe lamb which was the only property of the poor man, and which his rich neighbor took by violence from him and slew, for the express purpose of helping the king to see the enormity of his sin in the case of the wife of Uriah, and of furnishing an opportunity to express the utter abhorrence in which his course in the matter was held by the God of Heaven. (2 Sam., chap. 12.) In order, also, to put the matter beyond the region of debate, it is declared in the eleventh chapter and twenty-seventh verse of second Samuel that "the thing that David had done displeased the Lord;" and in the twelfth chapter of the same book, that God—not satisfied with a simple denunciation in words of the king's course—also declared unto him that as a punishment of his crime the sword should not depart from his house; at the same time smiting with death the illegitimate offspring of the king's lust. How far the threatenings of Jehovah were fulfilled the sad history of murder, rape, and rebellion in the king's own household, and among his own offspring, bears ample testimony. Having shown now that the skeptic is wrong in asserting that God did really indorse the action of David, we are prepared to consider candidly and carefully the declaration that the latter "was a man after God's own heart." Is such language as is claimed by the infidel anywhere employed in the Scriptures? The next interrogator to be propounded is, Was it before or after the king's connection with the matter of Uriah and his wife that the language was employed? An examination of the record shows that according to the chronology of our Bibles, this language was used fifty-eight years before the crimes had transpired which have been passing in review. Here, then, two important facts are brought out. The first is that David's great transgression occurred in the latter part of his life, and that God emphatically condemned and punished the same, as positively set forth in the word. The second is, that the words of commendation and approval which God spoke of the king were uttered while yet he was innocent of adultery and complicity in the destruction of Uriah. Putting these things together, we find that the infidel has made out his case by a perversion of the facts which appertain thereto. He represents God as approving the course of David and cites as evidence the fact that the former spoke commendably of the latter, leaving us to infer that he did so after the latter had committed the sins in question. But as this is not true, he has utterly failed to carry his point, unless he can show that God could not properly approve the course of a man at one period of his life, and disapprove it at another. By no means. The slightest reflection will satisfy the candid reader that the life of many a man can be shown to have been exemplary and worthy of commendation up to a given point, whose subsequent course—as the result of strong temptation—has been characterized by deeds of the darkest hue. Many a criminal has been able to point to the first step which he took in his downward course, and back of that to a life of comparative innocence. As in their cases so in that of David. His earliest history was his best history. Up to the fatal hour of the king's walk upon the housetop, and his consequent amour with the wife of Uriah, his chastity, according to the standard of these times, was unimpeachable. How unfair, therefore, the course of the infidel, who, ignoring this fact and the positive reprobation, in so many words, of David's course by the God of Heaven, seeks, by confounding the dates of the commission of the specific sins by David and God's indorsement of him, to deceive the unlearned and unwary into the belief that the God of the Bible had approved in the case of David of great immorality in action. The only justification which can possibly be offered in the behalf of those who persist in thus misrepresenting the real attitude of the author of the Scriptures as related to the sins of one of the greatest men that ever lived, must be looked for in the ignorance of those who indulge in the same. If, however, they shall still persist in their misrepresentation when apprised of their mistake, then this plea even cannot be offered in their behalf. Should it be urged by any that the difficulties of the case are not entirely removed by the explanation given, since God did employ David subsequently to his fall, then we reply that—granting this to be the case—he was wholly justified in so doing; for if David sinned he repented of that sin in bitterness of soul, and turned again to the God of Heaven with his whole heart. Will any one insist that after he had done so God ought still to cast him off, and to refuse to him a place of honor or usefulness? Should they do so, we inquire, Who, then, can God employ in manifesting himself to men? If it be true that he ought only to use those as the mediums of his revelation who have never sinned, and if it be true that thorough repentance for sin when once committed will not render it possible for God to employ the individual thus repenting as an instrument in his service, then he is precluded from revealing himself to us altogether; since "there is none that doeth good and sinneth not." To our mind, the fact that God received David back to full favor after full contrition, instead of furnishing us an occasion for