“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery [“a thing to be seized upon and held fast”] to be equal with God: but emptied himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.” Phil. 2: 5-7.
In our studies of Christ as He is revealed in the first and second chapters of Hebrews, we have found that, as He was in heaven, His nature was the same as the nature of God; and that when He came to the earth, His nature was the same as the nature of man: that, whereas, on the side of God, Jesus and God are “of one”—of one flesh, of one nature, of one substance,—so, on the side of man, Jesus and man are “of one”—of one flesh, of one nature, of one substance. “For which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren.”
And so it is written: “In all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren.” The first chapter of Hebrews, in revealing that His likeness to God is not simply in form or representation, but also in very substance, in that demonstrates that His likeness to men is not simply in form or in representation, but also in very substance. It is likeness to men as they are in all things, exactly as they are. Wherefore, again it is written: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” John 1: 1, 14.
And that this is likeness to man as he is in his fallen, sinful nature, and not as he was in his original, sinless nature, is made certain by the word: “We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death.” Therefore, as man is since he became subject to death, this is what we see Jesus, in His place as man.
Therefore, just as certainly as we see Jesus lower than the angels, unto the suffering of death, so certainly it is by this demonstrated that, as man, Jesus took the nature of man as he is since death entered; and not, at all the nature of man as he was before he became subject to death.
But death entered only because of sin: had not sin entered, death never could have entered. And we see Jesus made lower than the angels for the suffering of death. Therefore we see Jesus made in the nature of man, as man is since man sinned, and not as man was before sin ever entered. For this He did that He might “taste death for every man.”
“For it became Him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.” Heb. 2: 10. Thus, in becoming man, it became Him to become such as man is. Man is subject to suffering. Therefore it became Him to come to the man where he is, in his sufferings.
Before man sinned, he was not in any sense subject to sufferings; and for Jesus to have come in the nature of man as he was before sin entered, would have been only to come in a way and in a nature in which it would be impossible for Him to know the sufferings of man, and therefore impossible to reach him to save him. But since it became Him, in bringing men unto glory, to be made perfect through sufferings, it is certain that Jesus, in becoming man, partook of the nature of man as he is since he became subject to suffering, even the suffering of death, which is the wages of sin.
And again: “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also himself likewise took part of the same.” Verse 14. He, in His human nature, took the same flesh and blood that men have. All the words that could be used to make this plain and positive are here put together in a single sentence.
See: the children of men are partakers of flesh and blood. Because of this He took part of the same.
But this is not all: He also took part of the same flesh and blood as that of which the children are partakers.
Nor is this all: He also himself took part of the same flesh and blood as that of which the children of men are partakers.
Nor yet is this all: He also himself likewise took part of the same flesh and blood as that of which men are partakers.
Thus the Spirit of inspiration so much desires that this truth shall be made so plain and emphatic that it shall be understood by all, that He is not content to use any fewer than all the words that could be used in the telling of it. And, therefore, it is declared that just as, just as certainly as, the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also himself likewise took part of the same flesh and blood.
And this He did in order “that through death He might . . . deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” He took part of the same flesh and blood as we have in the bondage of sin and the fear of death, in order that He might deliver us from the bondage of sin and the fear of death.
And therefore again it is written: “Both He which sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren.”
This great truth of the blood-relationship, this blood-brotherhood, of Christ with men, is taught in the gospel in Genesis. For when God made His everlasting covenant with Abraham, the sacrifices were cut in two, and He, with Abraham, passed between the pieces. By this act the Lord entered into “the most solemn covenant known to the Oriental” or to all mankind,—the blood-covenant,—and thus became blood-brother to Abraham, “a relation which outranks every other relation in life.”
This great truth of Christ’s blood-relationship to man is further taught in the gospel in Leviticus. In the gospel in Leviticus there is written the law of redemption of men and their inheritances. When any one of the children of Israel had lost his inheritance, or himself had been brought into bondage, there was redemption provided. If he was able of himself to redeem himself or his inheritance, he could do it. But if he was not able of himself to redeem, then the right of redemption fell to his nearest of kin in blood-relationship. It fell not merely to one who was near of kin among his brethren, but to the one who was nearest of kin, who was able. Lev. 25: 24-28, 47-49; Ruth 2: 20; 3: 12, 13; 4: 1-12.
Thus in Genesis and Leviticus there has been taught through all these ages the very truth which we find here taught in the second chapter of Hebrews—the truth that man has lost his inheritance and is himself also in bondage. And as he himself can not redeem himself nor his inheritance, the right of redemption falls to the nearest of kin, who is able. And Jesus Christ is the only one in all the universe who is able.
But to be the redeemer he must be not only able, he must be a blood-relative. And he must also be not only near of kin, but the nearest of kin; and the nearest of kin by blood-relationship. Therefore, “as the children” of man—as the children of the one who lost our inheritance—“are partakers of flesh and blood, He also himself likewise took part of the same”—took part of flesh and blood in very substance like ours, and so became our nearest of kin. And therefore it is written that he and we “are all of one.” For which cause He is not ashamed to call us brethren.
But the Scripture does not stop even yet with the statement of this all-important truth. It says, further: “For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren,” whose blood-brother He became in the confirming of that everlasting covenant.
And this He did, in order “that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that He himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted.” “For we have not an high priest which can not be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” Heb. 4: 15. Being made in His human nature, in all things like as we are, He could be, and He was, tempted in all points like as we are.
As in His human nature He is one with us, and as “himself took our infirmities” (Matt. 8: 17), He could be “touched with the feeling of our infirmities.” Being in all things made like us, He felt just as we feel, and knows all about it; and so can help and save to the uttermost all who will receive Him. As in His flesh, and as in himself in the flesh, He was as weak as we are, and of himself could “do nothing” (John 5: 30); so when He “bore our griefs, and carried our sorrows” (Isa. 53: 4), and was tempted as we are, feeling as we feel, by His divine faith He conquered all, by the power of God which that faith brought to Him, and which in our flesh He has brought to us.
Therefore, His name is called Immanuel, which is “God with us.” Not God with Him only, but God with us. God was with Him in eternity, and could have been with Him even though He had not given himself for us. But man through sin became without God, and God wanted to be again with us. Therefore Jesus became us, that God with Him might be God with us. And that is His name, because that is what He is.
And this is “the faith of Jesus” and the power of it. This is our Saviour: one of God, and one of man; and therefore able to save to the uttermost every soul who will come to God by Him.
Portents at the End of the Century
*The following comment by the Christian Advocate*** on the real condition of things at the end of the nineteenth century, is a true sign of the times:—
The nineteenth century goes out in war all around the world.
The Hague Conference led some to sing “Hosanna!” and to cry, “The age of peace dawns!” We sat among the doubters; for human nature unregenerated is the same all over the world.
The Christians are still cutting one another’s throats in South Africa.
The Christians are not done cutting one another’s throats in the Philippine Islands.
The Christians and the pagans are but pausing for breath in China.
Clouds are rising over various parts of Northern Africa, and the shadow of revolution is upon a score of nations in South and Central America and on the Continent of Europe.
An epidemic of lynching pervades this country. Prize fighting is a great popular amusement. New York loves it, and also can breed a race riot.
Society at Newport defies conventionalities, social and religious. One of the worst phases of the situation is the development of shamelessness. “First families” rush into the courts with their matrimonial troubles, and appear not able to blush when scenes which would disgrace those born in and to vulgarity are portrayed by the sensational papers.
Those premillenarians who think that the world must get worse before Christ can come are solemnly pointing to these things as portents.
These things are portents. And why should not people think that the world will get worse before Christ comes, when the word of God says that “in the last days . . . evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived”?
The item in the Christian Advocate has the heading, “Dark Enough, but Not Midnight.” No; it is not midnight: it is the darkness just before day.
THE FIRST PLAGUE
By B. G. Wilkinson
The seven angels of Revelation 15, standing within the temple, receive their commission to pour out the vials of the wrath of God. With intense interest, they had been watching the mighty struggles going on in chapters 12-14. In these struggles they had seen the first Beast of chapter 13, while in the midst of his blasphemous career, receive a deadly wound. They saw that as, wounded almost to death, he lay weak and dying, suddenly a second Beast appeared. They beheld this new arrival go to the Beast with the deadly wound, and offer to raise up again his worship and enforce the mark of his authority. Then opened to their view the third and last great struggle between the children of God and worldly powers. They had watched the first struggle between the dragon and the Church. They had followed with intense interest the second mighty conflict—the one between the Beast and the saints upon whom he made war. But as the third struggle began between the combined forces of the two beasts of Revelation 13 and the remnant Church, the seven angels received their commission to act.
“And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the Beast, and upon them which worshiped his image.” Wickedly obstinate to the claims of God, the ungodly are arrested in their career by the outpouring of the first vial. The contents of this cup fall with fearful effect. The followers of the Beast and the receivers of his mark are at last awakened to the seriousness of the issue.
This third, and last, great struggle of the Church being as surely just before us as the two preceding conflicts are behind, let us examine this plague. Its reality, its nature, and its duration are very clear.
This plague must be literal. If it were symbolical, what then would be the plague? Moreover, almost all the plagues are literal. It may be urged that the drying up of the river Euphrates in the sixth plague is symbolical. But how could it be otherwise? Under the third plague the rivers have been turned into blood. It would then be no plague, but a blessing, to dry up the great river, which surely the third angel did not overlook. In its nature, a plague is a torment, vexatious to existence. Since the torment of the guilty is aimed at in the first plague, the end is better secured by the falling of this sore than by some unknown thing symbolized.
We might have a better understanding of the severity of this plague if the somewhat antiquated language by which the Greek is translated did not conceal its nature. The Greek word from which “sore” is translated is set over almost literally into the Latin as ulcus, from which we get our word “ulcer.” This sore, then, is similar to an ulcer. It is of a deeply imbedded, severe, and corrupting nature. Malignant and deadly in its character, it is more fearful than a sore occasioned by a bruise.
It does not relieve its prey by ending their pains with death; for while the fifth plague is falling, it is stated that men blasphemed God because of their “sores.” What sores? No other sore has appeared in the record save the first. Also the word used for sore in both cases is the same. We then conclude that few, probably none, will be able to shake off, when once received, this distressing plague, while others will be added to it.
Who will receive this grievous visitation of God’s anger?—Those who receive the mark of the Beast and worship his Image. How far over the earth shall this plague extend?—As far as the worship of the Beast with the enforcement of his mark has gone.
In order to escape the penalty of receiving the mark of the Beast, it must be determined what the Beast is. To get this understanding, it would be best to go to the record where the Beast is first introduced, and there, at its origin, to study the description of it, and from that to follow onward its career. The Beast, as “the beast,” begins with Revelation 13. In the first ten verses of this chapter his description is so fully and so accurately given that he is easily identified. There is only one power which can answer to this record—it is the papacy, the Church of the pope.
One characteristic will be sufficient to locate him. John says: “He opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, and His tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.” To this power are attributed blasphemies greater and more successful than those of any other rebel mentioned in Scripture. In fact, it is its unusually blasphemous character that marks this power as Antichrist. Since the clear meaning of Antichrist is one who puts himself in the place of Christ, we must expect this blasphemy to consist of pretentious claims and acts—claims and acts that are justified in Christ alone. The Bible thus defines two such blasphemies:—
1. “Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered Him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” Jesus did not deny this definition of blasphemy. His answer indorsed it, by showing that He is the Son of God, and therefore had not blasphemed by putting himself in the place of God. Since blasphemy here is putting man in the place of God; and since all admit that Antichrist would arise in the Christian Church, what blasphemous power has arisen in the Christian Church, putting itself in the place of God? John 10: 32, 33.
2. “When Jesus saw their faith, He said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?” Mark 2: 5-10. Again Jesus indorsed this definition of blasphemy by demonstrating His power to forgive sins. Would that all who claim power to forgive sins could as divinely support their claim! Here blasphemy is claiming power to forgive sin.
In each of the two Scripture quotations given, it stands out clear that blasphemy consists of those acts which would be expected of Antichrist. What great power having the publicity attributed to the Beast of Revelation 13, claims the power on earth to forgive sins?—There is only one; it is the papacy. Demanding that men shall recognize the power of its priests to change at the service of the mass a flour wafer into the body of Christ, and common wine into His blood, the papacy blasphemously puts itself in the place of Christ; it further blasphemes when it claims a full and unconditional power to forgive sins.
The Beast is the papacy. His mark, what is it? It can not be a literal mark; for a literal mark is one no man can resist receiving from a strong power. Suppose it were a brand upon the head. What man could avoid receiving it were the government officers to bind him and stamp it by force? The combined forces of the two beasts hold full sway, do they not?
Upon penalty of death, they require all men to receive this mark. Rev. 13: 16, 17. But there are some who do not receive it. Rev. 15: 2. Therefore it can not be a literal mark; because, if it were, no one could successfully escape it; it could be stamped even after death. It must, then, be a spiritual mark.
What this mark is can easily be determined. It is said to be “a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads.” Since it is a spiritual mark, it must needs be one that will spiritually affect the right hand and the forehead. Do the Scriptures mention any such mark? Only two marks which affect the hand and the forehead can be found in the Bible. Of these two we may easily know the right one; because the Lord has abolished one of the two.
The first one, the one abolished, is the Passover. “And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the Lord’s law may be in thy mouth.” Ex. 13: 9. By noticing the nature of the Passover, it can be seen how it was a spiritual mark upon the hand and upon the forehead. The expression “between thine eyes” means the forehead.
The observance of the Passover required that on certain days no usual work should be done. Thus it was a mark on the right hand; for the forbearance from labor, and especially for religious reasons, would certainly have a discriminating effect. To keep properly the Passover it was also required that the mind should be occupied with God’s law. A true observer would then refuse to enter into conversation or to engage in any scheme not in harmony with God’s law. Thus that person would be marked. The Passover would, by obedience to these requirements, become a sign on the hand and on the forehead.
There was another such sign. It is found in Deut. 11: 13, 18: “Ye shall hearken diligently unto my commandments which I command you this day. . . . Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes.” A frontlet was a band worn on the forehead.
Moses is speaking here of God’s commandments. These commandments were to be a sign upon the hand and upon the forehead. How could they be? All the commandments, or each one of them, could be a sign on the forehead,—in the mind,—for on them could we think, and by them could we regulate our conduct. But only one of these commandments could be—like the Passover, by requiring us to cease from labor—a sign on the hand. The fourth commandment, the keeping of the Sabbath, imposes the refraining from labor one day each week. Therefore it is a sign upon the hand. Like the Passover, the proper observance of the Sabbath requires that the observer shall not speak his own words. This Isaiah says in chapter 58: 13.
Of these two marks,—the Passover and the Sabbath,—which is the one to which the Beast of Revelation 13 will oppose a counterfeit mark? It can not be the Passover; for that ceased at the cross of Christ. Since then, no holy time has been given that in its nature is similar—similar by demanding cessation from labor. Since the Sabbath is the only mark remaining that is, first, spiritual, second, a mark on the hand and forehead, the mark of the Beast must be a counterfeit Sabbath.
How plain at once does this make the first plague. The combined forces of the two beasts are determined to have a mark. Judas and the Jews united to accomplish the death of the Saviour; but they both perished in a terrible retribution. So these powers, combining to enforce a mark unreceivable by God’s people, are themselves compelled to receive a retributive mark. The awful sore of the first plague falls to mark those who have received the sign of the Beast.
God warned the world not to receive the false Sabbath. It was His design to place a mark upon all people by leading them to observe the Sabbath He gave. But the majority preferred to receive the forbidden mark. Since they would not receive the mark which was God’s choice, God now makes them receive a mark which is not their choice. They10would not listen to God’s pleadings not to receive the mark of the Beast; now God will not listen to their pleadings not to receive the mark of this plague. The first plague falls with fearful effect. So distressing does it become that the men blaspheme God. The character of the Beast is now apparent: “He opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, and His tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.” Its blasphemous character may be hidden in the day of God’s mercy; but in the day of His wrath it is openly manifest: they who receive the mark of the Beast blaspheme God as the very first consequence of having received the mark.
How far will the visitation of the first plague be felt?—As far as the mark of the Beast has gone. “Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.” Rev. 14: 8. Do not seek for mission fields entirely free from Babylon’s corrupting influence. There are none. Babylon has gone to all nations. Then arise, and go after her. Go, and warn the people everywhere that if they receive the mark of the Beast, they must also receive the plagues. Go, believing that as surely as Rome is regaining her power, so surely will the enforcement of her sovereign badge follow. Go, knowing that as certainly as the churches refuse to renounce this forbidden mark, so certainly is approaching the falling of the first plague.
B. G. WILKINSON.
EDITORS’ NOTE: This is the fourth in the series of eight studies on The Plagues. The next article will be “The Second and Third Plagues.” Your friend should read these articles. Invest twenty-five cents in a two-months’ subscription for him. If you can invest fifty cents to send these eight articles to TWO friends, so much the better. We can furnish the back numbers. You may pay in postage stamps if you wish.
A CONFERENCE NOT TO BE HELD
By Uriah Smith
“Immediately I conferred not,” says the apostle Paul, “with flesh and blood.” The occasion referred to in this remark was when it pleased God to call him by his grace, and reveal His Son in him, that he might preach the gospel to the heathen. Gal. 1:15-17. The case is a very clear one, even from our distant point of view; and it was a clear one to him; that is, he knew that there was no occasion for him, under the circumstances, to hold a conference with flesh and blood in reference to the great issue then at stake,—the duty he owed to the call of God,—just as there need not be to any now, under like circumstances. His call from God was direct and plain; and it is a notable instance of the power of the gospel that it can cause its influence to prevail over a man in such a position, of such learning, and such energy of character; but we need not be surprised at this; for the gospel “is the power of God unto salvation.” This instance has been the means of bringing many souls to Christ.
But from the standpoint of his position, Paul might have been tempted to stop and reason: “What! should I, who have been persecuting the disciples of Christ, turn around now, and go to preaching the gospel? What will people think of me? How will it affect my standing and prospects as a member of the honorable Sanhedrin? How will it change my prospects in life? I think I will talk a little with my neighbors before I make any such move.” This would have been conferring with flesh and blood.
But the apostle knew the call he had received; and he knew who had called him; and he would give no opportunity for side influences to come in and embarrass his convictions of duty. He would not even go to those who were already in the faith, to whom his mind would most naturally turn under such circumstances. But knowing that his commission was a virgin call from the Lord, he would not go to others, whatever their standing or qualifications, lest it might seem that he had received his gospel at secondhand, and had gathered his determinations from the wishes and directions of men.
He did not consult his relatives in the flesh, who would have thought him led away by some sudden and blind impulse, and would have advised him to wait and be cautious in the matter.
He did not consult his own worldly interests. These would all have led him in the opposite direction. But these he counted all loss for Christ.
He did not consult even his own personal safety; and he knew he would expose himself to dangers and perils of every kind and form. He had suddenly become willing to suffer with Christ, that he might reign with him.
So, passing these considerations all aside, he says, “Immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood.” His language involves more than the mere negative idea conveyed by the words used. It means that he immediately took such steps as to show that he was not consulting flesh and blood in the matter. All that a good and conscientious man wishes to know in regard to any course of conduct, is simply whether or not it is the will of God. Being satisfied that it is settles the question. When you take anything else into consideration, what are you doing?—You are putting something else on a par with the will of the Lord. And this is simply to renounce the Lord, whom we profess to take as our commander and guide, and to put man in His place. Take the whole list of worthies mentioned in Hebrews 11; it appears that the only warrant they wanted in what they had to do was faith that it was the Lord’s will.
To hesitate to obey the call of duty, from selfish interests, is to put self in the place of the Lord, and openly renounce Him by asserting that our own interests are better and more important than His will.
To enter into a conference with flesh and blood, in regard to our duty, and defer its claims to their judgment and promptings, is to turn our backs upon Christ, who expects us, as His disciples, to give ourselves to Him without question or reserve. And when, instead of doing duty promptly, we delay till we can take counsel with what Paul calls flesh and blood, we generally do not perform the duty at all.
The principle involved in this question has a wide application to duties that are recognized as general. In forsaking sin, we are not to consult society. In the duty of dealing uprightly, we are not to follow the customs that prevail in trade, in the world’s business. In consecration to Christ, we are not to conform to the low standard common to multitudes of the professors of religion. In our own personal service we are not to consult our individual likes and dislikes, nor personal ease or honor, nor the prospects of advancement or remuneration, nor to let these considerations swerve us a hair’s breadth from duty.
We are to consider, moreover, that the path of duty is a path of sacrifice: if we can not hold a situation and remain honest, sacrifice the situation, if that can be called a sacrifice, but keep honor pure; if remaining true to the dictates of religion causes loss in trade, sacrifice the trade, but be true to the principles of religion. When some flattering position of honor and trust opens before us, but we find that we can not reach it without lying, bribery, deception, or departing in some respect from what we had promised by word or action, better sacrifice the position than to indulge in these evil principles. If, through some misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of the facts in the case, we give our word and pledge to do some act, or carry out some agreement, which is, at the time, all right in itself, but which we afterward find will involve us in special burden or loss to carry out, we had better bear the loss and keep the pledge. This we understand is what David means when he says that “he that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not . . . shall never be moved.” Ps. 15:4.
While in the matter of conviction of duty it is not best to defer too largely even to the influence of good men,—for they may be governed by wrong motives, may lack in judgment, faith, or devotion,—what shall be said of conferring with wicked men in regard to our convictions of duty? Would they be likely to give the right counsel or exert the right influence?—Surely not.
“But,” says one, “I should not think of conferring with such persons.” Of course not, knowingly and openly. But what about doing it unconsciously, and beneath the surface? How many are doing this very thing, from the naked and unvarnished statement of which they shrink with great aversion. Is not this virtually done by all those who fear to follow the right course of action, or be true to their convictions of duty, for fear that wicked men will ridicule them, or denounce them, or otherwise make their situation unpleasant and embarrassing? Those who are influenced by such considerations are certainly conferring with men in regard to their duty, and letting them decide. What does James say on this point? He says “that the friendship of the world is enmity with God;” and that therefore whosoever “will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.” James 4:4. What must the Lord think of His professed follower who holds a conference with the sworn enemy of God?
The principle applies also to the special services which God requires of us to Him. From these we are not to be held back by the consideration of personal weakness, or the lack of visible means; because whatever God calls us to do, He will provide strength and means for its accomplishment. Dr. Payson says: “Whatever God calls a man to do, He will carry it through. I would undertake to govern half a dozen worlds if God called me to do it; but if He did not call me, I would not undertake to govern half a dozen sheep.”
The fear of not being able to hold on keeps many from starting in the known duty of leading a Christian life. But this is distrusting the power of Christ; or else it is a confession that we do not intend to trust Him. The more common reason for conferring with flesh and blood is a reluctance to give up the world, and a secret clinging to some of its easy ways and indulgences. This is a most perilous course, against which the Lord particularly warns us: “Remember Lot’s wife.”
The example and exhortation of Paul not to confer with flesh and blood in matters of conviction of duty, commends itself to the best judgment of all men. We look with disdain upon the man who has no mind of his own, but acts like the Hindoos, whose course of action, according to a returned missionary, in their own words is: “I do as ten men do;” that is, he has no settled course of duty of his own, but follows custom. But we commend the man who rests his convictions upon an enlightened conscience, and then has courage to carry them out. The judgment of the eternal world will certainly approve such a course.
It is the privilege of every one to be in such communion with God that his duty will be to him as clear and plain as Paul’s duty was to him, and he will have no need to confer with any earthly wisdom in regard to a proper course of life, any more than had Paul with reference to his preaching the gospel. To begin parleying with the enemy is to enter upon the path of defeat. “I did not ask your opinion,” said the Duke of Wellington, to an officer of the engineers, who was urging the impossibility of executing an order he had received. “I gave you orders, and I expect them to be obeyed.” Can our Lord be any less rigid in His directions?
U. S.
SENTIMENTALISM IN FOREIGN WORK
By William Ambrose Spicer
ANYTHING that tends to make distinctions between home and foreign service is against the foreign work. Through the backwardness of the churches to recognize the duty of evangelizing the world, there has come in a sort of romance of missions, a habit of appealing to the sentimental side of religious feeling. But sentimentalism in the work of the Lord is bad. Work is work, that is all, wherever it is done; and the battle against sin abroad is just the same as the battle against it at home. There is no special inspiration, peculiar to foreign work, provided to keep the worker abroad going. There is much of an effort to popularize foreign missions, to work up an enthusiasm of a special kind, in order to get the workers and their support. I noticed a little time ago that Dr. A. T. Pierson, who has always been a home worker for foreign missions, said that he was “a little afraid of what is called missionary enthusiasm.” He said, further:—11It feeds on excitement; it seeks incitements; it likes imaginative pictures drawn in highly colored tints; but it fades and faints before discouragement and difficulty. We want something nobler even than such enthusiasm; namely, simple, calm, steady obedience, implicit compliance with an explicit command; not a calculating, hesitating policy, but simple, uniform, steadfast, immediate obedience.
In the idolatrous fields it is the need of the people rather than their own expression, or even knowledge of their need, that appeals for help. Speaking recently in England, Mrs. Bishop, who has traveled through all Asia, said she was constrained to utter one word of warning concerning a fallacy that has been helped on by the romantic school of foreign mission writers. “Some would have them suppose,” she said, “that these people were thirsting for God. It was not so. There was no such manifest desire on their part—their thirst was rather for gold and the good things of this life.” That is, they are like men the world over; and to help them means a steady, plodding effort that does not live on mere sentiment.
There is such a thing as a burden for a special field. No one having an interest in the work of the Lord would think of ignoring such special leadings. But the burden that precedes this is a burden to see souls saved, and the work of God advanced in the hearts of men. In a foreign field, I believe most of us would prefer to see somebody coming who, possibly, had had no special burden for our particular field, but who had proved, by experience in the work, that wherever he was placed he had a burden to work, rather than to see some one coming who had a tremendous burden to get abroad, but who had demonstrated no particular ability to make a success of the work at home, in the steady, plodding way. No amount of traveling can make a missionary. The best burden of all, the one that is least likely to mislead any, is the burden to bear burdens just where we are. And then the moment the Lord may show us and the brethren that there is greater need somewhere else, we are ready to get a burden to go anywhere under the sun. And any with a genuine burden to go abroad ought, generally, to prove their fitness and find their place in the work in practical service at home. This will save time and money.
That the sentimental idea in foreign mission work often sends men into trying fields who ought to have been tried and tested and developed at home, is perfectly evident in the work of every society. It is really irritating to find somebody who is prepared to find strange peoples “interesting.” They are not specimens to be looked at. They are living souls to be saved; and their personal peculiarities and picturesque appearance is a secondary and trifling matter. We are as strange to them as they are to us. What of it? Sin in them is just as sinful as in ourselves, and the gospel is just as powerful to save them from it.
I wonder if there are any who still think it would be pleasant to work in the South Seas, and see the wavelets roll in upon the coral beach. Bishop Patterson, of the Melanesian Islands Mission, had a horror of this class of missionaries. He said:—
A man who takes the sentimental view of coral islands and cocoanuts, of course, is worse than useless; a man possessed with an idea that he is making a sacrifice will never do; and a man who thinks any kind of work beneath a gentleman will simply be in the way.
It is possible for a man to be a Seventh-day Adventist in good and regular standing, and yet have his usefulness crippled by getting some one or all of these notions into his head. Romanticism in mission work is responsible for much. There is too much hero worship in the world, too much glorification of men, especially if the life-work may have had a strange and far-away setting. We do not need any of the devices that popular religion makes use of, with the best of motives, no doubt, to urge on foreign mission work. As Seventh-day Adventists, we know that the Lord is coming when the witness of this gospel of the kingdom is given to all nations. To give this witness is the regular, ordinary, and only work we have. Let us go at it, every man in the place where God puts him. It is the same work wherever we may be. Of course far more workers will yet be sent abroad, proportionately; for the work will not be done till the cry is sounded abroad. If home demands are allowed to monopolize more than a fair share of labor, the home work will simply have to drag on slowly, waiting for the work abroad to be done. The sooner the whole world is warned, the sooner will the home work be finished.