October 23, 1884

“The Sabbath-School” The Signs of the Times, 10, 40.

E. J. Waggoner

LESSON FOR THE PACIFIC COAST—NOV. 9

1. Of what substance did God create man? Quote proof, and give reference.SITI October 23, 1884, page 630.1

2. What was given him to make him live?SITI October 23, 1884, page 630.2

3. In what part of man is this breath of life located?SITI October 23, 1884, page 630.3

4. When man’s breath is taken away, what takes place? Job 34:14, 15.SITI October 23, 1884, page 630.4

5. What then becomes of the breath which causes him to live? Ecclesiastes 12:7.SITI October 23, 1884, page 630.5

6. Is man the only creature that has this breath or spirit of life? Genesis 7:14, 15.SITI October 23, 1884, page 630.6

7. In what part of the beast is this breath placed? Genesis 7:21 22.SITI October 23, 1884, page 630.7

8. When God takes away their breath, what becomes of them? Psalm 104:29.SITI October 23, 1884, page 630.8

9. Is the breath of the man any different from that of the beast? Ecclesiastes 3:19.SITI October 23, 1884, page 630.9

10. Of what are both beast and man composed? Verse 20.SITI October 23, 1884, page 630.10

11. In what do both classes alike return at death?SITI October 23, 1884, page 630.11

12. Is there any difference between a wise man and the fool in the matter of death? Psalm 49:10.SITI October 23, 1884, page 630.12

13. Does David agree with Solomon in saying that the death of man is the same as that of beasts? Verse 14.SITI October 23, 1884, page 630.13

14. If this is the case, what hope can a man have in life? Isaiah 26:19; Job 19:25-27.SITI October 23, 1884, page 630.14

15. If there were to be no resurrection, would man be justified in living as the beast does? 1 Corinthians 15:32.SITI October 23, 1884, page 630.15

16. Then in what does man have the pre-eminence above the beast?SITI October 23, 1884, page 630.16

17. Where do we find a graphic illustration of the resurrection? Ezekiel 37:1-12.SITI October 23, 1884, page 630.17

18. What did the prophet see? Verse 1.SITI October 23, 1884, page 630.18

19. Were the bones living? Verses 2, 3.SITI October 23, 1884, page 630.19

20. By what means did the Lord say he would cause them to live? Verses 5, 6.SITI October 23, 1884, page 630.20

21. When the prophet prophesied, what took place? Verses 7, 8.SITI October 23, 1884, page 630.21

22. When the bones, sinews, flesh, and skin were all in their proper place, what was still lacking? Verse 8.SITI October 23, 1884, page 630.22

23. What was the prophet next directed to say? Verse 9.SITI October 23, 1884, page 630.23

24. How were the bodies made to live? Verse 10.SITI October 23, 1884, page 630.24

25. Then for what purpose does God receive a man’s breath or spirit of life when he dies?SITI October 23, 1884, page 630.25

In Genesis 2:7 we are told that “the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” It does not say that a soul was put into man, whereby he might live, but that man himself became a dual being, composed of body and soul, and that the first was formed of the dust, but that the latter is pure spirit. Without entering into a discussion of the subject of the soul, what it is, we are warranted, by the text just quoted, in saying that whatever different elements combine to form “man,” were made of the dust of the ground. When the catechisms tell us that man is composed of body, soul, and spirit, then they must also claim that all these were formed of the dust, for “man” was born of the dust. But the fact is, that which was formed of the dust was “man” before the breath or spirit of life was bestowed. He was a lifeless soul; but when the breath was given, man became a living soul.SITI October 23, 1884, page 630.26

This conclusion is verified by Job 34:14, 15. The patriarch, speaking of God, says: “If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath; all flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust.” After the breath is taken away, then man turns again to dust. That this breath may be called a spirit is shown by Job 27:3, 4, quoted in last week’s lesson: “All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils; my lips shall not speak wickedness, nor my tongue utter deceit.” Here the spirit (called the spirit of God, because it came from God) is said to be in the nostrils, and that, it will be remembered, is where God placed the breath of life, which is the same thing.SITI October 23, 1884, page 630.27