cavil, should be accepted as one for profound gratitude and thanksgiving; since it affords to all the assurance that their past transgressions do not necessarily exclude them from the favor of Heaven, and that there is hope for sinners of the deepest dye, provided they repent and reform. To our mind, also, the character of David, when taken as a whole, is—after making all due allowance for the times in which he lived—one of the grandest in history. If he had his faults, he was also possessed of shining virtues. From the humblest walks in life—from following his father's sheep in the wilderness—he rose steadily to the highest honor which his generation could confer. As a warrior, his prowess was unequaled, and his genius was without a parallel in his age. As a king, he was wise and beneficent. As a prophet, his hand swept the chords of human sympathy, and struck the key of human experience, as no other had done before or has done since. As a father, his tenderness of heart and forgiving spirit, as he agonizes and pours forth a flood of tears at the undesired death of a rebellious and unworthy child, are most forcibly brought out in his "would God I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son, my son!" 2 Sam. 18:33. As a fugitive from the unreasoning and unreasonable Saul, his forbearance is most impressively illustrated by his refusal to take vengeance on his adversary when occasion had been offered him again and again. As a repentant sinner, the heartiness and thoroughness of his contrition afford manifest evidence that, although possessed of the weaknesses of human nature, there was in him after all a strength of principle which gave him the victory in the last resort. Sad it is indeed that through one fatal mistake his career has been measurably clouded. But even in that mistake we see a disposition to counteract the terrible effects which would naturally follow. This he could not do altogether. The prophet declared that in his fall the wicked should take occasion to blaspheme God. (2 Sam. 12:14.) How fully this prediction has been realized the necessity for this article proves. While, therefore, we regret the action, and the occasion which it has afforded to the enemies of God for traducing his word, our faith in that word should be strengthened when we see how literally this prophecy concerning the course which the enemies of God would pursue in reference to David's sin has been fulfilled in ages in the past, and how literally it is accomplished even before our own eyes. READER, have you ever reflected that you are not keeping the day which Christ, his apostles, and the primitive Christians observed? There is no evidence that the first day, or Sunday, was observed even as a festival, until some time in the second century. The first law for Sunday was that of Constantine in A. D. 321; from that time forward ecclesiastical and state influences were used with rigor to turn the people from the observance of the Sabbath, and oblige them to keep Sunday. Christians generally continued to keep the Sabbath until the fifth century, as is evident from the oldest authorities on the subject, of whom are Morer and Geisler. To this effect Dr. Twisse quotes Baronius, Gomaris, and Rivet. The same testimony is given by Dr. Lyman Coleman of Philadelphia in his "Ancient Christianity," chap. xxvi, § 2:— "The last day of the week was strictly kept for a long time after the overthrow of the temple and its worship. Down even to the fifth century the observance of the Jewish Sabbath was continued in the Christian church. During the early ages it was entitled 'the Sabbath,' this word being confined to the seventh day of the week, which, as we have already said, continued to be observed for several centuries by the converts to Christianity. No law or precept appears to have been given by Christ, or the apostles, either for the abrogation of the Jewish Sabbath, or the institution of the Lord's day, or the substitution of the first for the seventh day of the week." The Abyssinians have always observed the Sabbath. Traces of Sabbath-keeping in Europe are found from the sixth century to the sixteenth. In the year 600 there was a class of Sabbath-keepers in Rome who were denounced by the Pope. Erasmus speaks of Sabbatarians in Bohemia. Many of the Waldenses were called Sabbatatti, because, as Benedict says, "they met for worship on the seventh day, and did not regard the first day Sabbath." From references by old authors, it appears that in the beginning of the sixteenth century there were Christian Sabbath-keepers in Germany, Holland, and England. The Sabbath controversy in England waxed great497 from 1585 to 1685. It has been continued in England and America ever since, but at no period has it assumed such proportions as within the past forty years. The present number of Christian Sabbath-keepers in Western Europe and America is supposed to be about 40,000, with an increase of more than a thousand annually. This does not include the Russian Sabbath-keepers, who are reported to number more than a million. Thus, from the time of the apostles until the present day, there have existed Gentile Christians who have faithfully adhered to and observed the seventh day—the true Sabbath of the fourth commandment.—London Sabbath Memorial. The Sabbath School.
By Mrs. W. F. Crafts
ATTENTION AND DISCIPLINE.
