Loading...
Larger font
Smaller font
Copy
Print
Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents

    August 18, 1887

    “The Fourth Commandment. No. 1” The Signs of the Times 13, 32, pp. 502, 503.

    “REMEMBER the Sabbath-day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” Exodus 20:8-11.SITI August 18, 1887, page 502.1

    This commandment enjoins the holy observance of a day which it calls the Sabbath-day. And as Sabbath means rest, it enjoins the holy observance of the rest-day. The commandment distinctly designates the day which is to be thus observed—“The seventh day is the Sabbath.” That is to say, the commandment gives a term—“the Sabbath”—and then gives a distinct and plain definition of that term—“The seventh day is the Sabbath.” Or, in other words, if translated, Remember the rest-day. The seventh day is the rest-day.SITI August 18, 1887, page 502.2

    But whose Sabbath-day, whose rest-day, is it? Is it your own rest that you are to remember? Does this commandment say to men, even in substance, Remember that you are tired, or will get tired, and you need a day of rest, and you must not fail to set apart one day in seven for your physical recuperation; therefore remember a rest-day? Is that the meaning of the commandment? Not by any manner of means. Yet that is the very idea that is now most widely prevalent, as to the meaning and purpose of this commandment. But it is difficult to conceive how it would be possible to get further from the truth without denying that the commandment has any meaning or purpose at all. It is not denied of course that man’s physical rest and his physical good are involved in the commandment; but these are entirely incidental. In the commandment there is no reference to any such consideration. A mere glance at the commandment will show that it relates to man’s duty to God and not to himself.SITI August 18, 1887, page 502.3

    The seventh day is the Sabbath, the rest, not of man, but of “the Lord thy God.” It is the Sabbath-day, the rest-day of the Lord, and not of man, that is to be remembered. Man is to work six days and rest the seventh day, not because that is best for him physically, but because the Lord worked six days and rested the seventh day. It is not denied that this proportion of work to rest is the best, but it is not commanded because it is best, it is best because it is commanded. It is best, as everything else in the line of obedience to God is best, because it is in obedience to the commandment of God. Man is to keep the rest-day holy, not because it is best for society that all should agree upon one certain day, but because God made the day holy. All this is borne on the very face of the commandment itself. Notice, first, “Remember the Sabbath-day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates.” This is that part of the commandment which enjoins man’s duty. Now what is the reason for all this? Why is it that man must remember the Sabbath-day; to work six days; and to do no work on the seventh day? The commandment gives just one answer, and that is full and explicit. And here it is: “For [because] in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore [for which reason] the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day, and hallowed it.”SITI August 18, 1887, page 502.4

    These are the fundamental and genuine reasons which underlie the obligations that rest upon man by the fourth commandment. And thus it is not only in the commandment but throughout the whole Bible in treating of this subject. It is the honor of God that is in view in the commandment, and not the good of man, only as the highest and best good of man is always bound up in his supremely honoring God. This is clearly revealed in another important text: “If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable; and shalt honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words; then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.” Isaiah 58:13, 15. In view of the commandment, and of this text and a number of others that might be given, it is hard to understand how that man can be, as he too often is, made the prime object in the meaning of the commandment, unless it be that in the minds of such people man occupies a larger place than does the Creator of all things. This however is to be expected now, for in these last days the leading characteristic is that “men shall be lovers of their own selves,” and of their selfish “pleasures, more than lovers of God.”SITI August 18, 1887, page 503.1

    It is true that “The Sabbath was made for man,” for so said the Saviour. But it was not made for man in the sense which is made most prominent in these days. It was made for him expressly that by it he might ever keep in memory the Creator of heaven and earth and all that in them is, and that man might honor him as such; that man might know the Lord of all and honor him whom he should know. This is plainly stated: “Hallow my Sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the Lord your God.” Ezekiel 20:20. But by what means does it become a sign of the true God? Thus: “It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever; for [because] in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.” Exodus 31:17. The Sabbath therefore is the sign of God’s creative power, and if remembered to be kept holy it will ever keep the Creator of all things in the memory of whosoever remembers it to so keep it. And if all men had ever so remembered to keep it, even after the fall, there would never have been in all the world a false god nor an idolater.SITI August 18, 1887, page 503.2

