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

    November 19, 1885

    “The Little Horn of Daniel 8” The Signs of the Times, 11, 44.

    E. J. Waggoner

    THE SABBATH-SCHOOL.

    LESSON FOR THE PACIFIC COAST—DEC. 12

    No Authorcode

    The Little Horn of Daniel 8

    In a previous lesson we have had mentioned of the little horn of Daniel 8, and we there took occasion to state that this little horn must not be confounded with that of Daniel 7. The latter, as we of seen, refers to the papacy only, to Rome during only a part of its career; the former refers to the whole duration of Rome, both in its pagan and papal forms, and covers the same ground as the fourth beast and all of its horns. The truth of this may be verified by an examination of the prophecy.SITI November 19, 1885, page 694.1

    Verses 20, 21 of chapter 8, plainly tell us that the ram and the goat, the two powers that preceded the little horn, represented Medo-Persia and Grecia. But these two empires were the second and third in a series of four universal empires which cover the entire history of the world from about 625 B.C., beginning with Babylon. The prophecies of Daniel 2 and 7 show that there were to be but four kingdoms. Then since there was but one to come after Grecia, whatever universal empire we find after that empire must be the one. From Luke 2:1 we have seen that Rome filled the specifications as a universal empire; and therefore it must be represented by the little horn, for that was to be greater than any of its predecessors.SITI November 19, 1885, page 694.2

    We will now notice a few of the characteristics of this little horn, and show their fulfillment in the Roman power. Verses 23 and 24 described it best: “And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power; and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practice, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.” Compare this with Deuteronomy 28:49, 50: “The Lord shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand; a nation of fierce countenance, which shall not regard the person of the old, nor show favour to the young.” Note the similar expressions in the two passages. Fierceness of countenance may well be applied to a power that in Daniel 7:7 is represented by a beast, “dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly;” and its destructive propensities, as brought out in the two passages, correspond to the statement in Daniel 7:7. “Understanding dark sentences,” said the angel to Daniel; “whose tongue thou shalt not understand,” said Moses. This also applies to the Romans, whose language, in the Latin, was entirely different from the Hebrew. With the languages of the neighboring countries, Assyria, Babylon, etc., the Hebrew tongue was closely related, but it had no connection with the Latin.SITI November 19, 1885, page 694.3

    Read carefully the whole of Deuteronomy 28:49-57, which, as has been shown above, refers to the power mentioned in Daniel 8:23, 24, and then compare with it the following from the account by Josephus of the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans:-SITI November 19, 1885, page 694.4

    “Now, of those that perished by famine and the city, the number was prodigious, and the miseries were unspeakable; for if so much as the shadow of any kind of food did anywhere appear, a war was commenced presently; and the dearest friends fell a-fighting one with another about it, snatching from each other the most miserable supports of life. Nor would men believe that those who were dying had no food; for the robbers would search them when they were expiring, lest anyone should have concealed food in their bosoms, and counterfeited dying, nay, these robbers gaped for want, and ran about stumbling and staggering along like mad dogs, and reeling against the doors of the houses like drunken men; they would also, in the great distress they were in, rush into the very same houses two or three times in one and the same day. Moreover, their hunger was so intolerable, that it obliged them to chew everything, while they gathered such things as the most sordid animals would not touch, and endured to eat them; nor did they at length abstain from girdles and shoes; and the very leather which belonged to their shields they pulled off and gnawed; the very wisps of old hay became food to some; and some gathered up fibers, and sold a very small weight of them for four Attic (drachmae). But why do I describe the shameless impudence that the famine brought upon men in their eating inanimate things while I am going to relate a matter of fact, the like to which no history relates, either among the Greeks or barbarians!-it is so horrible to speak of it, and incredible when heard! I have indeed willingly omitted this calamity of force, that I might not seem to deliver what is so portentous to posterity, but that I have innumerable witnesses to it in my own age; and besides, by country would have had little reason to thank me for suppressing the miseries that she underwent at this time.SITI November 19, 1885, page 694.5