Dear Teacher Friend: I have made a visit to Miss T.'s class, having heard much of her excellent methods of securing attention and good order. Knowing so well the great interest you have in your work, and knowing, too, your desire to go on to perfection in the art of teaching, I want to give you the advantage of what I saw and heard. When Miss T. entered the room, the assistant teachers and the children were all in their places. She came before them with a bustling, cordial manner, laying her Bible on the little table. For the moment every eye was upon her, and before those eyes had time to wander and carry the attention with them, she had commenced the exercises. It seemed as if she had swept the "pansy-bed," and held them all in a beautiful bouquet close to her heart. After the "introductory exercise," the lesson was given to the assistant teachers. Each little group of teacher and class put their heads so close together that you could almost have put a bushel basket over them. I said to myself, I do hope no tardy ones will break up those interested little circles. Just then the door opened, and in came two little tots. Miss T. gently intercepted them, and gave them seats so near me that I heard her ask, "What has made my little friends late this morning?" "Breakfast wasn't in time," was sobbed out. "Look over to your class and see how hard they are thinking and talking about the lesson. If you go there and talk about you; will you go there, or stay here?" "Stay here." I noticed that these children were allowed to take their places in the class just before the closing exercise, in which Miss T. then assumed full charge with a manner that indicated such perfect confidence in the children's disposition to do right that for them to have done otherwise would have been like betraying trust. If it had not been a mission school I should have said to myself, I wonder where the troublesome children go to Sunday-school? surely not here. Nothing was said about order during the whole session. Just before beginning the closing exercise the children were allowed to rise and sing a song, accompanied with appropriate motions. I thought it was a happy way of resting little bodies that would otherwise have to move and be called disorderly. I noticed that Miss T. made the motions which she wanted the children to make. I was favorably impressed with the naturalness of her voice. She always used pleasant, conversational tones, and in this regard differed from the majority of primary teachers I have heard, whose voices were either too loud, or had in them a patronizing element. The quality of the voice has great influence in a class. Have you not yourself felt this when listening to different public speakers whose voices seemed to have the power either to soothe or irritate? At the close of the school Miss T. apologized for not speaking with me before, saying that it was her habit to devote herself wholly to the class during the session. We walked away from the church together. And now I want to give you a few extracts from our conversation, for I am sure I gained some hints which must be a part of her secret of success. I said, "I was gratified by the order in your class; but are you not sometimes obliged to give reproof, or ask for quiet?" "I never tell children to keep quiet," was her reply, "but I correct myself, rather than the children. If my class becomes restless, I am sure that I have grown tedious, so I either brighten my lesson, or change the exercise. Sometimes there will be a degree of inattention or play in any class, for which the teacher is hardly responsible. In such cases I ask the disorderly ones questions on the lesson; or, if possible, go and stand by them, making no mention of the fault, however, as that would destroy the attention of the whole class." "If you should not succeed in checking the disorder by diversion, what would you do?" I asked. "Quietly dispose of the offender by seating him alone, continuing all the time to talk about the lesson." "Some teachers, you know, have difficulty not only in keeping, but also in securing attention." "Children should not be required to pay strict attention until there is something to receive for it. To request attention before the exercises or lesson begins, reminds me of the individual who had agreed to teach a class of boys and girls to whistle. The smiling which followed rendered whistling impossible. I am persuaded that the quickest, surest, and pleasantest way to gain the attention is not to ask for it, but to win it. I cannot say that I have ever had the perfect attention of a class from the beginning to the end of a lesson, but I have been able to prevent habitual inattention on the part of any children by asking several in succession to give answers to the same question, and by having their replies repeated by the whole class simultaneously, or by any one who seemed disposed to be inattentive. In all this, then, there is for you and me this thought: Win attention and order, rather than demand it." I was here reminded of what Dr. Gregory has said about securing attention. He says in substance, attention is of two sorts—compelled, and attracted. The former is only momentary, because it is mechanical, and therefore purely external. The latter scarcely knows any fatigue, because it is vital—hunger, seeking food—excited interest, seeking gratification. "Yes," Miss T. replied, "but we must not forget that 'fixed attention is physically impossible in a child for any lengthened period.'" Now I am going to close this letter by giving you a few extracts from Pestalozzi, "the father of popular education:"— "When I recommend to a mother to avoid wearying a child by her instructions, I do not wish to encourage the notion that instruction should always take the character of amusement, or even of a play. A child must, very early in life, be taught that exertion is indispensable for the attainment of knowledge. But a child should not be taught to look upon exertion as an evil." "I would suggest that the best means to prevent this is to adopt a mode of instruction by which the children are less left to themselves—less thrown upon the unwelcome employment of passive listening—less harshly treated for little and excusable failings, but more roused by questions, animated by illustrations, interested and won by kindness." "Interest in study is the first thing which a teacher, a mother, should endeavor to excite and keep alive. There are scarcely any circumstances in which a want of application in children does not proceed from a want of interest. There are, perhaps, none in which a want of interest does not originate in the mode of teaching adopted by the teacher. If he is not, with his whole mind, present at the subject—if he does not care whether it is understood or not, whether his manner is liked or not—he will never fail of alienating the affections of his pupils, and rendering them indifferent to what he says. But real interest taken in the task of instruction—kind words, and kinder feelings, the expression of the features, and the glance of the eye—are never lost upon children."—Mrs. W. F. Crafts. Order in the Sabbath School
ALWAYS have order in the Sabbath-school. Get it by insisting on it quietly, allowing nothing to proceed when the order is not perfect. If you consume one session in getting order, it will have been spent most profitably. Keep order by infusing a spirit of devout and joyful worship into your exercises. "THAT boy knows how to take care of his gold dust," said Tom's uncle often to himself, and sometimes aloud. Tom went to college, and every account they heard of him he was going ahead, laying a solid foundation for the future. "Certainly," said his uncle, "certainly; that boy, I tell you, knows how to take care of his gold dust." "Gold dust!" Where did Tom get gold dust? He was a poor boy. He had not been to California. He never was a miner. When did he get gold dust? Ah! he has seconds and minutes, and these are the gold dust of time—specks and particles of time which boys and girls and grown-up people are apt to waste and throw away. Tom knew their value. His father, our minister, had taught him that every speck and particle of time was worth its weight in gold, and his son took care of them as if they were. Take care of your gold dust!—Little American. TEST OF LOYALTY.
By R. F. Cottrell
THERE are two branches of the law of God; the one growing out of our relation to our Creator, teaching us how to love him with all our heart; the other founded upon our relation to our fellow-creatures, teaching us our duty to them, that is, how to show that we love our neighbor as ourselves. The first four commandments of the decalogue constitute the first branch of the moral law; the last six, the second. Eight of the ten precepts are negative, teaching us not to do certain acts, not to insult God or injure our neighbor; while two of them are affirmative, requiring us actually to show honor to God and to such of our fellow-men as, from our mutual relation to each other, demand our reverence and obedience. One of these belongs to the first branch of the law, namely, the Sabbath commandment; the other is included in the second branch, the one requiring us to honor our parents. It may be objected that the fourth commandment is negative, forbidding labor on the Sabbath day; but it positively requires us to remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, and then forbids such acts as would profane it. The Sabbath, being a memorial of the Creator's finished work, and instituted on purpose that his creatures might, by special act, honor him, is better adapted to test man's loyalty, than any other precept of the decalogue. Hence he calls it a sign between him and his Israel, for a perpetual covenant. Ex. 31:13, 17; Eze. 20:12, 20. And when he purposed to prove his people in the wilderness, whether they would walk in his law, or not, he chose this very precept as the best calculated for a test of their loyalty. Ex. 16:4, and onward. The keeping of the Sabbath is an acknowledgment of the only living and true God, and this by a positive act of worship, or obedience; hence it is a better test of loyalty than any one of the precepts which precede it. The last message of probationary time will test the people upon the commandments of God. Rev. 14:9-12. But as all professed believers in the religion of the Bible, or at least all Protestants, are agreed in their teachings concerning all the commandments, except the fourth, the test of necessity must come upon the fourth commandment, the Sabbath law. All the poor evasions that have been invented to excuse the almost universal neglect of the only weekly Sabbath of the Bible, only increase the danger of the people in the test that is coming; but he has clearly revealed his purpose of proving this generation, enlightened by all the light of his word and providence, whether they will walk in his law, or not. And so it is not only highly proper, as we have seen, but strictly necessary, that the final test of loyalty to God the Father should be upon this very precept, upon which he tested his people in the wilderness. It is a remarkable fact that the only precept of the moral law, instituted as a special sign of our loyalty to the great Creator, and by which alone, by a special act of outward obedience toward him, we can exhibit our reverence to him as such in the sight of our fellow-men, should be esteemed a non-essential, a thing of no importance, an institution that all are at liberty to bend or abolish to suit their own convenience. But so it is. And this is the reason why the fearful warning of the "third angel" is sent before to apprise all of their danger in the last, grand test of loyalty which is before us. Oh! that men would open their eyes and see that their Creator has a right to be honored by exact obedience to that precept which he instituted as his memorial, and as a test of our loyalty to him. Guard Against Little Vices
NEVER open the door to a little vice, lest a great one should enter. TITHES AND DEBTS—NATURE OF OBLIGATIONS.
