In last week's article I gave an account of how I came to regard the Decalogue as the summary of the whole will of God. As there noted, this belief was not arrived at primarily by finding in the Old Testament argument for such a conclusion, but by the fact that the Messiah so taught, and furthermore, by the fact that He lived what He taught.
But this process of reasoning by no means warranted me in discarding Old Testament evidences of the Ten Commandments' being the divine epitome of the whole duty of man. Christ's acceptance of the Old Testament presentation of that subject, is evidently but added emphasis to every text there which tends to set apart the Decalogue as the moral law. He took for granted the validity and adequateness of the testimony of the Old Testament as to the law of the two tables being a divinely abridged statement of man's spiritual obligations. It should, however, be remembered, that such testimony has weight only through Jesus Christ — only because He approved it.
In studying the headship of Christ I came to see that every Old Testament argument to establish the law spoken from Sinai as the supreme law of God for the present dispensation, must ultimately rest either explicitly or implicitly on the authority of Christ. I could then readily see how it is that good and perfectly well-meaning people may get the reputation of being legalists. I have heard such accused of trying to get righteousness from the law. It was due to their founding merely on the Old Testament their argument for the Ten Commandments as the criterion of righteousness, instead of approaching through Christ the Old Testament evidence. In the gospel age, since the coming of Him who was "to be the Head over all things to the church" (Eph. 1:22), "that in all things He might have the preeminence" (Col. 1:18), our whole duty, and every particular duty, must rest directly or indirectly on the doctrine of Jesus.
The Master Fully Accepted the Old Testament
After the American colonies became independent of Great Britain, the English common law remained binding in this country, not because it was the law of England, but because the colonies approved it. Whatever the legislatures of these colonies rejected, lost all force as law, no matter to what extent such an English law might serve as a precedent. And Jesus did fully and completely accept the Old Testament standard of righteousness — the Ten Commandments.
What then was I to do? There was no possibility of evasion. He was God manifest in human flesh. What He accepted I must accept. But I was a Sunday-keeper. Must I keep Saturday? Every recorded word spoken by the Master to whom I had now sworn allegiance, come life or death (for I had been publicly baptized), every recorded act, was now gone over afresh with the closest scrutiny.
The study of this matter led me to the consideration of three further subjects: (a) the perfection or imperfection of the Decalogue, (b) the authority of all the Old Testament, (c) the authority of that part of the New Testament after the book of Acts.
Christ Himself left no written records. Whatever we know of Him or of what is implied in His teachings, we must get from the writings of others. Now in some of the books following the Acts, in the New Testament, I found some texts which superficially seemed to indicate that Christ, through the writers of the books containing these texts, might possibly, if those books were inspired, have made some changes in the Decalogue after His ascension. I saw the necessity of reaching some reliable conclusion regarding the character and authority of these books.
Authority of the Old Testament
As regards the authority of the Old Testament as a whole, the attitude of Christ is decisive. The "Scriptures" of His day were the Old Testament of Protestants today. Never once did He by the slightest word indicate that any book of the canon then accepted was not inspired. A few of His words will illustrate His position. Speaking (Matt. 26:53, 54) of His power to rescue Himself from those who would crucify Him, He said: "Thinkest thou that I can not now pray to My Father, and He shall presently give Me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?" Again (John 10:35), "The Scripture can not be broken." Still further, "Search the Scriptures; . . . they are they which testify of Me" (John 5:39). Notice yet again the statement by Luke (24:27, 44, 45): "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in6all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. . . . And He said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning Me. Then opened He their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures."
That the omniscient God-man should thus view the sacred writings of His race, was to me convincing. That they were, as far as they went, the infallible revelation of the divine will, was for me the unavoidable conclusion. It matters not how much of those records I do not understand; their inspiration is not thereby impaired. The greater includes the less.
Authority of the New Testament
Historically, I consider the authenticity and genuineness of Paul's epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians, as most easily established. No critic, however adverse, will, with any respect for his reputation as a scholar, assert that Paul was not the author of these books.
As I remarked in my previous article, when I once learned that a thing is true, I never felt that before it was allowed to bind my reason and conscience, I must delay till I could further prove truth inspired. Indeed, for a doubter to make such a demand seemed to me unnecessary and unreasonable. That inspiration has advantages, especially to one already a believer, is of course, beyond question. There are parts of the Bible far less interesting than are numerous secular books which are true; yet these parts of Holy Writ, because of the regard we have for their inspiration, are read a thousand times more. Again, a writing not having the guaranty of being "God-breathed," always suffers from the possibility of containing error. No such presumption or assumption can obtain against an inspired document. But as I viewed the matter, the very proof of inspiration is the truth of the evidences therefor; that is, we examine the truth of the evidences concerning that for which inspiration is claimed, and if these evidences are true, and in relevancy and number sufficient, we accept the inspiration as a fact. We do not prove a statement true by showing it to be found in a book assumed to be inspired; we must first prove the truth of the claim of inspiration for the book.
It was thus I approached the writings of Paul. His veracity and mental competency once established, his inspiration follows, for he says that he obtained his doctrine from God: "I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Gal. 1:11, 12.
How I came to believe in the Heaven-sent nature of the remainder of the New Testament is here unnecessary to give in detail. For the most part it was through the consistency of these writings with all that I had thus far found to be inspired. The book of Revelation has the added proof of the fulfilment of its prophecies.
My inventory of faith now showed both the Old and New Testaments fully accepted.
Thus equipped, I was ready to return to the study of the perfection of the law of the Ten Commandments. Was the Decalogue as spoken by God from Sinai's summit a perfect law? If it was, there could be no change of the Sabbath commandment, or of any other.
But what do we really mean by perfection? One of the definitions found in the dictionary seems to be the proper one for this place. It is, "That degree of completeness in which nothing essential or desirable is lacking."
A Law That Needs No Change
Historically tested, as in the United States, it is found impossible for the wisdom of man to frame a legal constitution that will need no amendment during the ages. In a hundred years we have amended our organic law almost a score of times. But against an all-powerful and all-wise God, no such presumption of inability can for a moment be entertained. That God could make a perfect law eternally adequate for the universe, including men, angels, and the unfallen inhabitants of other worlds, must in logic be admitted.
Now it is obvious that such a fundamental law must be one of principles rather than of particular actions, because of the simple fact that no book could be large enough to name and give instruction to meet every emergency in the infinitely complex relations of the billions of beings in the universe. If, then, such a law must consist of principles rather than of explicit instances, what greater perfection could reason demand than that of a law having but one principle, and that principle expressed in one word? Wonderful as it may seem, the Bible reveals just such a law. No wonder the great apostle exclaims, "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!"
Are you interested to know where this principle is recorded? Let me read it to you:
"Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked Him a question, tempting Him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Matt. 22:35-40.
"But," some one may say, "this is two principles, not one." Look again. These are but two phases of the same principle. Note the principle,—LOVE. What a revelation is this of the character of God and His law? Love! No argument is necessary to prove the perfection of a principle which reason, instinct, and intuition proclaim supreme. Personally, I found myself wholly unable to imagine what more I should or could look for in a perfect principle.
But One Principle; Many Applications
The law of God, then, has but one absolute principle of action, tho that principle has millions of applications. All other things are relative. Only one thing is at all times, in all places, under all circumstances, right. The moral quality of every other action depends on circumstances. Elisha permitted Naaman to bow down to idols. 2 Kings 5: 17-19. The hangman frequently takes the life of man, and that without guilt. Gen. 9:6, passim. Work of necessity or duty is lawful on the Sabbath, etc.
It would be interesting and profitable to notice some of the characteristics of the law of God; as, first, its perfection, already discussed (Ps. 19:7); second, its unity, having but one principle, to violate any application of which is to transgress the principle, as says James (2:10), "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all;" third, its spirituality (Rom. 7:14); fourth, that it is holy, just, and good (Rom. 7:12, 13); fifth, that it is a law of liberty (James 1:25; 2:12); sixth, that it is the standard by which we shall be judged (James 2:12); seventh, that it is the law of God's kingdom, the royal law (James 2:8); and many other phases besides. But these are not now to our purpose.
As just noted, James says that this perfect law is the law of the kingdom. How extensive, then, is this kingdom? That God rules the universe, need not be said; all Scripture testifies to that. But I quote two texts: "Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is Thine; Thine is the kingdom, O Lord, and Thou art exalted as head above all. Both riches and honor come of Thee, and Thou reignest over all." 1 Chron. 29:11, 12. Or again (Ps. 103:19), "The Lord hath prepared His throne in the heavens; and His kingdom ruleth over all."
But "there are limits to the profitable elaboration of the obvious." God is King of the universe. He has but one law for men and angels. That law is the perfect law we have been discussing. The violation of this law is sin either in heaven or on earth. See 1 John 3:4, "Sin is the transgression of the law;" Rom. 4:15, "Where no law is, there is no transgression;" 2 Peter 2:4, "God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell."
A Perfect Constitution of His Universal Kingdom
Now in my first article I showed how I found that the law which deals with sin, is summarized in the Decalogue. This is only one way, however; any person reading his Bible will find many proofs of the same thing.
From this line of thought it became clear to me that the Ten Commandments, as spoken by God's own voice on Horeb, written by His own finger, carved by Him on two tables of enduring stone, and which His people were commanded to keep in a golden chest and observe on peril of their lives,—this law is the perfect constitution of His universal and eternal kingdom.
It matters not that, for instance, angels are not fathers and mothers. A perfect law must provide for every emergency, tho the provision therefor may lie passive without application for millenniums. The earth, with fatherhood and motherhood, was in the purpose of God from eternity.
The perfection of the Sinaitic law as an epitome of the whole duty of man, is evident not, perhaps, so much from the readiness with which every possible act can be subsumed logically under one of the ten as a genus, as from the fact that when the heart is completely permeated with obedience to these ten, it will be in the right attitude and spirit to render cheerful obedience to any command that God may give.
For example, suppose there were no assignable reason for, say, the fourth commandment, except that God wills it; that is, if this were what the theologians call a "positive" command; would not obedience thereto prepare the heart and mind for any command God might give, even tho we in our finiteness might not be capable of seeing any good reason for such a behest?
From the standpoint of the perfection of the law, I saw no excuse for expunging the Sabbath commandment.
Egypt
By Ina Uno
By Ina Uno
Lone, weary waste, whose dull gray sameness greets the eye,
Aged land of mystery and nigh forgotten power,
Who, musing on thy mighty grandeur long passed by,
Can doubt a lifetime in earth's span is but an hour?
Once home of Pharaoh, who could dare defy the hand
Of Him who formed the universe from empty void,
Yet heard the cry for succor in thy troubled land,
And interposed His will e'er Israel was destroyed;
Proud land of poverty and latent wealth untold,
The old, new story comes to-day once more to thee;
It offers thee a treasure that the purest gold
Can never buy, and yet that treasure rare is free.
Rejoice, thou dust-worn empire of a bygone day!
Be glad, and welcome in thy coming King divine!
A thousand portents, spread along life's weary way,
Foretell the dawning of His crowning day sublime.
God's Love Unmeasured
By Ellen G. White
By Mrs. E. G. White
THE question has been asked, "Would not a lesser gift from God have been adequate for the redemption of lost man?" "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent His only-begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." The question is unanswerable, and it is not profitable for us to spend our time in making conjectures. All our thoughts and imaginations will not alter in the least any part of the plan of redemption devised from all eternity. God loved the world to such an extent that He gave full and complete evidence of the fact. He did not leave any opportunity for the tempter to say that He did not love us, for He gave a gift whose value could not be estimated. Had He done less, Satan and his agencies would have sought to inspire jealousy against God by intimating that He could have done more than He did. God so loved the world that He determined to bestow a gift beyond all computation, and make manifest how immeasurable was His love. The gift of God would be a wonder to all worlds, to all created intelligences, ever enlarging their ideas of what God's love was in its infinity and greatness. Contemplation of this love would uproot from the heart all selfishness, and so transform the soul that men would cherish generosity, practise self-denial, and imitate the example of God. God so loved the world that He gave heaven's best gift, in order that the most guilty transgressor should not be deterred from coming to Christ, however great his sin, and be enabled to ask for pardon at a throne of mercy.
Seed Thoughts
By J. W. Lowe
WE are accountable to God alone for our thoughts.
Every individual, so far as the state is concerned, has a perfect right to believe as he chooses.
The state is under obligation to protect every person in his individual rights.
Every human being is in duty bound to order his life in accordance with his honest convictions.
To compel a man to appear to believe or be something that is foreign to his real self is to force him to be a hypocrite.
No one person or class of persons has any right to preference over another.
J. W. Lowe.
Our Saviour and Lord
By George W. Reaser
Christ as Our Great High Priest—
No. 2
To supply all of the Scriptural proof that Christ becomes “a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek,” by virtue of His taking Adam’s position as the head of our world, would require the entire space of several issues of the SIGNS OF THE TIMES. We will therefore limit our present treatment of the theme to the development of a few salient points in the argument.
Coincident with sonship, by His resurrection Christ became the Melchizedek of our world.
That there was a time when Christ was not the Melchizedek of our world, and that He became such coincident with the declaration of His sonship by the resurrection from the dead, is perfectly clear from the following statement: “So also Christ glorified not Himself to be made an high priest; but He that said unto Him, Thou art My Son, to-day have I begotten Thee. As He saith also in another place, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek;” “declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.” Heb. 5:5, 6; Rom. 1:4. Adam was the son of God by creation, doubtless in the same order as the sons of God who present themselves before Jehovah to represent their respective worlds. In the instances brought to view in the book of Job, Satan represented our world instead of Adam, because the latter had forfeited his sonship, his representative right, his Melchizedek priesthood, by yielding to Satan, who became “the prince of this world.” Christ was declared to be the Son of God by the creative power manifested in bringing Him from the dead (Rom. 1:4), and not until He was triumphant over death did He fully take Adam’s place — become the last Adam, the Melchizedek of our world.
What a glorious change in representation for our human family! When our first father had so dismally failed, and Satan became the prince of this world, then Christ, the Creator, “the Head of all celestial powers,” stepped into the breach, by the cross, redeemed the failure of Adam, cast Satan out of heaven, and became the representative of our world in the councils of Jehovah.
A Perfect Parallel
A certain statement descriptive of the Melchizedek who met Abraham is considered by commentators to be one of the most difficult and perplexing passages in the entire Word of God. The reader will observe that by applying the principle that the order of the Melchizedek priesthood is composed of “sons of God,” created to be heads, eternal priests, of worlds, all of the apparent difficulties of the passage are removed. The verse referred to reads thus: “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.” Heb. 7:3. Proceeding on the basis that Inspiration will make its own statements clear when the time comes for their unfolding, let us undertake to analyze this verse.
The Bible recognizes but two ways in which intelligent beings can have existence. These two ways are, either by creation or by birth. Then if Melchizedek was “without father, without mother,” he did not come into existence by birth, and must have come into being by the only other process, namely, by being created. In fact this verse informs us that he was a created being, and also conveys the idea that he was not created a member of our human family, for Eve “was the mother of all living.” Adam and Eve were the only two created members of our race; therefore Melchizedek must have belonged to the family of another world.
How good it is that this same so-called difficult passage informs us as to how Melchizedek came into existence! We read, he was “made like unto the Son of God.” Reasoning from the analogy of God’s plan for our world, we have reason to believe that the head, the Melchizedek, of each inhabited world, was made in the likeness, after the image, of the Son of God; for in the proposed creation of man, it was said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness,” and describing the creation of Adam, it is written, “So God created man in His own image.” Gen. 1:26, 27. An exhaustive study will reveal the fact that in speaking of a creative act of God, the verbs “make” and “made” are more frequently employed than any other words. Thus the statement that Adam was made in the “likeness” of the Son of God, to be the head of our world, is in perfect harmony with the fact that another Melchizedek was “made like unto the Son of God,” to be the head of another world. The next expression requires no explanation. Adam and Melchizedek each came into being without birth, but instead by a special creative act of God, and were therefore “without descent.” It will be observed that in the tracing of the “descent” of Christ, the record stops of necessity with the fact of Adam’s coming into existence as a “son of God” by creation. Luke 3:38.
Without Beginning of Days
If Melchizedek was the Adam, or first created man, and hence the head, of another world, he did not begin his days—his life—by birth, as do all members of our human family except our first parents; but like Adam, he came into existence a perfectly developed, mature man. He did not begin his days in our world, nor as an infant in his own world. As a divine comment on this point, we find that the Lord uses similar language in drawing the contrast between a mature man and a child, by speaking of the latter as “an infant of days.” Isa. 65:20.
Without End of Life
No fact could be made clearer or more emphatic than the certainty that Melchizedek never experienced death. This truth is still further impressed by the statement that “here men that die receive tithes; but there he [Melchizedek] receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.” Heb. 7:8. In fact, it seems to be set forth that the Melchizedek priesthood has “the power of an endless life.” Verse 16. This would have been true of Adam had he not sinned. The fact that Melchizedek saw no “end of life” would indicate that he belonged to a sinless world, and also that by experience he never knew sin, for “the wages of sin is death.”
A Perpetual Priesthood
If we are satisfied with a plain statement of Scripture, we must concede that the Melchizedek who met Abraham holds the office of priest in perpetuity, for such must be the meaning of the expression, “abideth a priest continually.” This would have been the character of Adam’s priesthood had he not lost all in the act of sinning against his Creator. But what was Adam’s loss will eventually be the eternal gain of our human family, for One greater than Adam took his position as Melchizedek—priest-king of our world.
The Oath of Jehovah
“For those priests [the Levites] were made without an oath; but this [Christ] with an oath by Him that said unto Him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” Verse 21. The fact that one thousand years before the birth of Christ Jehovah saw fit to place Himself under oath to make His Son a priest after the order of8Melchizedek, proves that we are dealing with a subject of paramount importance. Naturally one of investigative mind will desire to make a careful study of the text of the oath in its original setting. We find it recorded in Ps. 110:4. We will preface our study of the oath by the statement, which could be fortified by much Scriptural proof, that in the plan of God “the kingdoms of this world” will eventually “become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He shall reign forever and ever.” Rev. 11:15.
Now if we find, by the setting of the oath, that it will go into full effect, become fully operative, when Christ takes possession of “this world” as His rightful and eternal kingdom, then will our minds be impressed with the fact that the oath of Jehovah makes Him “a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek,” by virtue of placing Him, as Adam’s successor, in possession of this world, renewed and purified, as His eternal kingdom.
It seems to the writer that a correct understanding of the Messianic psalm under consideration makes it one of the most profoundly beautiful portions of the entire Scripture canon. The first verse represents Jehovah as addressing these words to Christ: “Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.” That this has reference to Christ after He had offered Himself as the one sacrifice for sins forever, by which sacrifice He redeemed the failure of the first Adam, and occupied thenceforth an attitude of waiting until He should be placed by Jehovah in possession of the dominion lost by our first parents, is proved by reference to Heb. 10:12, 13, and to Matt. 13:40-43; for the making of His enemies His footstool is simply the gathering out of His kingdom all things that offend and do iniquity, and reducing them to non-sentient ashes. Mal. 4:1-3.
The second verse of the psalm continues in the same strain, by referring to the well-authenticated Bible truth that for a brief space of time, “a little season,” after the descent of “Zion,” New Jerusalem, the capital city of Christ’s kingdom, the resurrected wicked will live upon the earth and finally surround “the camp of the saints,” and “the beloved city.” The sending forth of the rod of His strength out of Zion, the ruling in the midst of His enemies, are figures of speech, indicating the complete overthrow of the wicked.
The next expression, “Thy people shall be willing in the day of Thy power,” indicates that altho now, while grace reigns and mercy lingers, we are burdened of heart to plead for and to save the wicked, yet when probation is closed forever, and none of the wicked manifest any desire to repent, but instead curse God, even the most zealous soul-winners in this gospel age will be “willing” in the day of God’s power—manifested in rooting out of Christ’s kingdom all things that offend—that the wicked shall be destroyed. In fact it will be an “honor” to have a part in the final overthrow of sin and rebellion. Ps. 149:4-9.
“In the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: Thou [Christ] hast the dew [the freshness] of Thy youth.” Ps. 110:3. The most beautiful thing in all the universe is spotless holiness. Because of absolute holiness of character, Christ is as strong, as vigorous, when the time comes to overthrow sin, as He was at creation’s morn. The only thing that weakens is sin. The climax of weakness is death. When Christ goes forth to final triumph over His enemies, then will be fulfilled the prophecy concerning Satan, “How art thou cut down to the ground, which [by sin] didst weaken the nations!”
The Lord Hath Sworn, and Will Not Repent
The things about this oath which impress us with the fact that it embodied the idea of Christ’s receiving the kingdom lost by Adam, are that it is set in the exact midst of this psalm, the whole intent of which is to show that Christ will ultimately triumph over Satan, eradicate from the kingdom His enemies, and save His people by virtue of the cross of Calvary. This statement naturally raises the question as to what occasion there is for repentance on the part of Jehovah in making Christ a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.
The answer is this: The cost to heaven of remedying the ruin that Adam had wrought was the priceless gift of the Son of God to redeem Adam’s failure. In brief, the cross of Calvary, with all that was involved in the crucifixion of the Lord of Glory, is the price that Jehovah paid to fill Adam’s place by making Christ “a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.”
There must have been special occasion for repentance—for turning back from the carrying out of the oath—or the thought of the possibility of Jehovah’s repentance would not have been embodied in the oath. To redeem Adam’s failure, and forever seat Christ as priest-king upon Adam’s forfeited throne, would make it necessary that Christ should become, and forever remain, a member of our human family. It embraced the idea that He must become a weary, homeless wanderer in the earth, “despised and rejected of men,” to be mocked, treated as a malefactor, and finally taste death for every man. But no matter what the cost, Jehovah is pledged, by His oath, not to turn back from the completion of the purpose to redeem Adam’s failure, by making Christ a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.
The fifth and sixth verses continue on the same theme, bringing to view the day of God’s wrath, when He will smite through wicked kings to prepare the way for Christ’s kingdom, and when He will execute judgment upon “the heathen”—all who are not children of the kingdom.
Then (verse 7), because He drank of the whole flood of human sorrow, received in His own person the sentence of death, which sentence stood “in the way” of our eternal salvation, He will lift up our heads with the joys of salvation forevermore.
Thus among all the offices held by Christ, none can be more important to our human family than that of His priesthood after the order of Melchizedek. When by the fall of our first father we were left hopeless, fatherless, homeless, kingless, the Son of God, the Creator of all worlds, came to our rescue, and became hope, everlasting Father, Saviour, King, in short, Melchizedek, to our race.
As King, He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Our erstwhile sin-defiled, grave-filled world will—praise God—erelong be the brightest, the happiest, the most glorious spot in all the universe, for the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and the “sons of God” will at stated seasons wend their way from worlds afar to join with our redeemed, blood-bought family in worshiping our King and our God.
Why I Do Not
By Mrs. A. H. McAdow
By Mrs. A. H. McAdow
A popular editor and writer asks me, "Why do you not write something popular, and be a leader instead of going down? Success is the final proof of power."
I can not put my heart into anything of evil;
My love and hate combine to rout and chase the devil.
The world has had her "leaders,"
Who were vile and beastly men,
And to-day a few there are
Steeped in bribery and sin;
While many noble souls
Have lived and died in shame —
Upon the great world's record
They never had a name,
Yet won the richest laurels,
And will wear a jeweled crown
When the "grafter" and the "trimmer"
Will in infamy "go down."
And "the final proof of power"
Is to live for God and right,
And shine through endless ages
In the kingdom of God's might.
The grandest, highest courage
Is not to ride the wave
Of earth's conceited glory
As "leader," or as knave,
'Tis not to climb to honor
On the weaker who "go down,"
But to stoop and lift a brother,
And help replace his crown,—
Perhaps endure and suffer;
But wrong is never right,
And "the final proof of power"
Is to trust in God for might.
"Perseverance" is rewarded;
It is seldom it will fail;
Yet before a brazen selfishness,
How oft may true worth quail!
I thank you for your mottos
While I earn my daily bread,
But brave and honest-hearted,
Not to lead, by Love I'm led.
I war not for distinction,
But victory! When I "go down,"
If I have helped the fallen,
I care not for earth's crown.
By F. C. Gilbert, author of “From Judaism to Christianity,” from which the article is taken
The Levites and the Week
As is well known, the week from earliest times has been divided into seven days. Six of these days are called working-days, and the other day, the last day, is known as the Sabbath. See Eze. 46:1; Gen. 1:1-31; 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11. The Israelites have always had this reckoning, and have ever kept count by it. The Lord gave them much instruction concerning the Sabbath, and everything was done by the Lord to have the people keep count of the days of the week. Num. 28:26.
For many centuries the priests and the Levites had a method of keeping track of the days, and this, too, in a very interesting way, so that it could be observed with a great deal of pleasure. In fact the Jews had come to learn that one great object of the week was the Sabbath. So with them everything pointed to the Sabbath. At the time of the second temple, therefore, there was introduced the following custom among the Levites, which was used in connection with the daily service of the sanctuary:
Seven psalms, from the one hundred and fifty, were selected, and every morning one of these psalms was used in connection with the temple service. It was something along the same line as we would use a hymn of praise before we begin the service.
On the first day of the week they would say the following: “This is the first in the Sabbath, in which the Levites would say the following in the temple.” Then would follow the psalm. On the second day of the week they would say: “This is the second in the Sabbath, in which the Levites would say the following in the temple.” Then another psalm especially for that day would be quoted.
On the third day they would say as follows: “This is the third in the Sabbath,” etc. Thus they would repeat the same expression every day, as each successive day would come, but each day would always point forward to the Sabbath. When the Sabbath would come, they would say, “This is the holy Sabbath,” etc.
In this way, every week the Levites would repeat the seven different psalms, and every day they would look toward the Sabbath; that is to say, the climax of the week was the Sabbath, and each day of the week looked forward to this Sabbath day. Thus after a time, with the Jews the Sabbath and the week became almost synonymous. The Sabbath being the last day of the week, when the Sabbath had come and gone, another week had come and gone; and a new week would begin at the close of the Sabbath.9
To Begin and Close the Sabbath
There had also grown up among the Jews a custom of having a service in connection with the beginning and ending of the Sabbath. At the beginning of the Sabbath, after the mother of the house had lighted and had blessed the Sabbath candles, the father of the family would pronounce the benediction or blessing on the Sabbath with a cup of wine. This service at the beginning of the Sabbath was called kid-desh, literally meaning “holy or hallowed.” This word comes from the same Hebrew word, kad-desh, which means “holy.” This service was hallowing the Sabbath.
At the close of the Sabbath, as the sun was setting, the other service was held, and this service was called hav-do-lah, literally, division. This word comes from the Hebrew root word which means “to divide.” At this time the man of the house would take a cup of wine, some spices, a candle, and in this way, by pronouncing this blessing, he would divide the Sabbath from the next week. From this time on, now that the Sabbath was ended, it would begin to dawn, or be on the way, toward the first day of the week. So the Jews would regard the time when the Sabbath was divided on Saturday night, till the daybreak Sunday morning, as the dawning toward the first day of the week. In other words, now that the Sabbath was divided and the week fully gone, it was getting to start toward another week, and by the people was recognized as being on the way toward the first day of the week, or toward the first of another Sabbath. The people having been so accustomed to enumerate the days of the week with the Sabbath in view, it is easy to see what is meant therefore in that text, when it says that the Sabbath was ended, and it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, or the first of the Sabbath. Every day with the Jews was looking forward toward the Sabbath, as when it came, another week was done and finished.
With this thought in view, one clearly sees what is meant by the text in Matt. 28: 1.