    To bear in mind the fact that it is the Lord’s rest, and the Lord’s rest-day, and not man’s, that are to be remembered; in short, to bear in mind the words of the commandment, at once relieves the Sabbath question of all obscurity. But to misread the commandment, or to ignore its plain statements, is only to create obscurity and confusion. Thus, men nowadays read the first sentence of the commandment, “Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy;” and then say that Sunday, the first day of the week, is the Sabbath, and wholly ignore all the rest of the commandment. Yet the word “ignore” does not half express the fact in the case. The truth is that to call Sunday the Sabbath is to flatly contradict the commandment of God; and to make the commandment teach the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath is to make it teach open falsehood. For—SITI August 18, 1887, page 503.3

    1. Everybody knows that Sunday is the first day of the week, and the commandment of God says that “The seventh day is the Sabbath.” Therefore to call Sunday the Sabbath is to contradict the commandment of God.SITI August 18, 1887, page 503.4

    2. The word “Sabbath” means rest. The phrase, “the Sabbath of the Lord,” means, the rest of the Lord. And the command to remember the Sabbath-day of the Lord, is only the command to remember the rest-day of the Lord. But to call the first day of the week the Sabbath-day of the Lord, is to call it the rest-day of the Lord, while it is not, and never was, and never can be, the rest-day of the Lord. The word of God says that he “rested the seventh day;” therefore to call the first day of the week the Sabbath-day—the rest-day—is to contradict the word of God.SITI August 18, 1887, page 503.5

    3. Because God had rested the seventh day, therefore he blessed (put honor upon) the Sabbath—the rest—day and hallowed it—made it holy. It was thus that he made it the holy Sabbath-day. Now to call Sunday a holy day or the holy Sabbath-day, is to say that God rested the first day, that he blessed the first day, and that he hallowed the first day; whereas the word of God says that he rested the seventh day, that he blessed the seventh day and hallowed it. Therefore to call Sunday the Sabbath-day, the holy Sabbath-day, or the Lord’s day, is to contradict the word of God. And to make the commandment of God teach any such thing as that of the first day of the week is to make it teach falsehood.SITI August 18, 1887, page 503.6

    God did not rest the first day; therefore it is not, and cannot truthfully be called, the rest or Sabbath-day. God did not bless (put honor upon) the first day; then it is not, and cannot truthfully be called, “honorable.” God did not hallow the first day; therefore it is not, and cannot truthfully be called, “holy,” nor can it possibly be kept holy. But all these God did with the seventh day. He rested the seventh day; therefore he says “the seventh day is the Sabbath.” He blessed the seventh day; therefore he calls is “holy,” and commands men to call is “holy” and remember it to keep it holy. And it is one of the strangest things imaginable how it can be that right in the face of the plain, positive statement of the word of God, men will try to pass off upon themselves and others, as the Sabbath, that which is not, and cannot by any possibility be, the Sabbath. We know, of course, that there are thousands of people keeping Sunday who have never looked into the subject attentively, and who are not intentionally breaking the commandment of God, and who, when they see what the word of God really says about the Sabbath, will readily conform to the truth of God, in the fear of the Lord. The discussion of this question is now, however, becoming so prominent and so widespread, that no one can much longer escape a decision for or against the keeping of the Sabbath of the Lord.SITI August 18, 1887, page 503.7

    The seventh day is the only day that can be kept holy, because it is the only day of the week that the Lord ever made holy. As therefore it is impossible for man to keep holy what has never been made holy, and the first day of the week never having been made holy, it is impossible for any man, or even for all men together with one unanimous consent, to keep holy the Sunday. While, on the other hand, the Lord having made the seventh day holy and honorable, it is holy and honorable whether men keep it so, or regard it so, or not. If not a man on earth should keep the seventh day yet that day would be just as holy as though there was not a man who did not keep it. God made the day holy at the creation of the world, and holy it will ever remain, whatever man may do. Therefore the fourth commandment says, “Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy,” and to not do so is to sin and make ourselves unholy. Our keeping or not keeping the Sabbath holy, does not in the least affect the character of the day; but it does most decidedly affect our own character and standing in the sight of the Holy One who made the day holy, and who commands all men to remember it to keep it holy.SITI August 18, 1887, page 503.8

    “Remember the Sabbath-day, to keep it holy... The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work; ... for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day, and hallowed it.” And “If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable; and shalt honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words; then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.” Will you call the Sabbath of the Lord what he commands you to call it? Will you do as he here tells you to do? Will you “honor him” thus? Remember, thus saith the Lord, “Them that honor me I will honor, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed.”SITI August 18, 1887, page 503.9

    J.

    “A Political Gospel” The Signs of the Times 13, 32, pp. 503, 504.

    MRS. MARY A. WOODBRIDGE, recording secretary of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, and vice-president of the National Reform Association, made the principal National Reform speech at Chautauqua Assembly, on National Reform Day, July 23, last year. Among many other such like things in her speech, we find the following:—SITI August 18, 1887, page 503.1

    “Shall we not amend our National Constitution, that the world shall know that we acknowledge Christ as Ruler? as the Head of our nation? and in his name, and for his glory, shall not ‘We, the people, in order to form a more perfect union,’ thus ‘ordain’? While we render unto Cesar the things that are Cesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s, is eminently sound and practical Christian doctrine. But the practice of that principle is not at all what the National Reformers want the people of this nation to do. The National Reformers not only want us to render to Cesar that which is Cesar’s but they want to compel us to render to Cesar that which is God’s. This we, under Christ, deny their right to do; and by his help, it is what we will never submit to do.SITI August 18, 1887, page 503.2

    In these words Christ established a clear distinction between Cesar and God, between that which is Cesar’s and that which is God’s; that is, between the civil and the religious power, and between what we owe to the civil power and what we owe to the religious power. We owe to Cesar, the civil power, that which is civil; we owe to God, the religious power, that which is religious. This is the distinction which God, in Christ, has absolutely fixed. Whoever seeks to confound this distinction is against God and against Christ; to join, or to seek to join, the religious with the civil power is to confound the distinction; and to join the religious with the civil power is precisely what the National Reform party proposes to do. The logical conclusion from this is clear, and we do not hesitate to say that it is strictly according to Scripture, and, therefore, perfectly true.SITI August 18, 1887, page 503.3

    For the State to enforce religious duties it thereby demands that to Cesar shall be rendered that which is God’s, and therefore it usurps the place of God, and so far as it is obeyed, it destroys the true worship of God. We know the claim that these men make, as of all of their kind in the dreadful history of persecution everywhere, that is, that it is the true worship of God and of Christ which they ask that the civil power shall enforce, and this according to the Bible. But no such thing can be alone. Christ did not say that we should render to Cesar that which is God’s; neither did he say that we should render to God by Cesar that which is God’s. That which is God’s is his, and we are to render it to him direct, without any of the meddling mediumship of Cesar. When we have rendered to Cesar that which is Cesar’s we have rendered to Cesar all his due, and he has no right to demand any more. And when he has so received his just due on all his proper claims, then what business is it of Cesar’s how we render to God that which is God’s, or whether we render if at all or not? It is just none of his business. And when he seeks to make it his business he is meddling with that which in no wise concerns him. One of the unbecoming and irreverent results of such action is well expressed by Gibbon, in speaking of Constantine and his sons:—SITI August 18, 1887, page 503.4

    “Those princes presumed to extend their despotism over the faith, as well as over the lives and fortunes, of their subjects; .... and the prerogatives of the King of Heaven were settled, or changed, or modified, in the cabinet of an earthly monarch.” Decline and Fall, chap. 21, par. 16.SITI August 18, 1887, page 504.1

    Could anything possibly be more incongruous! It is just such incongruity that these words of Christ are intended forever to prevent. Yet history is full of it, and while our own Government has escaped it so far, now the National Reform party seeks by the subversion of the Constitution to inflict it upon this great nation.SITI August 18, 1887, page 504.2

    Whenever the civil power steps between a man and God and proposes to regulate just what shall be rendered to God, and just how it shall be rendered, then Cesar is entirely out of his place. George Washington was a man for whose opinions we suppose there is yet remaining some respect on the part of Americans, and he said:—SITI August 18, 1887, page 504.3

    “I have often expressed my opinion that every man who conducts himself as a good citizen is accountable alone to God for his religious faith, and should be protected in worshiping God according to the dictates of his own conscience.”SITI August 18, 1887, page 504.4

    We say again, that in the words, “Render therefore unto Cesar the things which are Cesar’s, and unto God the things which are God’s” (Matthew 22:21), Christ separated forever the civil from the religious power. And the National Reform party, in its endeavor to join them, clearly sets itself against the word of Christ.SITI August 18, 1887, page 504.5