By J. H. Waggoner
Some have said—and some even yet say—that they will pay their tithes (or s. b. as the case may be), when they have paid their debts; and that honesty demands that they shall pay their debts first. To be in debt is generally an unfortunate thing; but some have a faculty of ever being in debt, and it would be easy for such to always evade their duty to the cause of God if that were a valid reason. But they who speak thus do not seem to understand the nature of obligations. They act as if all obligations were under their own control, which is not the case. Obligations are of two kinds: 1. Those which are imposed by authority; and, 2. Those which are assumed voluntarily. The former always takes precedence of the latter. As the former are not under our control, and have precedence, we ought always to keep them in view when we take other obligations upon us voluntarily. There are also two sources of authoritative obligation, which might properly be called government obligation, namely, the authority of God, the Supreme Governor, the Dispenser of all good, and the authority of the civil government under which we live. The claim of the government is collected under the name of taxes. It is collectable as a debt—we pay taxes. We never consider them as a gift to the government. The government secures to us the right of holding our property, and protects us from harm—from trespass and assault. In doing this, expenses are incurred of officers, courts of justice, etc., and revenue is collected by means of taxes to keep the machinery of government in motion. Under a good government—one which is truly “for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well,”—no debt should be more cheerfully paid than that which we owe to the government for the security which it affords to life and property. This obligation has come to be so well recognized that very few seek to evade the claim. No one thinks of urging that he cannot pay his taxes until he has paid his debts. His tax is a debt taking precedence of those which he voluntarily incurs. Other debts he ought to pay—this he must pay. Other debts he assumes of his own accord, and from them he might have kept free if he had so chosen or so planned; this is enforced by authority, and he has no option in the matter. Just such an obligation we owe to the government of Heaven. God is the giver of every good and perfect gift; in him we live, and move and have our being; He giveth to us life, and breath, and all things. “Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.” He has a cause on earth to be maintained, and he has appointed that it shall be carried on and maintained by men. The gospel is to be carried to every nation, and preached to every creature. This work was committed to men, not to angels. Means are needed to carry on this work. It is right and just, also, that we recognize the claims of His government, and show our loyalty to it, and acknowledge the benefits which we receive from it. As in the case of the claim of the civil government, we do not give the amount which God claims as his own, and which he calls a tithe. It is a payment—not a gift. Thus the Scriptures speak of paying tithes. “And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord’s; it is holy unto the Lord.” Lev. 27: 30. But the question may be raised: Is not an offering counted a payment as well as the tithe? Yes; but we have stated that there is a difference in the nature of the obligation. Your tax must be paid whether or not you promise to do so,—whether you consent or demur. That belongs to the government. A debt to your neighbor is an obligation voluntarily assumed, and when it is assumed it, too, is binding; it becomes a matter of payment. You pay both your debts and your taxes. And it is precisely so with tithes and offerings. The tithe belongs to the Lord. As a government tax, it is imposed by authority. A vow or free-will offering is an obligation of another nature. It is assumed voluntarily. When assumed, when a vow is made, it becomes binding and must be paid. The Scriptures regard this as a voluntary matter. “Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.” If the vow is not made, the obligation is not incurred. Vows as well as promises to your neighbor, should be made with carefulness and consideration. Carelessness in matters of debt—recklessness in promising, or slackness in payment will speedily destroy our reputation; our credit is ruined. So with vows to the Lord. A vow not paid is called the work of a fool. For this the Lord threatens his anger, and to destroy the work of our hands, Eccl. 5. It is ruinous to our credit in Heaven. But the question of precedence raised in the statement given at the commencement of this article remains to be briefly noticed. If we are not to pay our tithes until we have satisfied all the claims of our fellow-men, it is because the claims of God and his cause are secondary to those of men. Who will insist that this is so? No one will dispute that it is right to render unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; but we do insist that Cæsar’s claims are not paramount to those of God. It should be needless to try to enforce this statement with words, but there are Christian people who have so long viewed these things in a wrong light that they scarcely hold themselves under obligation to honor God’s claims while a claim of man remains against them. This should not be so. Certainly it should not be so among those who profess to be preparing for the coming of the Lord by full obedience to all the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.