    “There was a certain woman that dwelt beyond Jordan, her name was Mary; her father was Eleazar, of the village Bethezob, which signifies The House of Hyssop. She was eminent for her family and her wealth, and had fled away to Jerusalem with the rest of the multitude, and was with them besieged therein at this time. The other effects of this woman had been already seized upon; such I mean as she had brought with her of Perea and removed to the city. What she had treasured up of besides, as also what food she had contrived to save, had been also carried off by the rapacious guards, who came every day running into her house for that purpose. This put the poor woman into a very great passion, and by the frequent reproaches and imprecations she cast at these rapacious villains, she had provoked them to anger against her; but none of them, either out of the indignation she had raised against herself, or out of commiseration of her case, would take away her life; and if she found any food she perceived her labors were for others, and not for herself; and it was now become impossible for her any way to find any more food, while the famine pierced through her very bowel and marrow, when also her passion was fired to a degree beyond the famine itself; nor did she consult with anything but with her passion and the necessity she was in. She then attempted a most unnatural thing; and, snatching up her son, who was a child sucking at her breast, she said, “O thou miserable infant! for whom shall I preserve thee in this war, this famine, and this sedition? As to the war with the Romans, if they preserve our lives, we must be slaves? This famine also will destroy us, even before that slavery comes upon us; yet are these seditious rogues more terrible than both the other. Come on; be thou my food, and be thou a fury to these seditious variets and a by-word to the world, which is all that is now wanting to complete the calamities of us Jews.SITI November 19, 1885, page 694.6

    “And soon as she had said this she slew her son; and then roasted him, and ate the one half of him, and kept the other half by her concealed. Upon this the seditious came in presently, and smelling the scent of this food, they threatened her that they would cut her throat immediately if she did not show them what food she had gotten ready. She replied that she had saved a very fine portion of it for them; and withal uncovered what was left of her son. Hereupon they were seized with a horror and amazement of mind, and stood astonished at the sight; she said to them, ‘This is mine own son; and what hath been done was mine own doing! Come, eat of this food; for I have eaten of it myself! Do not you pretend to be either more tender than a woman, or more compassionate than a mother; but if you be so scrupulous, and do abominate this my sacrifice, as I have eaten the one half let the rest be preserved for me also.’ After which, those men went out trembling, being never so much affrighted at anything as they were at this, and with some difficulty they left the rest of that meat to the mother. Upon which the whole city was full of this horrid action immediately; and while everybody laid this miserable case before their own eyes, they trembled, as if this unheard-of action had been done by themselves. So those that were thus distressed by the famine were very desirous to die; and those already dead were esteemed happy, because they had not lived long enough either to hear or to see such miseries.”-Wars of the Jews, Book 6, chap.8.SITI November 19, 1885, page 694.7

    If only one more point can be noted concerning this little horn, and that is to show the change from pagan to papal Rome, for that is expressly noted. We quote: “Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host [evidently referring to Christ, see verse 25, last clause], and by him the daily was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And a host was given him against the daily by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground, and it practice, and prospered.” Daniel 8:11, 12. In this quotation we have purposely omitted the word sacrifice, because it is superfluous. There is nothing in the original that gives even the slightest hint of such a word. From verse 13 we learn what should be understood after “daily.” “How long shall be the vision concerning the daily and the transgression of desolation?” The daily what? Why, the daily desolation, of course. So then we have in this chapter a mighty desolating power brought to view under two phases,-the daily desolation, and the transgression of desolation. These two expressions can refer to nothing else but the two great phases of Rome, paganism and papacy.SITI November 19, 1885, page 694.8

    “By him the daily was taken away.” The change from pagan to papal Rome was effected by Rome itself, and not as a measure forced upon her by an outside power. It was the Roman emperors themselves, who, influenced by the bishops, decreed that Christianity should be the religion of the empire.SITI November 19, 1885, page 694.9

    “And an host was given him against the daily.” Although the change from paganism to papacy was begun and consummated within Rome itself. It was not without help. The hordes of barbarous tribes came from the North and overran the Roman Empire, became identified with it, accepted its religion, and were active agents in converting (by force of arms) others to that religion. Says D’Aubigne:-SITI November 19, 1885, page 694.10

    “But already the forests of the North had poured forth the most effectual promoters of papal power. The barbarians who had invaded the West, and settled themselves therein,-but recently converted to Christianity,-ignorant of the spiritual character of the church, and feeling the want of an external pomp of religion, prostrated themselves in a half savage and half heathen state of mind at the feet of the chief priest of Rome. At the same time the people of the West also submitted to him. First the Vandals, then the Ostrogoths, a short time after the Burgundians and the Alains, then the Visigoths, and at last the Lombards and the Anglo-Saxon came bowing the knee to the Roman pontiff. It was the sturdy shoulders of the idolatrous children of the North, which elevated to the Supreme throne of Christendom a pastor of the banks of the Tiber.”-Hist. Ref., Book 1, chap. 1, par. 51. E. J. W.SITI November 19, 1885, page 694.11

    “Making Trouble” The Signs of the Times, 11, 44.

    E. J. Waggoner

    “And it came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, Art thou he that troubleth Israel?” 1 Kings 18:17. This question was asked when Elijah met Ahab as he and his servants were searching for water. What had Elijah done, that he should be accused of troubling Israel? He had rebuked them for their idolatry, into which they had been led by Ahab and his father. In consequence of the almost universal wickedness, Elijah had declared, from the Lord, that there should be no rain. For three years there had been no rain, and yet idolatry did not cease, nor did Ahab abate his wickedness. To some people it would seem that Elijah’s preaching was in vain, and that, since no one heeded it, it would have been better to leave the people to worship their idols in peace. And no doubt Ahab voiced the sentiment of the people, when he accused Elijah of being the author of all their trouble.SITI November 19, 1885, page 696.1

    But what did Elijah say? “And he answered, I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father’s house, in that ye have forsaken the commandment of the Lord, and thou hast followed Baalim.” Here Elijah threw the entire responsibility upon Ahab and his family, because they have led the people into idolatry. How could that be, when the people were enjoying the peace and quiet until Elijah came with his stern message? The reason is, the people were violating God’s commandments, a thing which always brings his displeasure. The judgments of God will be visited upon those who persist in violating his law. But God never punishes any people until he has faithfully warned them of their sin. This was the part which Elijah had performed. He was God’s messenger. After he had warned them to no purpose, a slight manifestation of God’s wrath against ungodliness was made. But who was responsible for this manifestation of wrath? Was it Elijah? All will agree, with Elijah that the responsibility rested upon those who had done the wrong. The case against them is clear.SITI November 19, 1885, page 696.2

    Now another point. Since even the people of Israel could not be induced to leave their idols and serve Jehovah (for although they acknowledge that the Lord is God, they went back into idolatry, and were destroyed as a nation in consequence), would it not have been better to leave them alone? If they were determined not to serve Jehovah, was it not wrong for Elijah to cause them to lose confidence in Baal, by showing his lack of power? Who will say yes? Not one. Baal-worship would do no good, and they might better worship nothing. There was no power in Baal to reward them for worshiping him, or to protect them from the wrath of Jehovah, and therefore they might as well be atheists as to serve Baal. No person will have the hardihood to say that the worship of Baal was any improvement on no worship at all. Now for the parallel.SITI November 19, 1885, page 696.3

    In these days we find that a large majority of the people professing Christianity call the first day of the week the holy rest-day-the Lord’s day. But God says, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.” Moreover, as he commanded the people anciently to break their images, so he commands people to trample upon Sunday as a day of rest, saying, “Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work.” “Six days thou shalt work; but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.” Exodus 34:21.SITI November 19, 1885, page 696.4

    But now it comes to pass when the truth on the Sabbath question is preached, while very many acknowledge, and many more are convinced at heart, that the seventh day-Saturday-is the Bible Sabbath, very few have the courage of their convictions, and walk in obedience to the commandment. Still further, the most of those who are convinced that the seventh day is the Sabbath, and do not keep it, having seen the utter absence of any Bible proof to sustain the Sunday-Sabbath, very naturally lose much of their respect for that day. And on this account it is often said that the preaching of the seventh-day Sabbath has an injurious effect; it unsettles the faith of many in regard to their present practice, while few make a radical change. We now ask, Is this an injury? and if it is, who is responsible for the injurious effects.SITI November 19, 1885, page 696.5

    Is it more pleasing in the sight of God to keep Sunday than to regard no day as holy? To keep the first day and violate the seventh, is direct disobedience to God’s law. Any transgression of the law is sin. To break the Sabbath, and keep no day at all, is also direct violation of the law. This also is sin. Who can say that the latter sin is worse than the former? And if it be decided that the second is the greater sin, what is the advantage, since both are sins? God does not tell us to choose the smaller of two sins, but to put away all sin.SITI November 19, 1885, page 696.6

    Question: Is it simply a spirit of worship that is required by the first commandment, or is it the worship of a special object? You say, It is the worship of one particular Being,-the Lord of heaven and earth. Then the design of the commandment can in nowise be met by worshiping some other object? Of course not; for that commandment particularly forbids the worship of anything except the true God. Well, the fourth commandment requires the observance of a special day of the week-the seventh-and forbids the observance of any other. The commandment does not simply require rest in the abstract, but rest of the day which he has appointed. To offer him any other day, is simply to ask him to be satisfied with a counterfeit.SITI November 19, 1885, page 696.7

    When a laborer goes to his employer’s office to receive his wages, he confidently expects to receive the amount before agreed upon, in good coin. Will he be satisfied with counterfeit money? By no means. But will not the counterfeit money be better than nothing? Not a bit; indeed, it may prove to be worse than no money; for while he cannot purchase a morsel of bread with it, he may get into serious trouble if he attempts to pass it. We think the illustration will hold good in every particular when applied to the Sabbath question. The seventh day is the genuine Sabbath; it has God’s stamp upon it. The Sunday is only a base counterfeit; it bears none of the marks of genuineness. Now while this counterfeit Sabbath is worth nothing, it may get us into serious trouble if we persist, in attempting to pass it instead of the genuine. See Revelation 14:9-12. As with the counterfeit coin, so with the counterfeit Sabbath,-honest ignorance that it is counterfeit may be accepted as an excuse; but when the man is told, or has an opportunity to know, that the coin is counterfeit, what excuse can he make? His unbelief will not save him.SITI November 19, 1885, page 696.8

    The one who detects a counterfeit coin, and informs the one who holds it that is of no value, is not called a troublesome fellow, although he materially mars the peace of the possessor of the coin. The one who made the base coin, and they who persist in circulating it, are the real enemies of their fellows. So those who make known the truth concerning the Lord’s Sabbath and its counterfeit are the friends, not the enemies, of their fellow-men. They are obeying the command of God: “Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and show my people there transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.”SITI November 19, 1885, page 696.9

    The man who detects a counterfeit coin in his neighbor’s possession does not offer a good one in its place; but those who show the worthlessness of the Sunday-sabbath, offer in its stead the Sabbath which bears the stamp of Jehovah, and which will be accepted at the gate of Heaven. If men refuse to accept the genuine, and go without any, it is their own fault. When the true Sabbath is presented, “Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.” Isaiah 56:2. E. J. W.SITI November 19, 1885, page 696.10

    “‘Numerical Designation’ in the Sabbath Commandment” The Signs of the Times, 11, 44.

    E. J. Waggoner

    In an article recently quoted from the Friend, was the statement that the agitation of the Sabbath question tends to turn men’s thoughts “away from the proper observance of the day, to the very subordinate question of its numerical designation.” In that sentence the writer expressed a very popular idea, one which we regard as a grave error, namely, that the “numerical designation” of the day is a minor affair in Sabbath observance. It seems to be the general idea that the main question concerning the Sabbath is, How should it be kept? and not, When should it be kept? We consider both questions highly important, but think their order should be reversed.SITI November 19, 1885, page 696.11

    What is impossible to say that one of two things is more important than the other when both are absolutely essential, we may readily determine which of them must first be considered. We have therefore no hesitation in saying that the “numerical designation” of the day is the first thing of importance in considering the question of Sabbath observance. If a man is told, “You ought to keep the Sabbath day,” the first question he would ask, if he knew nothing at all about the subject, would be, “What is the Sabbath day?”SITI November 19, 1885, page 696.12

    Now if we read the commandment we shall find that this is indeed the first point considered. “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, 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.”SITI November 19, 1885, page 696.13

    We see that in the commandment the Sabbath is introduced as an institution already well known. Then the first thing after the commandment proper, which is contained in the first clause, is the “numerical designation” of the day. “Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” So important did the Lord regard the “numerical designation” of the day, that he fixed that the very first thing. Then come directions for the proper observance of the day: “In it thou shalt not do any work.” That is, any of thy work, which must be performed in the preceding six days.SITI November 19, 1885, page 696.14

    There are but seven days in a week, and the first day is the one commonly called Sunday. Every calendar and dictionary bears witness to this. More than this, the chief and indeed the only reason given for Sunday observance is that it commemorates the resurrection of Christ. But the resurrection of Christ was on the first day of the week; and thus Sunday observance everywhere and always record their belief that Sunday is the first day of the week. To deny that fact would be to overthrow their only argument for Sunday observance. But just as surely as Sunday is the first day of the week, Saturday is the seventh day. Well, the Lord says, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.” If the “numerical designation” of the day is a matter of minor importance, will our friends please explain the fourth commandment?SITI November 19, 1885, page 696.15

    We repeat that before we can consider the “proper observance of the day” of the Sabbath, it is absolutely necessary that we determine what particular day of the week the Sabbath is. For no matter how strictly we observe a day, abstaining from our own labor on it, and devoting its hours to the worship of God, that cannot constitute a “proper observance of the Sabbath,” if the day itself is not the Sabbath. This fact seems so self-evident as to make argument useless. Moreover, if the rest and worship mentioned above be upon some one of the six days which God has devoted to labor, then that rest is not a proper observance of that day. We do not say that Sunday or Monday or any other day of the week may not be used, on occasions, for religious worship, but we do say that for a regular practice, the only “proper observance” of Sunday, as well as of the five days following, is labor. And the only “proper observance of the Sabbath” is rest and worship on the seventh day of the week, commonly called Saturday. And this we say “by the word of the Lord.” See Exodus 16:22-30; 20:8-11; Luke 23:54-56. E. J. W.SITI November 19, 1885, page 697.1

    “How It May Be Done” The Signs of the Times, 11, 44.

    E. J. Waggoner

    Says the Portland Baptist: “Let our ambition be first to make men Christians, then Baptists.” And the Herald of Truth says: “All genuine denominational feeling responds to this, Amen.” We confess that we cannot understand such expressions. Is a Baptist more or less than a Christian? Neither of the papers referred to will claim that a Baptist is more than a Christian. To be a Christian is the highest point to which sanctified ambition can look. Well, then, is a Baptist less than a Christian? If so, why should the good brethren who conduct these papers wish to lower the standard of any who are in such a desirable position? We know that they would not, and therefore we conclude that according to their idea a Baptist is a Christian. We have no disposition to deny this; but if it is so, why do they not say directly that their ambition is to make men Baptists?SITI November 19, 1885, page 697.2

    There is a spirit which, for want of a better name, might be called “denominational cowardice.” It makes men fear to seem to place their own denomination above any other. We confess that we have no sympathy with such a spirit. We like to see people have decided convictions. If a man unites with a certain denomination, it should be because that denomination is, so far as he can learn, more nearly correct than any other; because it has more truth. And if it has more truth than any other, it certainly is better than any other; and if that is so, why should he be afraid to say so? And why should he not strive earnestly to bring into it both worldlings and members of those bodies that have not so much light?SITI November 19, 1885, page 697.3

    We are strongly of the opinion that the true reason for this “undenominational” talk that is so common, is the underlying belief that there is really no vital difference between different religious bodies, the name being the chief one. The points of divergence are called “non-essentials.” Well, then, this shows the weakness of the “National Reform” assertion that their work cannot result in a union of Church and State, because the men who are in the movement are representatives of all denominations, and of course would not single out any one for prominence to the exclusion of the rest. So we say, of course they would not; but, singing party names and “non-essentials,” they would all unite as members of one body, for the enforcement of the “essentials” which they hold in common. And when we inquire for the points held by all denominations in a common, and which are regarded as the essentials, we find simply, Natural Immortality and Sunday.SITI November 19, 1885, page 697.4

    If any one says that a union of one Church and State cannot be effected on this basis, and that it is not imminent, he certainly is blind to the things that are taking place all around him. E. J. W.SITI November 19, 1885, page 697.5

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents