Earlier text: General Articles"Evolution" and Evolution.
By A. T. Jones
Now for proofs that the soul is the main, if not the only, point of distinction between these two forms of evolution. It appears dimly in our first-quoted statement of Darwinism; thus:— "According to him, even mind, heart, conscience, are just as much the product of physical evolution as is the physical structure itself." And again in the foregoing list of leading evolutionists the qualifying word "physical" is applied thus:— "Man's physical structure they regard as no real exception to the law." "And where a man believes in evolution it goes without saying that the law holds good as to man's physical structure." Plainly implying that his mental structure is held as an exception. But Darwin has shown conclusively, not by speculation, but by genuine science, that the difference in the mental power of man and that of the lower animals consists not in kind but in degree. And surely none of these theistic evolutionists, ultra as he might be, would deny at least some mental structure to the lower animals. Consequently, when they differ from Darwinism, it can only be on that one point of the immortality of the soul. Happily, however, we are not left to this conclusion drawn from qualified statements, necessary though it may be, but we have the unqualified statement itself by one of the highest authorities on evolution. Mr. Sully, before quoted, says:— "At first sight it might appear that the doctrine [of evolution] as applied to the subjective world, by removing the broad distinction between the human and the animal mind, would discourage the hope of a future life for man's soul." Exactly; and this is consistent with evolution throughout, and consequently when these "orthodox," "evangelical" gentlemen, holding fast to that intensely "orthodox" and "evangelical" doctrine, the immortality of the soul, adopt evolution, they are compelled to adopt such a form of it as will admit this doctrine, even though it involve them in the glaring inconsistency of antagonizing "creative activity," and then being obliged to antagonize their antagonism to save their theory. But of what worth is all this "contrivance to save appearances" if the soul be not immortal? It is "nothing worth." And as the soul is absolutely not immortal, but in this, "man hath no pre-eminence above a beast" (Eccl. 3:19), this consideration removes the whole and sole ground of distinction between the two forms of evolution; and then this would-be theistic evolution appears just where consistency and the logic of pure evolution demand that it should appear,—that is, in the bald reality of atheistic evolution,—and brings out the plain truth plainly that there is no such thing as theistic evolution. But when this so-called theistic evolution, resting only upon a fallacy the exposure of which so surely lands it in atheistic evolution, is so wide-spread, so almost all-pervading in the orthodox and evangelical churches, schools, and colleges, are we not brought in another form to the contemplation of the text, "Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Not alone, Shall he find faith in his second coming? but, Shall he find faith at all? In studying these evil tendencies of the times, we are persuaded that "when the Son of man cometh," he will not find faith in his word, he will not find faith in himself, he will not find faith in God the Lord, the Creator of all. And we are also persuaded that we are again coming fast upon the time in the world's history, when "in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom" will know "not God" (1 Cor. 1:21); and when again, as of old, it shall please God "by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." And in view of it all, we feel as never before, how holily, how unblamably, how sacredly, we whom it may please God to call to do the preaching, should conduct this holy work—how humbly, meekly, and again, as "of old, not with excellency of speech or of wisdom,—not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power. May God help us all, in these dark and trying times, and when they become still more fearfully dark and trying. Now just a few words before closing, upon the foundation of evolution. In a former article in a quotation of the words of a, then, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, saying that he "should regard a teacher of science who denied the truth of evolution as being as incompetent as one who doubted the Copernican theory." Does this president mean to assert that the theory of evolution is as well established as is the Copernican theory? If so, will he or any other evolutionist please give three laws in proof of it that will correspond to Kepler's Three Laws? Or will he give us one law that will correspond to any one of Kepler's Three, and which will be as susceptible of demonstration as are Kepler's? Nay, verily. It is with this as with geology,—simply and only "perhaps," "no doubt," "probably," and "must have been," and these repeated over and over again, and then all of them capped with an "assumption." Professor Clifford says:— "Of the beginning of the universe, we know nothing at all." "The fact is, that at the present moment there is not a shadow of trustworthy direct evidence that abiogenesis [spontaneous generation] does take place, or has taken place, within the period during which the existence of life on this globe is recorded." Yet he says that this "fact does not in the slightest degree interfere with the conclusion from other considerations, that at some time or other, abiogenesis must have taken place." What kind of science is that wherein facts do not in the slightest degree interfere with a hypothesis? And why is it that they do not? Oh! because:— "If the hypothesis [supposition] of evolution be true, living matter must have arisen from not-living matter."—Encyclopedia Britannica, Biology. To be sure. And so the Creator, revelation, reason, and facts, even as acknowledged by themselves as facts, must all stand aside, so that a supposition may have free course to run and be glorified. With a little more of this kind of "science" we should, "doubtless," be almost tempted, "perhaps," to cry out for "about the space of two hours." Great is the science of the evolutionists! Mr. Sully says, after speaking of the "gaps" in their knowledge, and the limits set to the explanation, of evolution:— "The question arises whether these apparently permanent gaps in our scientific knowledge can be filled up by extra-scientific speculations." That is, these gaps are to be filled not only by "speculations," but they are not to be even scientific, but "extra [above, outside of] scientific speculations."—Enc. Brit., Evolution. Now we come to Darwin himself, who Mr. Sully says is entitled to "the first notice as the one to whom belongs the honor of working out this theory of evolution upon a substantial basis of fact;" and of whose work Professor Huxley says:— "The Origin of Species" appeared in 1859, and it is within the knowledge of all whose memories go back to that time, that henceforward the doctrine of evolution has assumed a position and acquired an importance which it never before possessed." Owing to the important place which he holds in this doctrine, we hope we may be pardoned for giving him quite an extended notice; but it will need to be in nothing but his own words; for, as will be seen, the words themselves are all-sufficient to show the "substantial" (?), "scientific" (?), or "extra" scientific basis of evolution. We quote from Darwin's "Descent of Man," Appleton's Edition, 1871. (Italics ours.) Page 23. "No doubt he [man] inherits the power [of smell] in an enfeebled and so far rudimentary condition from some early progenitor to whom it was highly serviceable, and by whom it was continually used. We can thus perhaps understand how it is as Mr. Maudsley has truly remarked, that the sense of smell in man is singularly effective in recalling vividly the ideas and images of forgotten scenes and places." Page 81. "It is probable that the early ape-like progenitors of man were likewise social. Although man, as he now exists, has few special instincts, having lost any which his early progenitors may have possessed, this is no reason why he should not have retained from an extremely remote period some degree of instinctive love and sympathy for his fellows." Page 103. "In order that an ape-like creature should have been transformed into man, it is necessary that this early form, as well as many successive links, should all have varied in mind and body. It is impossible to obtain direct evidence on this head; but if it can be shown that man now varies, . . . there can be little doubt that the preceding intermediate links varied in a like manner." Page 144. "Nevertheless it may be well to own that no explanation, as far as I am aware, has ever been given of the loss of the tail by certain apes and man." Page 150. "In regard to bodily size or strength, we do not know whether man is descended from some comparatively small species like the chimpanzee, or from one as powerful as the gorilla." Page 151. "The early progenitors of man were no doubt inferior in intellect, and probably in social disposition, to the lowest existing savages." Page 154. "It is therefore highly probable that with mankind the intellectual faculties have been gradually perfected through natural selection, and this conclusion is sufficient for our purpose. Undoubtedly it would have been very interesting to have traced the development of each separate faculty from the state in which it exists in the lower animals to that in which it exists in man; but neither my ability nor my knowledge permits the attempt." Page 189. "If the anthropomorphous apes be admitted to form a natural sub-group, then, as man agrees with them, . . . we may infer that some ancient member of the anthropomorphous sub-group gave birth to man." Page 191. "But we must not fall into the error of supposing that the early progenitor of the whole simian stock, including man, was identical with, or even closely resembled, any existing ape or monkey." Page 192. "At the period and place, whenever and wherever it may have been, when man first lost his hairy covering, he probably inhabited a hot country. We are far from knowing how long ago it was when man first diverged from the Catarrhine stock, but this may have occurred at an epoch as remote as the Eocene period." Page 195. "In attempting to trace the genealogy of the mammalia, and therefore of man, lower in the series, we become involved in greater and greater obscurity." Page 198. "The early progenitors of man were no doubt once covered with hair, both sexes having beards; their ears were pointed,389 and capable of movement, and their bodies were provided with a tail, having the proper muscles. . . . At a still earlier period the progenitors must have been aquatic in their habits; for morphology plainly tells us that our lungs consist of a modified swim-bladder, which once served for a float. The clefts on the neck in the embryo of man show where the branchiæ once existed. These early predecessors of man . . . must have been as lowly organized as a lancelet or amphioxus, or still more lowly organized." Page 205. "The most humble organism is something much higher than the inorganic dust under our feet." Yes, of course, to be born of an ape is vastly higher than to be fashioned by the perfect hand of the living God!!! And we are given to understand by the president of the American Association, etc., that such a string of great swelling words as this is from beginning to end, is no more to be doubted as science than is the Copernican theory, which is demonstrated by the exact science of mathematics! It is scarcely to be wondered at that such a theory is atheistic. And no warning of the Bible is more pertinent to the present times than that one in 1 Tim. 6:20, 21: "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so-called, which some professing have erred concerning the faith." A. T. J. WHEN, at the meeting of the General Association of Illinois at Rockford, the leader of a devotional service requested such brethren as were the sons of Christian mothers to stand, nearly every minister present rose to his feet. "Her children," says the proverb, of the virtuous woman, "arise up and call her blessed." Aristocratic pride of family is the just scorn of every true American. We want no "degenerate sons of noble sires" among us, "of whom, as of a potato vine, the best part is under ground." We have enough and to spare of them, studying out for their seal-rings and coach-panels old family coats-of-arms, and taking airs on the score of some titled ruffian of four or five centuries ago. There was truth as well as wit in Saxe's saying that the line of one's ancestry, traced back, is quite apt to end in a cobbler's waxed end or a hangman's knot. But the laws of heredity transmit something more than names heraldic devices and vain conceit. Mysteriously and awfully they bear down legacies of character from parent to child. They steer the new-comer into the world, from before his birth, along the line of endless destiny. True as it is that responsible moral action begins only with the actor himself, it is no less true that proclivities starting from far back of such action, flow steadily down from age to age. "Though we are not to be judged for the sin of Adam before us," said Prof. Swing, in a recent sermon, "a fearful judgment may come on us for the sins of our children." As the traveler approaches the northern entrance of the Mt. Cenis Tunnel, he sees, emerging miles away and above from among the snows, a silvery rill which his eye distinctly traces widening and deepening downward, till it plunges and roars as a resistless torrent at his feet. But only the Omniscient eye follows the stream of moral refinement or contamination that arose centuries ago and bears onward in its sweep the men and women of to-day. And every parent contributes to that stream. Every parent rises from the dead to live again in the life of his child. The passionate mother of Lord Byron stormed and raged in the wild career of the poet. The godly mother of the Wesleys suffered and toiled for human welfare in the memorable years of her sons. A child has a right to be not only well-trained, but, before the training can begin, well-born. It is of immeasurable moment not merely what the parent does, but what he is. For the depth and richness of nature, the moral force and effectiveness, which he ought to transfer to his child, arise from behind his own will, in the very core of his being. A deep, mature, well-rounded Christian character comes not from conversion alone. Martin Luther became "the monk that shook the world," not through repentance and faith alone. He had inherited the physical soundness, the brain and brawn, with which to stand the tremendous strain that came upon him. And centuries of old German hardihood and valor were in the man, the stuff that was heroic long before it came to be Christian. The Teutonic fire that not all the legions of Rome could quench blazed up again in defiance of papal Rome as well. Many a Christian father is left to wonder that his boy resists his influence, because he has begun to wonder and grow anxious too late. He may have become a father far back in the years of his own ungodliness, when pride, or impurity, or passion, or stubborn unbelief, had the mastery in him. How is his repentance long afterward to remedy that wrong to his child? A stream runs itself clear, it is said, in four miles. But a cup of water taken from it where it is foul will be no less foul for the purity a league or two below. But it may be that, even since the father's entrance on the Christian life, the change has never yet struck through him to renovate his whole nature. And this evil nature, transferred by the law of heredity to the child, contends against the precepts that the father repeats in vain. The law of moral transmission has been mainly, thus far along the ages, the channel through which corruption and death have flowed down from generation to generation. It was divinely designed as a channel of blessing. Grace may flow through it as well as corruption. The noblest impulses and proclivities of a sanctified character, descending from sire to son, may incline the infant will to righteousness and to Christ. Some slight foregleam of that may be seen in many a Christian household even now. And more and more as the tone of Christian character rises, shall the law of heredity turn from a curse to a blessing.—Advance. WORK out your own salvation, with fear and trembling. This injunction does not mean what, to a great many minds, it seems to mean. In some parts of the country, a tax for the keeping of the roads in repair can be paid in cash, or it can be "worked out;"—that is, it can be paid by personal labor. So, land owners often "work out" their highway tax. It is not that kind of working out that this text refers to. No man can secure his salvation by work, even with fear and trembling, and in prayers and tears. Again, there is a custom of working out a farm rent on shares. The farmer does all the work, and takes half the result, the other half going to the farm owner. It is not that kind of working out one's salvation that is here meant. Salvation is not secured from God on shares. It is wholly the gift of God, and all the work in the world could never merit nor obtain any portion of it. But he who has salvation, he who is saved by grace through faith (and this letter of Paul is to persons in that state), has a duty to work out in the line of his salvation; to keep right at the work which is along the course, and in the direction of the end, of God's plan of grace. It might, perhaps, give light to this text to change the figure from the farmer to the soldier, and read it, Fight out—or fight on—your enlistment with fear and trembling. Now that you have enlisted, and are accepted as a soldier, keep right at the soldier business, and do it with such zealous earnestness that you will be all of a tremble in your anxious desire to do it just as it should be done. There is no danger of any over-reliance on one's personal activity in such working, or such fighting, as this, in the line of one's redemption from sin and its curse, here in this world of probation and trial.—Sel. "IN nothing be anxious." Only think of it! What a world this would be, and what a church ours would be, if this counsel were followed, and nobody was anxious about anything. Most persons will give up everything else before they will give up anxiety; and when they are reduced to that, they settle right down on it—and suffer. Why, anxiety is what most of us live by. It is what we depend on for our getting on in the world; and here comes the inspired injunction: "In nothing be anxious." Did you ever!—Sel. Love for Christ.
By George B. Gow
THE disciple must love as well as believe. Christ and his kingdom are real to Satan and his demons, so real as to occupy their thoughts and make them fools with confusion and madness. Men sometimes discover toward the end of life that there is no good for them but God, and yet, through the habit of a life-long selfishness, they continue to hate the good and call it evil. It is possible for a man who is enrolled among the disciples of Christ to be very much tortured in spirit by a keen sense of the reality of the things of the kingdom of Christ, and yet be held fast by the habit of avarice or fleshly lust. It is only when love brings a man into hearty, happy submission to the will of God that faith becomes an inspiration. The new-born child of God will naturally and properly be filled, for a time, with the joy of his own salvation. He needs to measure as well as he can how great a thing it is that God has come to him, bringing redemption from eternal death, and glorious life through his own abiding presence. That fact is to be to him forever a fountain of ever-flowing gratitude and zeal. But as a fact it has two sides, his side and Christ's side. It is he that is saved. Yes! Let him shout for joy that he has escaped from sin and hell. But it is Christ that has saved him, died for him, regenerated him, come to be his new self as well as his captain and his king. And if he is to be a follower of this captain, a servant of this king, a fruit-bearer whose fruit shall abide, he must very soon lose sight almost wholly of the self-side of this fact of his redemption in the adoring contemplation of the Christ-side of it. A church needs to be composed of disciples who have well-nigh ceased from the contemplation of the advantages to themselves of their relationship to Christ, so completely is their gratitude for personal salvation swallowed up in their admiration and passionate love for the Being whose holiness reaches its supreme perfection in bearing the sins of the guilty world, and whose wisdom attains its crowning glory in the transformation of a lost soul into a holy child of God. Gratitude can never be wanting in the believer's love. It will grow stronger rather than weaker. But his love, like his Master's for a lost world, must rise far above the thought of self, and burn pure and strong for his ineffably glorious Lord, the King eternal,—the God who is man, and who in his perfect manhood shows the world what its Creator and Redeemer is. Such love is a sweet and blessed passion that sanctifies and glorifies, an energy that taxes all the power of the soul to endure its activity, a creative, life-giving energy, cross-bearing, sacrificial, converting the soul into the likeness of the divine nature. It is such transforming love as this that qualifies a disciple or a church to bear abiding fruit. A little of it will doubtless bear a little fruit, but the fruit-bearing church whose fruit is to be both abundant and abiding must abound in it.—Geo. B. Gow, in Watchman. NOTES ON THE INTERNATIONAL LESSON.
By A. T. J.
The Revolt of the Ten Tribes.
WITH the beginning of the third quarter we enter again upon the study of the Old Testament. The close of the Old Testament lessons for last year, was at the end of Solomon's reign. We learned how Solomon forsook his wisdom and plunged into the depths of folly; how that he loved "many strange women," women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites; how that he went after Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom, the abomination of the Ammonites; how that he built "high places" for Chemosh of Moab, and Molech of Ammon, and for all the gods of his strange wives; and how that for it the Lord stirred up adversaries on every hand which were adversaries all the days of Solomon. And then to crown it all the Lord said unto Solomon, "Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant." "Howbeit I will not rend away all the kingdom; but will give one tribe to thy son for David my servant's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake which I have chosen." 1 Kings 11: 11, 13. By Solomon's sins, a fearful train of evils was laid. In his iniquities there was sown the seed from which sprang a most abundant harvest, which was reaped in long years, and even ages, of suffering, of sorrow, and of bitterness. How little he thought, how little any one thinks, of this! Yet there is nothing surer, there is nothing more diligently inculcated by the word of God, than this one thing, that sin cannot be committed with impunity. "Be not deceived; God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Gal. 6: 7. "Even as I have seen, they that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same." Job 4: 8. Nor is this confined to the immediate acts. "I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings." Jer. 17: 10. Remember therefore that when wickedness is sown nothing but wickedness can spring from it, and the fruit that is borne, enters into the computation of the reward, whatever it may be. If the reward be the reward of the wicked, it will be the greater according to the fruit of the wickedness committed. And if by the mercy of God the sin is forgiven, and if, by patient continuance in well-doing, the reward of the righteous be obtained, yet the fullness of that reward will be diminished according as the fruit of wickedness shall abound. SIN is a terrible reality. "And be sure your sin will find you out." Num. 32: 23. Nowadays it has become quite a common thing, even almost tacitly understood, that young men must sow their "wild oats." Yes; and nearly all do so, but it were well to remember that, from the beginning of sin, never yet was there sown a particle of such "wild oats" that did not spring up and bear fruit abundantly, all of which must be reaped, in one place or another, in sorrow and in dread. There is absolutely no escape, no wind will blast it, no mildew will smite it; it cannot be plucked up by the roots,—it must be reaped. "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting." It is not in vain that God has written in the table of his law, "I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." Ex. 20: 5, 6. IN accordance with the word of the Lord to Solomon, the prophet Abijah told Jeroboam that ten of the tribes should be given to him, and he should reign over them. Jeroboam was the son of Nebat of the tribe of Ephraim, and his mother's name was Zeruah, and at this time a widow. As Solomon was building Millo, and repairing the walls of the city of David, he saw Jeroboam among the workmen, and "seeing that he was industrious, he made him ruler over all the charge of the house of Joseph" (Ephraim). As Jeroboam was going out of the city of Jerusalem one day, Abijah met him and drew him aside into the field. Then Abijah took his own outer garment, tore it into twelve pieces, and said to Jeroboam, "Take thee ten pieces; for thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee." And although the Lord told him plainly that this should not be done while Solomon lived, yet like a great many before his time he could not await the Lord's time and so he attempted to seize the kingdom before the time. "He lifted up his hand against the king," and therefore Solomon sought to kill him. "Then Jeroboam fled into Egypt, unto Shishak, king of Egypt, and was in Egypt until the death of Solomon." REHOBOAM succeeded Solomon on the throne of David, and of course expected to reign over all the tribes of Israel, and so went to Shechem to be acknowledged as king. But there was a hitch in the proceedings. Israel had sent word to Jeroboam in Egypt and called him up to Shechem, and it may well be supposed that with the ambitious schemes that he had in hand even while Solomon lived, that he would suffer nothing to be settled by which Rehoboam should rule over all. But besides this, the people had a real grievance. In Solomon had been fulfilled, in a great measure, the prophecy of Samuel when the people chose a king in the first place. "He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and391 will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep; and ye shall be his servants." 1 Sam. 8: 11-17. ALL this had been done by Solomon; and all to support his heathen wives. The burdens of the people had really been made heavy, and now they ask relief from some of these. But of this, Samuel had also told them, "And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day." 1 Sam. 8: 18. And so when they ask Rehoboam to relieve them he only mocks them. He first consulted the old men who gave him wise counsel, but he had not sense enough to follow it, but instead turned to the "young men that were grown up with him." AND a fine set of counselors these were! Let us see for a moment under what influences he and these young men had grown up. Rehoboam was the son of Solomon by Naamah an Ammonitess. 1 Kings 14: 21. And we read in 1 Kings 11: 18 that all these heathen women burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. These gods were Molech, and Ashtoreth, and Chemosh, and Baalim. These represented the male and the female principles of generation, and all the rites of their worship corresponded to that idea, and is expressed in one word, lasciviousness. Their priests were men dressed in women's clothes; their priestesses were harlots, and their most acceptable worship was by prostitution, and burning the offspring in the fire. SUCH were the influences amidst which these young men had grown up, and such was the training that they had had, by which they should be fitted to become counselors in an emergency that involved one of the greatest kingdoms then in the world. How could the issue be anything else but fatal? And so it was. They said, "Thus shalt thou speak unto this people that spake unto thee." Thus implying that it was an act of rebellion for them even to speak to him of their grievances. And he was to say to them, "My little finger shall be thicker than my father's loins." "My father hath chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions." There could be but one result. The people answered the king, saying, "What portion have we in David? neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse; to your tents, O Israel; now see to thine own house, David." 1 Kings 12: 16. THUS comes, fast following, evil upon evil as the fearful fruit of the sins of Solomon. It was only for David's sake that all this did not happen in Solomon's own day. And even now, when it did come about, it was still for David's sake that there was a tribe left to Rehoboam at all. Chap. 11: 12, 13, 36. "Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God." His mercy is upon children's children to such as fear him, and in visiting iniquity, transgression, and sin, yet in wrath upon the disobedient, in mercy he remembers those who have been obedient. Visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate him, and showing mercy unto thousands of generations of them who love him, and keep his commandments. "And I will delight myself in Thy commandments, which I have loved." The Sabbath-School.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
LESSON FOR THE PACIFIC COAST—JULY 25.
Inheritance of the Saints.—Continued.
REJECTION OF SAUL AS KING OF ISRAEL.
1. Who was the first king of Israel? "And afterward they desired a king; and God gave unto them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, by the space of forty years." Acts 13 : 21. 2. By whom was he chosen? Ib. 3. How long did he reign? Ib. 4. On one occasion what message came from the Lord to Saul through Samuel? "Samuel also said unto Saul, The Lord sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel; now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." 1 Sam. 15 : 1-3. 5. How did Saul carry out his instructions? "And Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt. And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them; but everything that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly." 1 Sam. 15 : 7-9. 6. What excuse did Saul make for thus disobeying the command of the Lord? "And Saul said unto Samuel, Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, and have gone the way which the Lord sent me, and have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto the Lord thy God in Gilgal." 1 Sam. 15 : 20, 21. 7. What did Samuel say the Lord values more than sacrifice? "And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." 1 Sam. 15 : 22. 8. To what was Saul's stubbornness equivalent? "For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king." 1 Sam. 15 : 23. He had rejected the word of the Lord. 10. Since rebellion is equal to idolatry, had not Saul, in rejecting the word of the Lord, rejected the Lord himself? Certainly; the record shows that Saul was virtually an idolater, and thus as wicked as the Amalekites, whom he had been sent to destroy. 11. Because Saul had thus rejected the Lord, what had the Lord done? "For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king." "And Samuel said unto Saul, I will not return with thee; for thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord hath rejected thee from being king over Israel." 1 Sam. 15 : 23, 26. 12. What had he rent from Saul? "And Samuel said unto him, The Lord hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbor of thine, that is better than thou." 1 Sam. 15 : 28. 13. To whom did Samuel say the kingdom was given? Ib. 14. What important lesson may we learn from the narrative in this chapter? From the narrative recorded in 1 Samuel 15, we may learn how particular God is in his requirements, and how dangerous it is for us to presume to deviate from the plain letter of his commandments. Saul flattered himself that God would overlook his disobedience in preserving the best of the flocks of the Amalekites, because they were preserved for sacrifice. But God would not accept such service. Had he accepted Saul's excuse, it would have been equivalent to admitting that Saul knew what would honor the Lord better than the Lord himself knew, and that was not true. When God tells us to do a thing in a certain way, we are to understand that to do just as he says, will honor him more than anything else. We are not at liberty to presume that we can honor him more by a different course; that would be setting ourselves above God, and consequently we would be idolaters. From this narrative we can see an illustration of Prov. 28 : 9: "He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination."