Earlier text: General ArticlesCHRIST THE LEADER OF THE ISRAELITES.
By C. P. Bollman
THE subject of the deliverance of the Hebrews from Egyptian bondage is one of the deepest interest to all believers in divine revelation. Some fail to get the full benefit of the history of the exode, because they do not see in it the personal agency of the Son of God. That our divine Lord led his ancient people into the earthly Canaan, even as he will erelong lead the saved of every age into the heavenly land, is most clearly taught in the Scriptures. We turn to Exodus, and there in the third chapter we read that as Moses kept the flock of Jethro, his father-in-law, he led it “to the back side of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb. And the Angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush.” And when Moses saw it, and noticed that the bush was not consumed, he “said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. And . . . God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, . . . Draw not nigh hither; put off thy shoes from off thy feet; for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.” Verses 1-6. The narrative continues: “And the Lord said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people and . . . I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians.” And finally this “Angel of the Lord” declares himself to be the I AM; and he commanded Moses, saying: “Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The Lord God of your fathers, . . . appeared unto me, saying, . . . I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land of the Canaanites.” Verses 7, 8, 16, 17. “Angel” means “messenger;” and a messenger is one who is sent. Then the “Angel of the Lord” must be one who is sent of God; but it could not be God the Father; and yet this being, “the Angel of the Lord,” is called God; and he declared himself to be “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” It is said by some that it was an angel that appeared unto Moses, but that it was God who spoke; and again, it has been suggested that it is said that God spoke because the angel spoke in his name! But both of these positions do violence to the text. For he who spoke said to Moses: “Say unto them, The Lord God of your fathers . . . appeared unto me.” So it is certain that the visible manifestation and the voice were from one and the same being, and that that being was one who is properly called God; just who it was will appear from other scriptures. We have already seen that “the Angel of the Lord” is one whom the Lord sends; and in Ex. 23: 20, 21 we read these words of the Lord: “Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions; for my name is in him.” To whom alone could such language apply? There can be but one answer: To the Son of God, of whom we read: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.” John 1:1, 14. It is the only begotten Son, who bears the name of the Father; and this is what Paul means when he speaks of him “being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.” Heb. 1:4. And that the “more excellent name” is the name “God,” appears from verses 8-12, which are a quotation from the Psalms, where the Father himself says unto the Son: “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands. They shall perish, but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed; but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.” The whole question as to the identity of the Angel in whom was the name of God, might safely be left with the texts already quoted; but in 1 Cor. 10:4 we have a positive testimony upon this point, for there the apostle says plainly that this Angel (which he calls the “Spiritual Rock that followed them”) was Christ. Many more scriptures might be cited to prove that “the work of emancipating, instructing, and leading” the children of Israel was committed to the Son of God, but these must suffice to show that even in the Jewish age “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself.” THE Bible condemns rich men; its whole verdict may be summed up in the words of Christ, "Woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation." Punishment is also promised to the rich. James says, "Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you." In the last days the rich men are found among those who call to the mountains and rocks to fall upon them and hide them from the wrath of the Lamb. In another place they are represented as flinging their gold and silver to the moles and to the bats, for "riches profit not in the day of wrath." Jesus said to his disciples: "Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of Heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." This is a very strong statement, and must signify that being "rich" must mean something more than the mere possession of earthly goods; if it were not so, well might we cry with the disciples, "Who then can be saved?" but Christ says, "With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible." It is not to be supposed that only those men who happen to be the possessors of extensive property are to be classed among those whom the Bible terms rich. It is not so much the mere possession of means that condemns a man, as the trust and affection that are bestowed on them. In this sense it does not take an abundance of means to bring a man under condemnation as being rich. There is such a thing as