In the light of the above texts, we can readily understand Ecclesiastes 12:7, where, after having spoken of death, the wise man says: “Then shall the dust return to the earth, as it was; and the spirit shall return to God who gave it.” This is no more than a repetition of Job 34:14, 15: “If he [God] gather to himself his [man’s] spirit and his breath; all flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again to dust.” Both texts teach simply this: that at death man returns to his original elements; that which was born of the dust-the whole man-returns to the dust, and the spirit or breath, having come directly from God, returns to his keeping. There is no more reason for supposing that the spirit, as it returns to God, is conscious, than there is in supposing that the dust is conscious, or that the spirit was conscious before God bestowed it upon man, or that the breath, while in man’s nostrils, was conscious. The dust of which man was formed was inanimate; man, after he was formed by the Creator, was inanimate, unconscious; and the spirit while yet in the hands of God was likewise without consciousness; but when the man and the spirit were brought together, conscious existence was the result. How this result was obtained is a secret known only to the Author of life.SITI October 23, 1884, page 630.28

This breath of life is something that man shares in common with the beasts. In the description of the flood we learn that every beast and creeping thing-“all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.” Genesis 7:21, 22. It is not the possession of the breath or spirit of life that distinguishes man from the beast. In Psalm 104:28-30 we learn that their creation is effected by God sending forth his spirit, and that, as we learned concerning man, when he takes away their breath they die, and return to their dust. More than this, we are expressly told that there is no difference between the formation of man and lower animals, nor in the elements composing them. We read: “For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.” Ecclesiastes 3:19, 20. This language is plain, and no apology is needed for it, because it is the language of inspiration. Let it be remembered that when the wise man says that a man has no pre-eminence above a beast, he is speaking of death. In that event all are alike. Here the parallel ends, for to man a resurrection is promised. In this life man has pre-eminence above the beast, because he is gifted with a moral nature, the faculty of distinguishing between right and wrong, and the power of loving the right because it is right. This the beast does not have. To all men a resurrection is promised, but not to beasts. If, however, it shall then appear that a part of mankind have died as do the beast, without regard to the future, they will die the second death, and then they will indeed be like the beasts that perish, for with that death their existence will forever end. Man’s hope is in the resurrection; but he cannot have a well-grounded hope even in that, unless he seeks those things which are above.SITI October 23, 1884, page 630.29

Ezekiel 37:1-14 brings to view the literal resurrection of the dead. First the bones, sinews, muscles, and skin are arranged in proper order. At death these return to the earth, but now they are re-formed. There are the complete bodies; but there is no breath in them. They are just as Adam was before God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. But at the command of the Lord the breath comes into the inanimate bodies, and they stand upon their feet, an exceeding great army. Some choose to apply all this to the bringing of literal Israel from the Babylonian captivity, but such an interpretation is of their own choosing, and not by divine authority. God himself (verse 12) says that it is the bringing of his people out of their graves, and this takes place when the Lord comes. 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17; John 5:28, 29. And thus we learn that when the spirit-that which causes man to live-returns to God at the death of the man, it is that he may bestow it again at the resurrection, when man shall live again. E. J. W.SITI October 23, 1884, page 630.30

“The ‘Teaching of the Apostles’” The Signs of the Times, 10, 40.

E. J. Waggoner

CHARACTER OF EARLY WRITINGS IN GENERAL

The admirers of this document have been led to put unlimited confidence in it, as a production fully equal to the New Testament, because the same manuscript in which it was bound contains the two epistles of Clement of Rome, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the epistles of Ignatius. We shall therefore devote a little attention to them to see if proximity to them materially enhances its value. But first we wish to show the general character of the writings ascribed to the early Fathers.SITI October 23, 1884, page 632.1

In the preceding article we quoted testimony from Mosheim, which showed that forgery, interpolations, and the palming off of spurious writings, were common practices even in the early part of the second century. So, then, however much credit for honesty and orthodoxy we may be inclined to give to the Fathers themselves, we cannot depend with any certainty on their perverted writings. It is impossible to distinguish the genuine from the false. But this need not cause us any concern, since they were not inspired, and, consequently, their testimony is of no more authority on any subject than that of anybody else. When we want information concerning the question of morals or of Christian duty, we must go to the Holy Scriptures-the inspired word of God. That alone is a sure guide.SITI October 23, 1884, page 632.2

In his “Ecclesiastical History,” Book I., Cent. II., Part II., chap. III, sections 5 and 6, after having spoken of the works of several of the Fathers, among which he mentioned certain writings of Clement of Alexandria, Tatian, Justin Martyr, and Theophilus of Antioch, Dr. Mosheim says, “All these works are lost.” He then continues:-SITI October 23, 1884, page 632.3

“But this loss is the less to be regretted, since it is certain that no one of these expositors could be pronounced a good interpreter. They all believed the language of Scripture to contain two meanings, the one obvious, and corresponding with the direct import of the words, the other recondite, and concealed under the words, like a nut in the shell; and neglecting the former, as being of little value, they bestowed their chief attention on the latter; that is, they were more intent on throwing obscurity over the sacred writings by the fictions of their own imaginations, than of searching out their true meaning.”SITI October 23, 1884, page 632.4

In the next section he says: “It is therefore not strange that all sects of Christians can find in what are called ‘the Fathers,’ something to favor their own opinions and systems.” And in section 8 of the same chapter, after having mentioned several other writers, among them Irenaeus and Tertullian, Mosheim says:-SITI October 23, 1884, page 632.5

“In these disputants there was something more of ingenuousness and good faith, than in those who undertook the support of truth in the following centuries. For the convenient wiles of sophistry, and the dishonorable artifices of debate, had not yet gained admittance among Christians. Yet a man of sound judgment, who has due regard for truth, cannot extol them highly. Most of them lacked discernment, knowledge, application, good arrangement, and force. They often advance very flimsy arguments, and such as are suited rather to embarrass the mind than to convince the understanding.”SITI October 23, 1884, page 632.6

This is the character of the writings which contain the strongest arguments that can be found for the observance of Sunday. But we quote Mosheim once more. In the tenth section of the chapter above referred to, he states that learned man are not agreed as to the estimation in which these Fathers should be held, and says:-SITI October 23, 1884, page 632.7

“To us it appears that their writings contain many things excellent, well considered, and well calculated to enkindle pious emotions; and also many things unduly rigorous, and derived from the Academic and Stoic philosophy; many things vague and indeterminate; and many things positively false, and inconsistent with the precepts of Christ. If one deserves the title a bad master in morals, who has no just ideas of the proper boundaries and limitations of Christian duty, nor clear and distinct conceptions of the different virtues and vices, nor a perception of those general principles to which recurrence should be had in all discussions respecting Christian virtue, and therefore very often talks at random, and blunders and expanding the divine laws, though he may say many excellent things, and excite in us considerable emotion; then I can readily admit that in strict truth this title belongs to many of the Fathers.”SITI October 23, 1884, page 632.8

Much more of this sort of testimony might be cited from Mosheim, who certainly cannot be called a prejudiced witness, but this is sufficient. And writers of this class are they whom we are asked to accept as authority for Sunday-keeping, and as competent expositors of the teaching of the apostles. We beg to be excused. When we can find no better authority for the observance of the day of rest, than they are, we will be our own authority. We cannot close this article with anything more to the point, and more worthy of general acceptance, then the following paragraph from “The Ancient Church,” by Dr. Wm. Killen, professor of the Ecclesiastical History and Pastoral Theology to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. After having noticed the erroneous and absurd expositions of the Fathers, he says:-SITI October 23, 1884, page 632.9

“It would seem as if the great Head of the Church permitted these early writers to commit the grossest mistakes, and to propound the most foolish theories, for the express purpose of teaching us that we are not implicitly to follow their guidance. It might have been thought that authors who flourished on the borders of apostolic times, knew more of the mind of the Spirit than others who appeared in succeeding ages; but the truths of Scripture, like the phenomena of the visible creation, are equally intelligible to all generations. If we possess spiritual discernment, the trees and flowers will display the wisdom and the goodness of God as distinctly to us as they did to our first parents; and if we have the ‘unction from the Holy One,’ we may enter into the meaning of the Scriptures as fully as did Justin Martyr or Irenaeus [and far more]. To assist us in the interpretation of the New Testament, we have at command a critical apparatus of which they were unable to avail themselves. Jehovah is jealous for the honor of his word, and he has inscribed in letters of light over the labors of its most ancient interpreters-‘CEASE YE FROM MAN.’ The ‘opening of the Scriptures,’ so as to exhibit their duty, their consistency, their purity, their wisdom, and their power, is the clearest proof that the commentator is possessed of ‘the key of knowledge.’ When tried by this task, Thomas Scott or Matthew Henry are better entitled to confidence than either Origen or Gregory Thaumaturgus. The Bible is its own safest expositor. “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.’”-Period II., Section I., Chapter I., last paragraph.SITI October 23, 1884, page 632.10

In our next article we shall notice the writings in whose immediate company the “Teaching” was found. E. J. W.SITI October 23, 1884, page 632.11

“What Constitutes a Christian?” The Signs of the Times, 10, 40.

E. J. Waggoner

A short time ago the Chinese of San Francisco had a grand celebration in honor of one of their gods. The Chronicle gave a full account of this heathen festival, and of the procession through the streets, which, with the idol at the head, was marked by all the gaudy display peculiar to the Chinese. The Pacific (Congregationalist) copies the Chronicle’s report, and adds the following comment:-SITI October 23, 1884, page 632.12

“This is still called a Christian country, and there are still some who teach their children, ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me,’ and ‘Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.’ What do these boys and girls think as they see the regular sacrificial smoked hog carried in procession to the joss-house, and placed before the idol?”SITI October 23, 1884, page 632.13

We are glad for this testimony of the Pacific as to what makes one a Christian. Not because it is anything new, but because it is in harmony with the Bible. “This is still called a Christian country,” it says. Why? Because parents still teach their children the commandments of God. A more direct and truthful statement of the case could not have been made. Let us see how well it is sustained by the Scriptures.SITI October 23, 1884, page 632.14

The definition of Christian as “one who believes the doctrine of Christ,” will be accepted by all. He said, “If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.” John 15:10. That these commandments are not something peculiar to Christ, and distinct from the Father’s law, we learn from John 17:14, where Christ says to the Father, “I have given them thy word;” and again: “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.” John 7:16; and yet again from John 6:38: “For I came down from heaven not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” From these declarations we should understand that Christ came to declare the righteousness of God’s law, and to enable men to obey it. In this he set the example, and whosoever walks as he walked, i.e., keeps the commandments of God, is a Christian.SITI October 23, 1884, page 632.15

This conclusion is verified by Christ’s statement concerning the law, in the sermon on the mount. “Think not,” he says, “that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:17-19. Some affect to understand from verse 19 that breakers of the law may gain an entrance into Heaven, but that they will occupy a low place; but that is not the meaning of the text. The true force of the verse is grasped by Dr. Clarke, who says:-SITI October 23, 1884, page 632.16

“He who by his mode of acting, speaking, or explaining, the words of God, sets the holy precept aside, or explains away its force or meaning, shall be called least-shall have no place in the kingdom of Christ here, nor in the kingdom of glory above. That this is the meaning of these words is evident enough from the following verse.”SITI October 23, 1884, page 633.1

Christ, then, kept and taught the commandments and he expressly declares, what the Pacific implies, that none who do otherwise can be followers of him. “Why call ye the Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” Luke 7:46. Now read a few testimonies from the apostles. John says: “He that saith he abideth in Him, ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.” 1 John 2:6. Peter contrasts the frailty of man with the enduring nature of the word of God, saying that all flesh shall wither as the grass, “But the word of the Lord endureth forever.” “And this,” he says, “is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.” 1 Peter 1:25. The gospel, then, proclaims the righteousness and stability of God’s law. How could it be otherwise? The gospel brings the good news of pardon for sin. But sin is the transgression of the law, and the very act of announcing a pardon bears witness to the existence of the law; for without the law there can be no transgression, and consequently no necessity for pardon. To offer a pardon to a man after the abolition of law which condemned him, would be an insult.SITI October 23, 1884, page 633.2

As the gospel of Christ peaches obedience to the law, so it carries with it that assistance which makes it possible for man to keep the law. Paul says: “For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh [it could not justify a sinner], God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness [requirement, or precept] of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Romans 8:3, 4. All these witnesses agree that a Christian is one who follows Christ in obeying the commandments of God, using the strength which Christ bestows.SITI October 23, 1884, page 633.3

One more testimony we will add. Paul, as the representative of the Christian ministry, says: “Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” 2 Corinthians 5:20, 21. What is it to be made “the righteousness of God”? If “all unrighteousness is sin” (1 John 5:17), then righteousness is the exact opposite of sin; but “sin is the transgression of the law,” and therefore righteousness is the keeping of the law. So then 2 Corinthians 5:21 simply states that Christ’s work was in order that we might be brought into perfect harmony with the law of God.SITI October 23, 1884, page 633.4

It is true that the Pacific did not mention the entire law as requisite to constitute one a Christian; it only mentioned the first and second precepts of the law. But we recall the Saviour’s words, that “it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.” Luke 16:17. Also the words of James: “For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.” James 2:11. The Pacific will, no doubt, readily admit that the keeping of these two commandments (the sixth and seventh) is as necessary to protect Christianity as is the keeping of the first and second. Very well, then we will try again: For he that said, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me,” and “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,” said also, “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.” Now if thou make no graven image nor worship any false god, yet if thou labor on the seventh day, thou art become a transgressors of the law. The law being a unit, incapable of being divided, we cannot see why keeping and teaching the fourth commandment is not as necessary to constitute one a perfect Christian as is the keeping of the first or second. Will the Pacific accept this conclusion, and act accordingly? If not, why not? E. J. W.SITI October 23, 1884, page 633.5