The Blessings of Eternity Secure — The Glorious Day Is Almost Here —
The Final Preparatory Warning Now Going — "Escape for
Thy Life" — The Open Door
THAT assurance have we that the unity and peace and glory of heaven will be eternal? May we not reasonably fear another invasion? And may not all our toil yet be in vain, our sacrifices to obtain the inheritance fruitless, and our period of joy and gladness temporary? Let the apostle Peter answer: "Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." 2 Peter 3:13. "His promise" is the basis of our confidence. "All the promises of God in Him are yea, and in Him amen, unto the glory of God by us." 2 Cor. 1:20. What He has promised, He is able to perform. Rom. 4:21. "There is nothing too hard" for the Lord. Jer. 32:17. In what instance has His word of promise failed?
THE ASSURANCE OF THE PROMISES
He promised to deliver Israel from Egyptian bondage, and He delivered them. He promised to raise up Christ as the Saviour of a fallen race, of the seed of Abraham and David, and He raised Him up. He promised to destroy the Amalekites utterly, and to disperse Israel throughout the nations, and His promise failed not. He promised a new heart to every believer under the new covenant, and millions have testified to the verity of His word. He promised to destroy the wicked cities of the plains, and the salt waters of the Dead Sea witness to the fulfilment of His word. He promised to destroy the antediluvians for their wickedness, and save believers in the ark. Unbelievers were destroyed, and believers were rewarded, according to the promise.
By the same word, beyond the Judgment, He has promised the everlasting destruction of all ungodly men, with Satan and all invaders of His kingdom. 2 Peter 3:7; 2 Thess. 1:9; Rev. 20:7-15. And that promise is as secure as the throne of God. Furthermore, He has positively declared that "affliction shall not rise up the second time." Nahum 1:9.
"YE SHALL NEVER FALL"
"Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: for so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." 2 Peter 1:10, 11. We can therefore say, with Joshua of old, as the basis of our confidence: "And ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which the Lord your God spake concerning you: all are come to pass unto you, and not one thing hath failed thereof." Joshua 23:14.
Having been "purified, and made white, and tried" (Dan. 12:10), and all perfectly united in the bonds of love and peace through Christ, the Prince of peace and love (Eph. 1:10), the kingdom, originally established with the untried, is now established upon the basis of eternal security in Christ our "surety," who can not fail.
Dear reader, what is your relation to the kingdom of God? If your probation should close to-day, would your place be with Satan, the leader of the invasion of the kingdom of God, and would you share with him a traitor's doom? Or would you be found with Christ, loyal to God, in harmony with the requirements of His kingdom, and a sharer with Him of eternal joys? You can occupy no indifferent ground.
Christ says, "He that is not with Me is against Me." Matt. 12:30. And they who are ashamed to own Him now in the hour of conflict, He will be ashamed to own before His Father and the holy angels in the hour of triumph. His appeal to you is: "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear My voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with Me. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with Me in My throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with My Father in His throne." Rev. 3:20, 21. "Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation." 2 Cor. 6:2. "To-day if ye will hear His voice, harden not your heart." Ps. 95:7, 8.
WILL YOU RISK IT?
Is it wise, is it prudent, to risk delay on a question that involves supreme interests for eternity? Is it consistent to spend the time on worldly trifles, when the Judge stands almost ready to render the final verdict upon a world in sin? Are not eternal interests too great to admit of delay, when Christ, our High Priest, is about ready to make the last offering for sin, lay aside His priestly garments, receive His kingly crown, and destroy impenitents who refuse His offered pardon?
In the days of Noah, God warned the world of a coming Flood, saved those who accepted His message, and destroyed those who refused it. In the days of Lot, God warned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah of the speedy judgment awaiting those wicked cities, saved those who received that message, and destroyed the unbelieving.
THE FINAL WARNING
Of the last generation He speaks, saying it shall be as in the days of Noah and Lot. We are therefore now standing where they stood. The final message of warning to a wicked and heedless world is now finishing its work. The proclamation of the "commandments of God and the faith of Jesus" is heralded throughout the world to-day, according to the divine commission.
Have you heard the announcement? What will you do in response to God's last call to sinners? "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for 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." Gal. 6:7, 8. "A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished." Prov. 22:3.
This is the last hour of mercy's invitation. "For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry. Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith." Hab. 2:3, 4. It only lingers to offer another plea to sinners, before the door of salvation's ark closes forever, when a world in darkness must meet its doom.
"THE MORNING COMETH"
The hour is momentous. Darkness is settling down upon a wicked world like the shadow of death. The watchmen cry, "What of the night?" The answer is, "The morning cometh, and also the night" (Isa. 21:11, 12),—the morning of blessing and unfading glory to the righteous; and the night of starless, hopeless9despair for sinners. The final storm of divine indignation against sin is hanging low over the horizon.
The forces for Armageddon's battle, with which it will break, are making the final preparation for the conflict. Time is short. The Lord is at hand. Worldly pleasure, hoarded worldly treasure, and worldly honor, are but badges of identification of victims of satanic delusion. "What is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and then He shall reward every man according to his works." Matt. 16:26, 27.
"ESCAPE FOR THY LIFE"
As the angel said to Lot, "Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed" (Gen. 19:17), so the Lord says to the last generation, "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" (Matt. 19:17), through "the faith of Jesus," and escape the wrath to come (Rev. 14:9-12).
Will you not accept the warning and be saved? And to the waiting, watching, struggling church, meeting the climax of satanic wrath while the last message is finishing its mission, He gives this final word of hope, comfort, and assurance of speedy and eternal victory:
THE OPEN DOOR
"To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith He that is holy, He that is true, He that hath the key of David, He that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; I know thy works; behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it; for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept My word, and hast not denied My name. Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. Because thou hast kept the word of My patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. Behold, I come quickly; hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go no more out; and I will write upon him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, which is New Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from My God; and I will write upon him My new name. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches." Rev. 3:7-13.
A WORD TO OUR READERS
By Editor
We send no papers from this office to individuals without pay in advance. When persons receive copies without ordering them, they are sent by other parties, and we can give no information in regard to them. Persons thus receiving copies of the SIGNS are not indebted to the office, and will not be called upon to pay for them. Please read the papers you may receive, and hand them to your friends to read.
DATE OF EXPIRATION
The SIGNS wrapper bears date of last issue due on your subscription. Unless renewed in advance, paper stops with expiration date.
If herewith is an order-blank, you will know you have overlooked sending renewal. You will not wish to miss a single issue. Back numbers often can not be furnished.
SCRIPTURE QUOTATIONS
Our authority for the doctrines we teach is the Bible. Quotations are usually from the King James Version or the American Standard Revised.
TEACHING RELIGION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
By J. O. C.
Is It a Correct Principle? — The Agitation in Favor of It — If the State May Teach Religion, What Need Is there of the Church?
THE National Educational Association of America has lately closed its annual session for 1914 in St. Paul, Minnesota. Among other questions discussed was the growing demand for religion to be taught in the public schools. To this point Mr. Henry F. Cope, of Chicago, who is secretary of the Religious Education Association, is reported to have addressed himself thus:
"The present agitation for the teaching of religion in the public schools is based on three misapprehensions: first, that the state may properly teach religion; second, that religion can be taught as mathematics, or other like subjects; and third, that teaching religion would solve all the problems of youthful delinquency and the general public apathy to educational affairs."
Space forbids reviewing the three misconceptions here stated, in their order. What follows must be of a general nature, in reference to them all. However, in view of the strenuous efforts made, through church influence, to have religious teaching a part of the public school curriculum, it is gratifying to note that even the secretary of the widely extended Religious Education Association sees inconsistency in such an attempt.
IF THE STATE DOES IT, WHAT USE IS THE CHURCH?
The first mistake to which attention is here called, that of the province of the state to teach religion, is certainly worth considering carefully. The logic of the proposition is this: To maintain506that the state should provide for teaching religion, would be to overthrow the very object sought in the contention; for it must be clear to all, that if the state's duty includes the teaching of religion, then the necessity for church administration is by that statute superseded, and church relationship abrogated.
CAN THE STATE REALLY PROVIDE IT?
But further: If such condition should prevail, what effect would that have on religion itself? Could the state provide, through public school teaching, for the development of pure and undefiled religion, which we are authoritatively told includes visiting the fatherless and the widows in their affliction (James 1: 27)? If so, by what method would it be done?
In reply to this query, one may say that to demonstrate the practical side of religion is not the intent of the suggestion, but simply to teach the theory, or the doctrine, of religion. The statement of such a design, however, leads up to another important inquiry, which is: If pure and undefiled religion is summed up in visiting the fatherless and the widows in their affliction, and keeping oneself unspotted from the world, how can a mere theory of this statement be demonstrated, like an example in mathematics, and kindred subjects?
IS A MATTER OF THE INDIVIDUAL HEART
The advocates of this theory must certainly overlook the important truth that religion is a matter of the heart, more than of the head, and that the memorizing of certain abstract principles does not meet the object of religious teaching. There are some things in this world that can be taught only by personal action, such, for instance, as the love of God for humanity. To the uninitiated, words alone could not possibly make this subject clear. It could be made clear only through that love incarnated in flesh, and there permitted to reveal itself by living activity, as it was by the Son of God. The bare theory of love, that essential attribute of Jehovah, and the foundation of Christian virtue, could not, at the opening of the Christian era, nor can it now, be made comprehensible to minds darkened by sin, except by open demonstration in personal action.
This being true, whoever attempts to teach religion, to any profit except to himself, must first have been initiated into the mysteries of Spirit promptings, and so be prepared to lead other minds into the higher realms of life — into actual association with God and Christ, through heaven's comfort throbbings in the inner man.
HOW WOULD TEACHERS BE SELECTED?
But under such a standard, what law would govern the selection of teachers? Could a secular state rule determine, with any degree of accuracy whatever, the inward fitness of an applicant for such responsibility? — Of course not, and no one really believes that it could. Then why urge the teaching of religion by the public school, when God has ordained that it shall be done primarily in the family, with the supplemental indoctrination and guidance of the church? And further, why should children, for whose moral training parents are held accountable, be brought into the world, and given over, at a tender age, to the religious instruction of those whose code of morals is uncertain and unreliable?
The issue is frequently avoided by saying, in reply to these questions, that they misrepresent the thing desired. We do not ask, say the advocates of religious instruction in the public schools, that these deep things of God shall be taught in public school work, but merely surface morals, such as may be taught in class, without any distinct probe of life evidence to follow. But even in this event — the results of which would be extremely questionable — by what standard would accuracy in study be determined? Every teacher knows that some fixed gage of merit must settle the standing of pupils in each study, and this one could not in fairness be made an exception to the rule.
STANDARD RELIGIOUS TEXT-BOOKS REQUIRED
Besides, to secure uniformity of effort, the state would have to set the standard in its text-books, and require teachers to conform to it. But if some would-be teacher should not, perchance, maintain the same moral ideals that are set in the school text-books, he must either fail in his state examination for school work, or else be permitted to teach such a code of morals as best suits himself.
To say nothing of the neighborhood differences this course would generate, they could be no greater than if the text-book standard were followed; for each neighbor, in every school district, naturally has his peculiar notions of religious belief, and would probably object to his child's being taught a digest of religion antagonistic to that which, in family teaching, he had assured the child was the only true religious belief. In that event there would be but one course open to the parent, since the state would be regulating religious teaching in the public school, and also requiring all children to attend some school a certain portion of each year. That course would be to send his child to a private school, paying tuition for the same, notwithstanding he had already paid the state-required school tax for his child's education.
THE PARENT WITH A DEFINITE FAITH
It must be admitted that this would be a hardship. But it may be asked, What difference can it make as to what form of religion is taught the child? — It makes every kind of difference, as the design of the advocates of public school religious teaching testifies. Were there no difference to be noted, these promoters would not so strongly urge their case. Any parent who has a settled religious faith, believing that to be the only true one, and desiring his child to walk with him in the light of that one cherished form of dogma, will go far toward leading his child in the same path he has chosen for himself. This is but the outworking of parental responsibility which God has placed on all parents; and for the state to deny them the right to prescribe the form of religion their children must be taught, is no less than following in the steps of papal Rome during the terrible Dark Ages.
TENDENCY TO DOMINATE THE CHILD'S MIND
The present tendency to dominate the mind of the child in these lines, on the part of those above him, as an educational effort, received attention by Mr. J. H. Francis, superintendent of the Los Angeles public schools, when he was reported to have classed it as the sign of a decaying institution. He declared, it was said, that every child has a right to freedom in the pursuit of normal development, and should not be coerced into the belief of occult theories, in school studies.
But to many persons, the strange part of this whole question is, why the advocates of religious teaching in public schools can not see that it is a veritable union of church and state, and therefore a return to that hateful system which was the destruction of human happiness in the generations of long ago. If one would have the blessed Bible read at the opening of each school day, and passed by without comment, willing to let the Spirit of God accompanying that Word make its own impressions upon the children present, no one could well combat that. But when those of every stripe of religious or irreligious belief, as schoolteachers, attempt to put their own one-sided ideas of the Bible into the minds of their pupils, every parent has the right to object, and properly so, on the ground of human equity to be sustained.
Question Corner
By Milton C. Wilcox
Conducted by MILTON C. WILCOX
Professor of Biblical Exegesis of the Faculty of the College of Medical Evangelists
Loma Linda, California
NOTE.—In resuming the Question Department of the SIGNS OF THE TIMES, let me say: (1) The department is for the purpose of helping Bible students. (2) Answers must of necessity be brief, often only suggestive, never exhaustive, never infallible only as they agree with the infallible Word. (3) Such questions only will be answered as seem to the editors to minister to the mission of the paper. (4) Questions of the same import can not be answered repeatedly in the same volume. (5) Name and address must be given, not for publication, but as evidence of good faith and to insure reply by letter if thought best. (6) It is well always to enclose stamp. (7) With this we begin a new numbering.
4—JUSTIFY, SANCTIFY
By Editor
Will you please give the meaning of the words "justify" and "sanctify," and also what these words are in the original language?
The meaning of "justify" is first, to show to be just; to declare or prove just that which is already just, but which may be charged with injustice. Thus God is justified by the development of His work. He has been just all the way through, but His work for mankind in the fulfilment of His word demonstrates that He is just.
A second meaning, as regards man, is to treat as righteous those who are sinners but who believe in Christ. See Rom. 3:20-23. They are justified wholly because of faith. The righteousness of God is put in the place of their sins, and God declares them righteous or justified. The Standard Dictionary defines thus: "In theology, to regard and treat as righteous and lawfully free from the penalty of sin, on the ground of Christ's mediatorial work."
The Hebrew word used for "justify" is thus transliterated by Strong, tsadaq, which means, to be or to make right, to cleanse or clear self. The word in the Greek comes from dikaioo, the meaning of which is, to show or regard as just or innocent. Here we have the same double thought again,—to show that one is just who is just, or to regard one as just or innocent who is guilty of sin, because he has faith in Christ. This is the great lesson of Romans and Galatians.
"Sanctify" means, to make holy, to render sacred, to set apart, to separate. It comes, in the Old Testament, from the Hebrew word qadash, which is defined by Strong to be, "make, pronounce, observe as clean." It is translated, "appoint," "dedicate," "prepare." In all these uses, it has the thought in it of setting apart, separating from other things which seemingly are of the same class. The Standard Dictionary defines it, "To make holy, render sacred or morally or spiritually pure; cleanse from sin; to set apart as holy or for holy purposes; consecrate; hallow; as the Sabbath was SANCTIFIED by God." In other words, the seventh day was separated from other days of the same length, and set apart to the service of the Lord. In the Greek it is translated from the word hagiazō, and is defined, "To make holy, to purify, to consecrate, to hallow, to be holy, to sanctify."
The word "saint" comes from the same root. A saint is a man who is separated from others and set apart and sanctified to the Lord and to the Lord's service. It does not necessarily mean that he is a perfect being, that he has overcome all sin. The Lord calls the Corinthians "saints." See 1 Cor. 1:2. These saints evidently made mistakes, and yet they were separated from the world, and set apart to the service of God.
Justification is the state which brings us into the righteousness of Christ and covers our sins with the blood of Christ. Sanctification is the act by which the believer gives himself wholly to the Master, separating himself from the sins of the past to whole-hearted service of God. It is an instantaneous work in the sense of yielding of the will to God. It is a constant life-work in the sense of the working out of this fact every day and hour of one's life.
Does this kindling of the fire have reference to a fire to cook with or by which to keep warm, or does it have reference to a work in one's heart?
It has reference to the kindling of fire in the wilderness of Sinai, for any purpose. That wilderness through which the children of Israel passed was in a very warm section of the country. Fire was needed neither day nor night to keep warm. The only fire that was needed at all was to cook food; but special instruction was given in this, as will be found in the sixteenth chapter of Exodus. Before the Sabbath came, they were to bake or boil what was required, so that they would have no work of that kind to do on the Sabbath day; and yet we read in one place of a man who went out to gather sticks on that day, and in another place where some went out to gather food.
Now God did not forbid fire regardless of the needs of His people. The Sabbath is not made to be a day of discomfort. Matt. 12:1-12 shows us this very clearly. The Sabbath was made to be sacred, not to be a yoke of bondage, nor was it to be a day which man would use to his own profit. Read the commandment—Ex. 20:8-11—and Isa. 58:13. The Sabbath was made to be a day of rest, a day of blessing, a day in which the soul could find real enjoyment in the works of God. Consequently it was not against man, but for man. So Jesus used it. He justified His disciples when they plucked and ate the ears of wheat. When our Lord saw the sick man in the synagogue, He healed him, and by His conversation with the Jews, showed that He did right. "It is lawful to do well on the Sabbath day." Consequently if His people are in a cold climate, and they need a fire, they are certainly not breaking the Sabbath law looking after their needs in that way.
Does this special text refer to a special resurrection, or to both resurrections?
F. B. R.
We read in Rev. 1:7 that when our Lord Jesus Christ shall come, every eye shall see Him,—that is, every eye of those living,—and "they also which pierced Him." Of course this latter class have been long dead. Therefore they must be raised from the dead to see our Lord come. In John 5:28, 29, and Acts 24:15, we read of two resurrections, the resurrection of the just and the resurrection of the unjust. In Rev. 20:5, 6, these resurrections are separated by one thousand years. Of those who have part in the first resurrection, it is said that they are blessed and holy, and over them the second death will have no power; while the rest of the dead, the wicked dead, are not raised till the one thousand years are expired.
But Daniel 12 would seem to have reference to a special resurrection, and not to a general resurrection; for of the class mentioned there it is said, "And many"—not all—"of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some"—not all—"to everlasting life, and some"—not all—"to shame and everlasting contempt," or as the margin of the Revised Version reads, "everlasting abhorrence." That is, we could easily conceive that there would be specially aggravated cases of wicked persons who had done everything in their power against Christ and His kingdom, who would be raised from the dead to see Him come in glory and triumph. On the other hand, there would be some of those who had especially yielded themselves to God for service, who would507also be raised from the dead at that time—not when Christ comes, but just before He comes—when probation closes, and when Michael, or Christ, stands up to reign. It seems, from other scriptures, to be about a year before His coming.
8—THE FALSE PROPHET
Please give me some light on Rev. 20: 10, which speaks of the false prophet in the singular number. H. W. J.
Our querist makes reference to “Questions and Answers.” The answer there is altogether too brief. The two-horned beast is a union of church and state. But it is more than that; it is a union of church and state in some particular government. A mere beast might represent a government, as do the ram and the goat of Daniel 8; but a fierce, wild, and cruel beast would represent a government in which church and state are united and the government is therefore a persecutor. Such governments are so represented in Daniel 7.
In Revelation 13 we have a beast with “two horns like a lamb.” Naturally it would not be a persecutor. But an additional feature is given to it which indicates that it is a persecutor—it “spake as a dragon.” The dragon primarily represents the devil. Rev. 12:9. The beast is the devil’s agency working through various forms of government, represented by the seven heads. One great principle underlies the whole system, but this principle is developed in concrete forms; therefore out of this seven-headed system we have Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, pagan Rome, papal Rome, apostate Protestantism, and the restoration of the papacy. This beast reigns in the Old World. The two-horned beast is the manifestation of government and power in a different part of the world, namely, on the western continent. When the United States of America first flung her national banner to the breeze, she was as nearly an ideal Christian government as could be, embodying two great principles of Christianity, religious liberty and equality.
But the overweening desire of religious men to rule has developed within the United States strong parties, tremendous organizations, which are determined to place upon the statute-books of this country religious laws and ordinances. That government which said to the world, “Here is freedom,” will, in yielding to these religious demands, prove false to her profession. In other words, she will be a false prophet, to lead the nations of the earth back into the persecutions and oppression of the Dark Ages. The false prophet and the two-horned beast are therefore identical.
Rev. 20:10 would better read this way: “And the devil that deceived them was cast into a lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet were cast, and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever.” It will be noticed that “are” is in italics, showing that it is supplied; but the proper term to supply there is not “are,” because the beast and the false prophet perish at the second coming of our Lord. By reference to Rev. 19:19, 20, it will be seen that the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies, together with the false prophet, are taken and cast alive into a lake of fire and brimstone. This is at the time of the second advent, when the remnant of the wicked are slain by the presence of the Lord.
When Christ comes the second time, judgment is enacted, not upon individuals, but upon the nations, and the nations are destroyed. At the end of the thousand years, when the wicked dead arise, it will be an entirely new alinement. Satan will reorganize his work with the vast host of all the wicked who have lived in the past. But in the end, the devil and all his hosts will be just as utterly destroyed as will the beast and the false prophet at the coming of Christ.
10 — CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS
1. Was the eating of clean and unclean meats done away at the crucifixion of Christ, or are we under that law still? 2. Does this include oysters? Are they among the unclean things? J. S. R.
1. Those laws that “stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances,” etc. (Heb. 9:10), passed away when our Lord died on the cross. But the principle upon which the clean and the unclean beasts were differentiated holds still. These beasts were not made clean or unclean by the Levitical law as recorded in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. We find that at the time of the Deluge, according to Genesis 7, 8, and 9, there were clean and unclean beasts. Only a pair of each of the unclean beasts were taken into the ark and preserved, while there were seven pairs of the clean beasts.
They were not clean and unclean because of any arbitrary law, but because of the very nature of the beasts themselves. Therefore they were unfit for food, not because the Levitical law said so, but in the very nature of things. Science demonstrates the same thing. One would never think of a doctor’s prescribing pork for a fever patient. That is one of the first things that he would forbid. Why, then, was the Levitical law abolished?
Here is one suggestion: The gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ went far out beyond the limits of the Jewish nation. That Levitical law was for the Jewish nation alone. When the heralds of Christ carried the gospel to other nations, they carried it to peoples who in the very nature of the case could not separate themselves from the customs of the country in which they lived. Clean and unclean animals were eaten at all times. It would be impossible for them to live at all without transgressing Jewish ceremonial law, consequently the Lord did not impose that upon them. Certain restrictions were placed upon the Gentile converts, according to Acts 15; but the old Levitical laws themselves could not be bound upon the converted from the other nations. The Lord, however, gave them the principles in His laws to Israel and in the gospel, “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.” It certainly can not be to the glory of God for us, if we can avoid it, to eat and drink those things that the Lord forbade His ancient people to eat and drink. If it was better for them to refrain from those things, it is better for us.
We may not always be able to do it. There are circumstances where it is impossible. But just as far as is consistent, we should refrain from eating unclean and unwholesome food. We should study not our particular appetites, our likes or dislikes, but what shall be to the glory of God and to our own best good. How can we render to Him the best service?
2. It would seem from Lev. 11:10-12 that oysters are among the unclean things condemned. Of the things that live in the waters, having neither fins nor scales, it is said four times that they are an “abomination.”
7—MATTER OF DRESS
By Editor
Kindly inform me who changed the style of dress, as in the apostolic time men and also women all seemed to dress very much alike, all having the long, loose robes. When did the change take place?
It would be impossible to tell just when any radical change took place. The dwellers of the East have made very little change of dress on the part of the common people from time immemorial. The robes and the turbans are worn very much now as they were centuries ago.
It is in the Western countries largely, Europe and America especially, that the many changes have taken place, to minister to pride or to help big commercial houses.
In Scriptural times, the principal manifestation of fashion was in the matter of adornment. While the general style of dress remained the same, the adornment was more or less elaborate. This is shown in Isaiah 3, and also in the injunctions against such things by the apostle Paul. Neatness, simplicity, usefulness, economy, and good taste are what the Christian ought to study.
9—THE LETTERS V AND U
Will you please tell me through the Question Corner what authority there is for substituting the letter V for the letter U, in counting the numbers expressed in “Vicarius Filii Dei”?
The letters F, U, V, W, and Y are all from the Phœnician “Waw,” or “Vau”; and the Phœnician “Vau” is shaped somewhat like our common Roman Y. The letters V and U were graphic varieties simply—that is, different ways of picturing the same sound—till the sixteenth century. V was used for U because it is more easily made and easily chiseled, on account of its straight lines and angles. They had the same sound in Latin, in Norman-French, and in English down to the Elizabethan period (1588-1603). They were counted as one in all alphabetical arrangements until recently, just the same as I and J are counted one. W in the French language is VV. The old printers’ cases are witnesses to the same thing.
So whenever you see V in Roman literature, or U in a Roman name, you may know they are one and the same thing.
11 — LOSS OF TIME
By Editor
A friend who has read S. Gamble’s book on “The Sabbath” says that the true Sabbath was lost in the fall of Babylon, and that Jesus restored it to the first day of the week by His resurrection. Please explain. A. C.
Now that is not a difficult thing to say, is it? It would be just as easy to say that the Sabbath was lost at the time of the Exodus as at the time of the fall of Babylon, or that it was lost at the time of the crucifixion, or that it was lost in the Dark Ages. It is not hard to make any such statement as any of these, but the simple fact is that the Sabbath was not lost at any of these times. Jesus says, “The Sabbath was made for man.” Is it possible that, when God made the Sabbath for man, He would suffer that a knowledge of that institution and that day should be withheld from man for hundreds of years? According to the above statement, the people of God had no Sabbath and no knowledge of any Sabbath from 538 B. C. to the time our Saviour came—for over five centuries. No one believes this. Jesus found the Jews keeping the true Sabbath. He does not condemn them for this. Paul tells us, in Rom. 2:20, that the Jews had “the form of knowledge and of the truth.” The only trouble was, they didn’t have the spirit of it, and so they loaded the Sabbath day with exacting traditions, burdens grievous to be borne, that God had not put upon it at all. Jesus simply restored the Sabbath to its true place in God’s plan by using it as a day of blessing and joy and helpfulness—in doing God’s work. See Matt. 12:1-12 and elsewhere. His disciples—those who had followed Him through His ministry—kept the Sabbath day “according to the commandment.” Luke 23:56. The next day was the first day of the week. Luke 24:1.
According to this scripture, therefore, the Sabbath was the day before the first day of the week, and that Sabbath day was according to the commandment. That carries us back to Ex. 20:8-11. That declares that the Sabbath “according to the commandment” was the seventh day of the week, and that carries us back still farther to the time the Sabbath was instituted at creation, when God rested on the seventh day, and appointed it to be observed.
Consequently we have the divine stamp upon the identity of the Sabbath. We have it in Gen. 2:2, 3, we have it in the Decalogue, we have it in the life of our Lord. The first day of the week is not called the Sabbath. It was just a common, ordinary working-day. The weekly day called the Sabbath always pertains to the seventh day.
Furthermore, we have the Ptolemy canon, which reaches back to the Babylonian kings, and that canon is confirmed by twenty eclipses. There is no time lost since then. (See “The Lord’s Day the Test of the Ages,” Part 1, and especially chapter 3; “Questions and Answers,” pages 101 and 102.) The seventh-day Sabbath of that time is the seventh-day Sabbath now.