a rich poor man, that is, a poor man who has a morbid desire for gain. The amount has not so much to do with it as the motive; for the Lord looks at the heart. When the widow cast her two mites into the treasury, Christ said that she had cast in more than all the rest. This principle applies both ways. If the Lord is pleased with the spirit with which two mites are given, he will be just as much displeased with the spirit which withholds two mites; and he can see in a group of men one who comes under the condemnation of being "rich," although in a worldly sense he is the poorest man present. The man who is poor may be regarded by the Lord as "rich," for the Lord sees that he trusts in riches. On the other hand, because a man happens to be the possessor of much earthly treasure, it does not necessarily follow that he will be condemned by the Bible as being "rich." Abraham, we read, "was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold," yet he is called "the friend of God." Job was another very wealthy man, yet the Lord calls him a perfect and upright man, for he with his riches was eyes to the blind and a father to the poor; he caused the widow's heart to sing for joy, and he says, "The cause which I knew not I searched out." These men delighted to use their means for good, and to the glory of God. Their riches were a blessing to them. But it is covetousness that condemns a man. It is the desire to lay up treasure for himself that severs him from God. Says the apostle, "They that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition." Of these men Christ demands an unconditional surrender of all their worldly possessions. When the young man came to Christ and asked what he might do to inherit eternal life, Jesus told him that he only lacked one thing to be perfect, and said to him, "Sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor." He had to give up all, and because he would not do this he lost eternal life. Men who of their abundance give to the poor, do not by so doing free themselves from the condemnation of being rich, although by the world they may be regarded as good and charitable men. The Jews believed that if a man was wealthy, it followed that he was a good man, for the Lord had blessed him. Jesus, to correct this idea, said, "A man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth," and then related the parable of the rich man whose ground brought forth abundantly so that he had not room for his fruits. He then said in his heart, "I will pull down my barns, and build greater." But God said to him, "Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee." From this it is evident that he lost eternal life. No doubt this man was regarded by the world as a good, moral, and upright man, for his only fault was that he laid up treasures for himself and was not rich toward God; in other words, he was a rich man. What the Bible evidently condemns as a rich man is one who gets treasure for a selfish purpose; in fact, any man who does not recognize that he is only the steward of God, must be condemned in like manner. No man is the real owner of anything, but is simply the servant to whom God delivers his goods with the injunction to "occupy till I come;" and any moment the call may come, "Give an account of thy stewardship." If this truth were kept more in mind, there would be less money spent by professed Christians upon self, fashion, and appetite, and people would be more cautious in the use of that which is not their own, lest at the last they hear the fearful words, "Thou mayst no longer be my steward."
FRANK HOPE. “If sinners entice thee, consent thou not.” OBJECT OF THE SABBATH.
By E. J. Waggoner
A SHORT time ago the Rev. F. N. Zabriskie, D. D., wrote a series of articles for the Congregationalist, on "The Bible the Workingmen's Book," in one of which he said:— "The fourth commandment was a law in behalf of workingmen, that they should not be deprived of a weekly rest. The Mosaic law of the Sabbath is often misrepresented, and is apt to be misunderstood by those for whom it is specially intended. The Sabbath, as our Lord Jesus Christ said, 'was made for man,' and being a day of rest, it was, of course, preeminently made for the workingman. The essential object which the commandment seeks is rest from unnecessary labor." This is an idea which is fast gaining ground, and which cannot be too strongly combated. It is the prevalence of this idea which gives a great impetus to the movement in favor of a Sunday law. Because of this idea, many irreligious persons will vote for a law enforcing Sunday observance, when they would not do so if it were set before them on a purely religious basis. Of course the result is the same, no matter what motives prompt those who work for the law. Sunday being essentially an institution of the church, if observance of it is enforced by civil law we shall have to that extent a union of Church and State, even though infidels may have voted for the law. The idea that God's design in appointing a day of rest for man was simply for the wants of the physical nature, is a modern device gotten up by the zealous adherents of Sunday observance, with the design of accomplishing a two-fold purpose with respect to the Sunday. If this theory be accepted, its first result is to make men think that the particular day of the week which shall be observed is of no importance, and that the only object is uniformity for the sake of convenience. And the second result is the enforcement of Sunday, the day which has the most adherents, on the basis that the State has a right to legislate for the physical well-being of its citizens. The Sabbath was made for man; not for one man simply, but for all mankind. The fourth commandment was a law in behalf of the workingmen, only in the sense that God designed that all men should be workingmen. It is true that the Sabbath rest furnishes opportunity for the repair of physical waste, so that man is better able to perform the duties of the week following. But this is incidental; we cannot say that it is even a secondary reason for the giving of the fourth commandment, because it does not enter into the matter at all. The keeping of the Sabbath is primarily an act of worship. The Sabbath was given as a memorial of God's creative power. It was given that man might ever keep in mind the one true God, whose distinguishing characteristic is that he created the heavens and the earth. It was given to guard men against idolatry; for those who keep the Sabbath according to God's appointment, and for the reason for which he appointed it, can never worship false gods. Every man will worship the object which to him seems greatest. Some men think there is nothing greater in creation than themselves, and so they worship themselves. They are called atheists, because the god that they worship is so insignificant that they are considered as not recognizing any God. But the man whose mind is drawn out to meditate upon the wonders of creation, and who realizes that the things that are made reveal the existence of the one only true God, will never worship any inferior being. The Sabbath was appointed for the express purpose of giving man an opportunity to meditate upon God and his works, and thus to keep alive the sentiment of real religion. Those keeping the Sabbath have the first principle of worship to God. The man who thinks that it was given for the purpose of securing proper physical rest to man, has no just conception of the nature of the Sabbath. But since the Sabbath was appointed by the Creator, that man might recognize him as Creator, and since it is purely a matter of worship and of recognition of the true God, it follows as a matter of course that the rest must be upon the particular day which God has designated as the Sabbath. Otherwise God is in reality ignored. Worship implies submission. Submission is indicated by obedience. When a man refuses to obey another, it is because he considers himself equal to, or superior to that other, and of course there would be no thought in his mind of worshiping such an one. So if men really worship God, they will submit to his will in all respects. If they willfully disobey him, they show that their worship is only a form, and that they think more of themselves than they do of him. The Sabbath, as we have shown, is the most simple and direct act of worship to God, and since God has specified the seventh day as the Sabbath, it follows that the keeping of any other day as the Sabbath, is not an act of worship to God. It was the seventh day alone upon which God rested from his work of creation. The seventh day alone was blest by him because he had rested upon it, and it was the seventh day and no other, which God appointed for man's observance, with the design that as God upon that day had viewed all his works and pronounced them very good, so man should upon that day consider the works of God and should glorify the Creator. w. "A WEIGHTY AND TIMELY UTTERANCE."
By w.
DR. BAILEY closes up his Sunday argument thus:— "I present but one additional argument; and this I address to those who read the Greek language. If we translate literally the Greek Testament in all four of the evangelists, when speaking of the resurrection of Christ, it would show that a new order of Sabbaths began at that time. In Matt. 28:1 it reads literally, 'In the end of Sabbaths as it began to dawn towards the first of Sabbaths, came Mary Magdalene.' The word Sabbath is sabbaton, genitive plural, with no article preceding; so it is in end of Sabbaths; and the word translated week is also sabbaton, genitive plural with no article. It reads eis mian sabbaton, towards the first of Sabbaths, as if the old order of Sabbaths had passed away, and a new order of Sabbaths had begun. In Mark 16:1 it reads literally, 'And when the Sabbath (singular number) was past, Mary Magdalene,' etc. Verse 2, 'Now upon the first of Sabbaths they came to the sepulcher.' The same transition is here marked from the old to the new Sabbaths. In Luke 24:1 it reads: 'Now upon the first of Sabbaths, very early in the morning they came unto the sepulcher.' Luke uses the article, the first of the Sabbaths, but his language, like that of Matthew and Mark, indicates a new order of things. John 20:1 reads, literally: 'The first of the Sabbaths cometh Mary Magdalene while it was yet dark unto the sepulcher.'" The only mistake in the above, from the Sunday point of view, is in addressing the "argument" to those who read the Greek language. The writer evidently gave it for the effect it would have on those who know nothing of the Greek, for no one who has even a little knowledge of that language would be deceived by statements so palpably absurd. The translation of the passages to which he refers is literally exact in the Authorized Version, and no one having a reputation as a scholar to maintain, would dare attempt to translate them differently. We dislike to refer to the Greek, when writing for the general reader, because those who do not read that language have not the power to verify what we say. But we must notice this perversion of the Scripture, and will try to do it in such a way as to be understood by all. It is true that in Matt. 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, and John 20:1, the word rendered "week" is sabbaton. On this word Dr. Robinson, who by the way was a Baptist, in his Lexicon of the New Testament says:— "Meton., a sabbath, put for the interval 'from Sabbath to Sabbath;' hence a se'nnight, week; so especially Luke 18:12, nesteuo dis tou sabbatou. Elsewhere only after numerals marking the days of the week; Mark 16:9, prote (hemera) sabbaton. Plur., Matt. 28:1, eis mian sabbaton. Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2.—So Heb. shabbathoth, Sept., hebdomadas, Lev. 23:15. Comp. Deut. 16:9; also the Syriac version Luke 18:12. In the Talmudists the days of the week are written, chadh beshabbath, sheni besh', shelishi besh', i. e., the first, second, third day in the Sabbath (week). See Lightfoot Hor. Heb. in Matt. 28:1." The reader will notice that Dr. Robinson refers to several other texts where the same word occurs, and where it is properly rendered "week." Let us try Mr. Bailey's translation on these passages. Take Luke 18:12: "I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all I possess." The word rendered "week" is sabbaton. Dr. Bailey would translate the passage "I fast twice in the Sabbath," and would explain it that the Pharisee was priding himself because he fasted twice every Sunday! Mr. Bailey claims that in the texts to which he refers, the word sabbaton should be rendered "Sabbath," so as to read, "the first of Sabbaths," thus indicating, he says, that "the old order of Sabbaths had passed away and a new order of Sabbaths had begun." But in Acts 20:7 we have the same expression again, in the narration of an event which took place thirty years after the crucifixion. Was this the first of a new order of Sabbaths? If so, what order was it? Mr. Bailey's rendering would make a new order of Sabbaths to begin at the resurrection, and another order thirty years after, when Paul was at Troas. Still further, the same expression occurs in 1 Cor. 16:2, where Paul directs the brethren to lay aside money "on the first day of the week." Mr. Bailey's rendering of the passage would make Paul direct the churches to lay by them in store on the first of every new order of Sabbaths! Unless a new order of Sabbaths was instituted frequently, their liberality would not be greatly taxed. It might be noted further that Mr. Bailey in his rendering of the expression entirely ignores the word hemera (day), which occurs in the text. But it is unnecessary to carry this point further, for anyone can see from the texts cited the absurdity of his so-called argument. Mr. Bailey himself seems to have enough knowledge of the Greek to have some sense of the absurdity of his own position, for he concludes:— "Thus there is wonderful agreement of the four evangelists in using this singular expression. It seems to me to convey the idea of a grand change from one order of Sabbaths on the seventh day of the week, to another and new order of Sabbaths on the first day of the week. That such a change then and there actually occurred, I have abundantly shown from various other proofs, even if these passages be not literally translated as suggested above." Said the Irish barrister: "May it please the Court, if I am wrong on this point I have another that is equally conclusive." In all Sunday argument the idea seems to be that a good many weak points will make one strong one; that although a dozen statements may be individually fallacious, they will when combined make a true one. That is on the principle that if you add enough ciphers together you will get something of value. The three lines of argument which Mr. Bailey gives from Scripture, from history, and from the Fathers, remind us of the plea in the famous kettle suit. The man who was charged with breaking his neighbor's kettle, made his defense under three heads, thus: "First, the kettle was cracked when I borrowed it. Second, it was whole when I carried it back. Third, I never borrowed it." If one of these points was disproved, he had two others to fall back on. It made no difference if they did contradict each other, it was proof. We have now followed Mr. Bailey through all the windings of his "weighty and timely utterance" in behalf of Sunday. We have done it not with any desire to depreciate Mr. Bailey, but in order to show the inherent weakness of the Sunday cause. We have no doubt that he did the best he could, and that his utterances are just as weighty as any that could be made. In contrast with the vain attempts to put the first day in the place of the seventh as the Sabbath, we present the simple argument for the true Sabbath in the following words:—183"And God spake all these words," saying, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." Ex. 20:1, 8–11. "The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. They stand fast forever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness." Ps. 111:7, 8. "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." Luke 16:17. w. THE SEVENTH DAY OF THE WEEK.
By W.
In the Bible Banner a man who is attempting to settle the Sabbath question, says: "This fourth commandment, in itself, says nothing about the 'day of the week,' any more than it does of the month or year." Very well, let us suppose that it refers to the year. Then the words, "Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God," would mean that we are to work six days of the year, and rest on the seventh. That would give us only one Sabbath in the year, which might be very agreeable to some; but it would also give us only six days in the year for work! What about the remaining three hundred and fifty-eight days? On them, according to the year theory, no one can either work or rest! We think no one will be foolish enough to deliberately take the position that "the seventh day" of the fourth commandment means the seventh day of the year. Well, then, let us suppose that the commandment refers to the month. Thus "Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work," would mean that work may be done six days in the month, but that the seventh day of the month is the Sabbath, when no work may be done. In this case we should have twelve Sabbaths in the year, and seventy-two days for work. Many people would be hard pressed to know how to earn a living in those seventy-two days; but they would be much more troubled to know how to employ the remaining two hundred and eighty-one days of the year, in which they could neither work nor rest. We believe that no one, even of those who most hate the Sabbath, will claim that "the seventh day" of the fourth commandment applies to the month any more than to the year. Well, it must refer to something. Certainly; it applies to a period of time which consists of exactly seven days, six of which are to be used for labor, and the seventh for rest. Now the only period of seven days that is known to man, is the week, and this division of time has been known from the most ancient times. "Seven days make one week," is one of the first things learned by the school-boy. Therefore when the Lord said, "Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work," it is evident that he meant that we may work six days in the week, but that we must rest on the seventh day of the week. And the child of ten years who should profess ignorance of the fact that the first day of the week is Sunday, and that the seventh or last day of the week is Saturday, would be regarded in this age of schools and schoolmasters as a much neglected youth. One stock argument of our Sunday friends is that it is very essential that all people should keep the same day, so that there may be no clashing. No one will deny this. Certainly people ought all to keep the same day. And if this is so, it is very evident that God knew it when he gave the commandment. Then he must have commanded all the people to keep the same day. As a matter of fact, all the Jews did regard the same day as the Sabbath. No one will deny this. All will admit that when the Lord gave the commandment, he expected all to whom it was spoken to keep the same day. Then the commandment must refer to a definite day, and to one which all understood. That is, all must have understood "the seventh day" to refer to some specific day; for if they had had the idea that the Lord meant simply that they could rest on any day after six days of labor, and that there was no specific point from which to begin their count, there would have been no uniformity. But there was uniformity among those who regarded the commandment, because the commandment is definite. Two things being granted, the third must follow. Let it be granted that uniformity in the day of rest is essential, and that God knew this when he gave the commandment, and it must be admitted that the fourth commandment specifies a definite day as the Sabbath, and that that day is the seventh day of the week. So we find that the fourth commandment does in itself tell what day of the week is the Sabbath. For corroborative proof, we turn to the account of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. He was crucified on the preparation day, "and the Sabbath drew on." Luke 23:54. And the women who followed, and saw where he was laid, "returned, and prepared spices and ointment; and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment." Verse 56. That means that they did exactly as the commandment enjoins. Now the next day after that Sabbath day which they kept "according to the commandment," was "the first day of the week" (Luke 24:1) and on it they resumed their work. Now since there are but seven days in the week, and since the day succeeding the Sabbath "according to the commandment" is the first day of the week, it inevitably follows that "the Sabbath day" which the fourth commandment enjoins is the seventh day of the week. No man on earth can prove anything to the contrary; and no sane man would think of denying so plain a conclusion, if it were not that he wished to turn aside from the simple commandment of the Lord, for a way of his own choosing.