    But the National Reform idea of the work of the gospel is as crude as its idea of the relation of the civil and the religious power. Mrs. Woodbridge says further:—SITI August 18, 1887, page 504.6

    “An Amendment to the National Constitution requires the indorsement of two-thirds of the States to become law. Although the action must be taken by State legislative bodies, let such an Amendment by submitted, and it would become the paramount issue at the election of legislators, and thus God would be in the thought, and his name upon the lip of every man. May not this be the way opened to us? How to bring the gospel of Christ to the masses has been, and is, the vexing problem of the church. Would not the problem be solved? ... In considering the submission of such an Amendment, we may use the very argument used by Moses, in his song containing these words of Jehovah, ‘For it is not a vain thing for you; because it is your life; and through this thing ye shall prolong your days in the land.’ How prayerfulness would be stimulated! Conscience would press the words, ‘If the Lord be God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him!’ Then would there be searchings of heart, as David’s, of which we learn in the fifty-first psalm. Prayer would bring faith and the power of the Spirit; and when such power shall rest upon the children of God, there will be added to the church daily such as shall be saved.”SITI August 18, 1887, page 504.7

    Oh, yes; to be sure! What a most excellent method of bringing the gospel (?) to the masses! Most assuredly the problem would be solved. This scheme has been tried, and the problem solved, before, and in much the same way. By making the subject of the Trinitarian controversy a national and governmental issue the name of God and of Christ was “upon the lip,” clubs, stones, or military weapons in the hands, and murder in the heart, of every man. Thus the gospel was brought to the masses, and so there was added to the church daily such as should be——. Especially in the city of Rome, by this means, the masses became so devout that in the most exciting and decisive moment of a horse-race, the whole multitude in the vast circus could in an instant turn their minds to the gospel (?) and shout, “One God, One Christ, One Bishop.” And, by the way, the women were among the leaders, and were the main help in bringing about this triumph of the gospel among the masses at a horse-race in the Roman circus. Thus, in that age, was the gospel brought to the masses; thus, then, was the problem solved. And “history repeats itself,” even to the part the women play in the political project of bringing the gospel to the masses. (See Gibbon’s Decline and Fall, chap. 38, par. 35.)SITI August 18, 1887, page 504.8

    But illustrations are hardly needed to show how entirely foreign to the gospel of Christ are such propositions and such arguments as we here present from the Chautauqua National Reform Speech.SITI August 18, 1887, page 504.9

    Such stuff needs but to be read to be condemned utterly by everyone who has any respect for the gospel or for its Author. But if the reading of this is not enough to condemn both it and the cause in behalf of which it must be used, then we shall insert just one more sentence from the very midst of whence these are copied. Immediately following the words “Would not the problem be solved?” are these:—SITI August 18, 1887, page 504.10

    “Yea, Christ would then be lifted up, even as the serpent in the wilderness, and would we not have right to claim the fulfillment of the promise, that ‘He will draw all men unto himself’?”SITI August 18, 1887, page 504.11

    To think of a political campaign managed by ambitious clerics, political hypocrites, ward politicians, and city bosses, and call that bringing the gospel of Christ to the masses, and the means of adding to the church daily such as shall be saved, is certainly a conception of the gospel of Christ which is degrading enough in all conscience. But when to cap such a conception, it is avowed that such would be the lifting up of Christ, even as the serpent in the wilderness, and the fulfillment of the promise that he will draw all men unto him, the whole idea becomes one that is vastly nearer to open blasphemy than it is to the proper conception of the gospel of Christ. But such, and of such, is the gospel of National Reform.SITI August 18, 1887, page 504.12

    J.

    “Notes on the International Lesson. Trust in Our Heavenly Father. Matthew 6:24-34” The Signs of the Times 13, 32, pp. 506, 507.

    (September 4.—Matthew 6:24-34.)

    “YE cannot serve God and mammon.” “Mammon is a Syriac word meaning riches. It is riches personified.” The meaning therefore is, “Ye cannot serve God and riches.” Ye cannot trust in God and trust in riches. Yet, although the word is so abundant, so strong, and so explicit on this subject, there are many who do attempt to serve God and riches both, and multitudes more who serve, and trust in, riches alone. There are multitudes who rejoice because their wealth is great and because their hand has gathered much. There are multitudes more who grieve because their wealth is not great, and because their hand has not gotten much, and so make gold their aim, their hope, and their confidence. The trust is in riches and not in God.SITI August 18, 1887, page 506.1

    BUT God’s charge to one class of these, those who are rich, is this: “Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; that they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.” 1 Timothy 6:17-19.SITI August 18, 1887, page 506.2

    TO the other class God says: “They that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” 1 Timothy 6:9, 10. But to all who would fear God he says: “But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness. Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life.” For “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” 1 Timothy 6:11, 12; Mark 10:25.SITI August 18, 1887, page 506.3

    BUT says everyone on his own behalf, “I do not trust in riches.” Try yourself and see. Apply to yourself the test that Jesus put upon the young man, and see whether you love God or your riches most. “Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest; go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in Heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow me.” If that were demanded of you personally to-day by the Master, how would you stand the test? Would you stand it any better than the young man did? If not, then is your trust in God or in your wealth? Luke says that when that young man heard this, “he was very sorrowful; for he was very rich.” Notice, his sorrow seems to have been graduated on the scale of his riches. He was very sorrowful, because he was very rich. Perhaps if he had simply been rich, he would only have been sorrowful, yet even in that case his trust in his riches would have denied the God who is above. While had he been poor, as Matthew the publican, or as the fishermen who plied their nets on the waters of Galilee, he doubtless would have been glad of the call of the Saviour, and would have followed instantly.SITI August 18, 1887, page 506.4

    THE Saviour gave us a parable on this very subject (Luke 12:15-21) when he told of that rich man whose ground brought forth plentifully, and he had no room to bestow his fruits and goods; and he said he would pull down his barns and build greater, and there bestow his goods, and then would say to himself, “Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee; then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?” What was it that God said to him? “Thou fool.” What is it the fool says? “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” Exactly. This man was saying, in effect, that there is not God. He was trusting in his riches, and denying the God that is above. “So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.” Therefore, “take heed and beware of covetousness,” for “covetousness is idolatry,” and “a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.”SITI August 18, 1887, page 506.5

    NOR yet do we want to run to the other extreme and unmeasuredly denounce riches, and money, and whatever bears any semblance to means. It is not in money that the evil lies. Human society cannot exist without money of some sort. There must be some circulating medium. It may be silver or gold, paper or leather, brass or copper, with some device stamped upon it. But whatever it is, it is money; and in the place where it is used, he who has the most of it will be the richest. Money is not the root of all evil. Of itself it is not an evil at all. It is the love of money that is the root of all evil. It is not a sin to have money; it is a sin to love it. It is not a sin even to have much; it is a sin to love, or to trust in what we have, whether it be little or much. It is not the rich alone who fall into temptation and a snare, and into foolish and hurtful lusts; but it is “they that will be rich”—they who all the time have their aim at being rich, who have their eyes on that, and who tend all their efforts toward that, who lie awake nights scheming for it, who spend their lives to attain the unattainable; for “he that loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver, nor he that loveth abundance with increase.”SITI August 18, 1887, page 506.6

    IT is not a sin to be rich. Abraham, the friend of God, “was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold.” Genesis 13:2. Job likewise was one of the richest men of his day. Yet neither of these holy men trusted in their riches, nor rejoiced because their wealth was great. They trusted in the living God, and remembered that it was he who gave them power to get wealth. Read in the thirty-first chapter of Job, how he looked upon his wealth—always as only a means of blessing the poor, the needy, the fatherless, and the widow. The sin is not in being rich; it is in trusting in it, putting confidence in it, rejoicing in it, and being proud of it, and highminded because of it. That is to deny the God that is above. “Beware that thou forget not the Lord thy God,” “and thou say in thine heart, My power and the might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth. But thou shalt remember the Lord thy God; for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth.” Deuteronomy 8:11, 17, 18. Trust not in uncertain riches, but in the living God, holding all subject to his call, ready to distribute, willing to communicate. For thou shalt love no other god but him, and him with all the heart, and all the soul, with all the mind, and with all the strength.SITI August 18, 1887, page 506.7

    YET why is it that men will not trust in the Lord entirely and always? Why is it that people will go on in anxious care about what they shall eat or what they shall drink, or wherewithal they shall be clothed? It is because they have not faith in the heavenly Father. But why is it that they have no faith in him? Is it because he has given no assurances of his faithfulness? Oh, no; for what greater assurances could he give? Here is his word by Peter, chosen for the golden text of this lesson, “Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.” He wants no one burdened with care. He wants all to cast all their care upon him and let him do all the caring, while we dwell safely under the shadow of his wings rejoicing. Here is another consideration presented by Paul, and it is one of the strongest encouragements to faith in all the Book. “He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things.” Notice the question is not, “How shall he freely give us all things?” but, “How shall he not?” The argument is, that if in his great love for us, he would freely give up his dear Son, how shall he not with him freely give us everything else. But more than this: It was while we were yet enemies that God gave his Son to die for us, and those who will obey him he calls his friends. Now if he would give up his own dear Son to die for his enemies, how shall he not with him freely give all things to his friends?—how can he keep from doing it? Oh, that men would trust the Lord and praise the Lord for his goodness and for his wonderful works to the children of men!SITI August 18, 1887, page 506.8

    IT seems that the Lord has done his very best—he has exhausted the language and every other resource—in his effort to convey to men the idea of his love and care for them; so that by the prophet he exclaims, “What more could have been done that I have not done?” Here he gives a lesson from “the fowls of the air,” Luke says “the ravens.” “Your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?” And if he so feed thenm, will he not much more feed you, who are “much better than they”? Next he cites the lilies of the field, which he clothes so gorgeously that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of them. But if he “so clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith.” If he so care for the grass of the field, which is but for a day, shall he not much more care for you whom he has made for eternity if you will but have it?SITI August 18, 1887, page 506.9

    IN another place the Saviour brings up this point again, and tries to convey to his people the deep care that he has for them. In Matthew 10:29, he says: “Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.... Fear ye not, therefore ye are more value than many sparrows.” Two sparrows for a farthing. Four farthings make one penny, English money, and one penny English money equals two cents of our money. As therefore four farthings make two cents, one farthing would be one-fourth of two cents, which is one-half a cent. But two sparrows were sold for a half a cent, therefore one sparrow would be worth but a half of a half a cent, which would be but a quarter of a cent. It seems that this was the highest price too, if they took more they would get them for less, for Luke says five sparrows were sold for two farthings; so the phrase would be “two for a farthing or five for two.” Now the lesson conveyed in this is that, As one sparrow, worth but a quarter of a cent, shall not fall on the ground without our heavenly Father, so, likewise, nothing shall befall a child of God, even to the value of a quarter of a cent, without our heavenly Father. The care of our heavenly Father for his children, extends even to things as small and of as little consequence as the value of a quarter of a cent.SITI August 18, 1887, page 506.1

    NOR does even this express the extent of our heavenly Father’s care for us; for immediately the Saviour says, “The very hairs of your head are all numbered.” And being given in this connection it shows that the care of our heavenly Father for us extends lower yet than to things of the value of a quarter of a cent. It extends even to things of the value of a hair of our heads. And he means to tell us that nothing even to the value of a hair, shall befall the child of God without the care of our heavenly Father. He means to tell us that our heavenly Father’s care for us is greater than can possibly be our care for ourselves. Then why should we not trust him rather than ourselves, or riches, or anything, or anybody else? His care for us is so great, why not let the care be his, as it is his, and we trust him wholly, and so trusting rest in the peace which passeth all understanding? It is only thus that that promise can ever be realized, because this is the basis upon which the promise rests. See: “Be careful for nothing; but in everything by prayer and thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God which passeth all understanding shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.” Philippians 4:6, 7.SITI August 18, 1887, page 506.2

    NOW yet do these lessons express the abundance of the far-reaching care of our heavenly Father for the children of men. For he “is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us.” Ephesians 3:20. The only power that can possibly work in us, to connect us at all to God, is the power of faith. Therefore as his care is so great in all these directions, how much more exceeding abundantly will it be towards you, O ye of much faith. “Lord, increase our faith.” Trust in the Lord and do good, and verily thou shalt be fed. “Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee; because he trusteth in thee. Trust ye in the Lord forever; for in the Lord Jehovah is the rock of ages.” Isaiah 26:3, 4, margin.SITI August 18, 1887, page 506.3

    J.

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents