Lessons to Learn.

 Come with me, we're going on a little journey. This journey will take you through the wilderness and it's going to be a spiritual journey- the physical hardship of it all will only serve to hone the spiritual. You will suffer various deprivations, but there are a few things you will not suffer.  The clothing you are wearing will never become threadbare, but will serve to last for as long as the journey last. You will never die of starvation or thirst- even if you do feel hunger and thirst- they will not kill you. You will be given special instructions for your future, you will be given opportunities, you will have to make choices- and your choices will have consequences.  

This journey I'm asking you to take will have you leave a life of extreme hardship and enter a life of hardship- only the new life of hardship will come with promises for your eternal future that your old life could never give you.

There are rules, and one of those rules…

The food that will be provided to you will be given to you each day in the morning. You must go out and collect this food for your daily needs, just enough each day for what you'll consume that day- no leftovers. Don't worry, you'll have all you need, each day. You will NOT ever have to worry about there not being food to sustain you. However, because you need to learn spiritual truths, this food distribution will teach you about one of the very important spiritual institutions whose origins stem from the very beginning of creation. In the beginning, mankind chose to disobey their Creator, now you will be given a chance to choose to obey. 

On the sixth day of the weekly seven day cycle, you will be given twice the amount of food because there will not be any food on the seventh day. Only on the seventh day will extra food that you gather on the sixth not spoil. If you try to gather any extra on other days it will rot and stink so that you cannot eat any of it.  You are to learn that the seventh day of the weekly cycle is special, holy, sanctified, blessed and you are not to work on that day but spend the day in commemoration of your creation and therefore your Creator.

The short journey, will become long because of the hardness of your hearts. You refuse to learn, but not for lack of being taught. For forty years you will eat the food of angels, for forty years you will celebrate the weekly seventh day Sabbath. Lessons to be learned…. Will you learn?  

Food from God.

Rest from God.

Yet so many will despise these gifts because they do not allow for perverted self-serving in any way, not even the smallest way.

Once the food from God is gone, and you are able to grow food because you are no longer journeying, you will forever have the seventh day Sabbath, this will never disappear, never change, and forever be. You must never forget your Creator, never. You will have the seventh day Sabbath eternally. 

May we learn to be servants and not self-serving. May we learn to obey.

All through Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior! Now and forever! Amen!

(Excerpt)

CHAPTER IV. “THE SABBATH OF REDEMPTION.”

“The Sabbath of Redemption” composes Part III of “The Abiding Sabbath,” and in it throughout the author still diligently pursues his course of systematic self-contradiction. The first division of this part is “The Testimony of Jesus Christ” upon the subject of the Sabbath, a few sentences of which we quote. He says--

“As already shown, the Sabbath contained moral elements; it belonged not solely to Israel, but was sanctioned by the primitive revelation to the race, being the first article in the law of the beginning; it was a part of that sublime code which by the mouth of the Eternal himself was spoken to his chosen people from the mountain of God; its violation had been surrounded, in the Mosaic legislation and in the prophetic instructions, with penalties, and its observance with blessings, such as could hardly be attached to a simple institution of ritual. The abiding Sabbath, belonging to the moral law is therefore not repealed or canceled by Jesus, but rather confirmed with new uses, loftier meanings, and holier objects.”—P. 159. 

Then in speaking of the “false strictness” with which the Jews has surrounded and obscured the real intent of the Sabbath, and how Jesus swept this all away, he says:— 

“There is not in all this any hint of the abolition of the Sabbath, or release from its obligations. The words of Jesus become meaningless when they are applied to anything but the abuses and perversions of its purposes by the Rabbinical schools. Had he desired to abolish it altogether, nothing would have been easier than to do so in terms. His words are everywhere framed with the utmost care, and strictly guarded against any construction which would involve a denial of the real sacredness of the day blessed by the Creator and sanctioned by the moral law.”—P. 163. 

Now the day blessed by the Creator is the seventh day; for “God bless the seventh day” is the word of God, and “The seventh day is the Sabbath” is the declaration of God in the moral law. Therefore we submit that as Christ’s words are “strictly guarded against any construction which would involve a denial of the real sacredness of the day blessed by the Creator and sanctioned by the moral law,” then the word of Christ binds every man to the observance of the seventh day, and forever debars any application of his teaching to any other than the seventh day; for God never blessed any but the seventh day, and none other than the seventh day is sanctified, as the Sabbath, by the moral law. 

Again he says:— 

“Jesus confirms the Sabbath on its spiritual basis. ‘The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath; therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.’ ...Thus he at once rid it of all the false restrictions of Judaism, and, establishing it upon its primitive foundations, he brought forth its higher reason in the assertion of its relation to the well-being of man. ‘The Sabbath was made for man;’ not for the Jew only, but for the whole race of mankind; not for one age alone, but for man universally, under every circumstance of time and place.”—P. 165. 

Then in another place Mr. Elliott says further:— 

“The declaration in Genesis furnishes the best commentary on the saying of Jesus: ‘The Sabbath was made for man.’”—P. 17. 

The “declaration in Genesis” is: “And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.” We agree perfectly with Mr. Elliott that that “furnishes the best commentary on the saying of Jesus,” in Mark 2:27. It is the Lord’s own commentary on his own word; it is his own explanation of his own statement. Therefore when, by any statement in any way, Mr. Elliott or any one else attempts to bring the first day of the week into place as the Sabbath, it is simply doing violence to the word of God, and is in direct contradiction to the divine commentary. 

Now in accordance with his scheme throughout, after having, by every principle of logic, established the obligation of the seventh day as the Sabbath, he proceeds at once to contradict it all. He says:— 

“‘The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.’ This is an assertion by our Lord of his right to make such modifications in the law of the Sabbath, and give it such new adjustments as should to him seem best for the religious culture of the race. As Lord of the Sabbath, he doubtless had the power to set it entirely aside,—a power which certainly he has nowhere exercised, either by himself or through his apostles. He had the right to change its day and alter or add to its meanings,—a right which he has exercised in giving us the Lord’s day, the Christian Sabbath, and in making it a monument of redemption as well as of creation and providence. Because he is ‘Lord of the Sabbath,’ we can rightly call the Sabbath the Lord’s day, and the Lord’s day our Sabbath. That which he has asserted that he had the power to do, we have the right to assume he has done, and we have, moreover, the right to infer that the change which came over the Sabbatic institutions in the early Christian centuries was not without his will, but by his authority and in fulfillment of his purpose.”—Pp. 168, 169. 

Again:— 

“More subtly than Moses, yet as really as the lawgiver in the wilderness, he was instituting a new Sabbath.”—P. 172. 

Here are several points, upon each of which we wish to dwell for a moment. We take the last one first: “More subtly than Moses, yet as really .. he was instituting a new Sabbath.” How subtly did Moses institute a new Sabbath? Why not at all, subtly or otherwise. Moses instituted no weekly Sabbath, either new or old. God spoke the word from Heaven: “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work;” as Mr. Elliott himself says, “Not by the mouth of angel or prophet came this sublimest code of morals: but the words were formed in air by the power of the Eternal himself” (p. 117). But go back even beyond Sinai, to the Wilderness of Sin, at the falling of the manna, nor yet there was it left to Moses to mark the day that was the Sabbath, much less was it given to him to institute the Sabbath. Here, again, Mr. Elliott states the case precisely: “God himself provided the feast in the wilderness which marked for them the weekly recurrence of the holy day.... The connection of the miraculous supply of food with the seventh day was certainly calculated to strongly impress the Sabbath upon the thoughts and imaginations of the people, and thus was laid the sure foundation for the Sinaitic legislation” (p.110). 

That seventh day which was singled out for Israel by the miracle of the manna in the Wilderness of Sin, and which was so kept before them for forty years, that was the identical seventh day which the word “formed in air by the power of the Eternal himself” declared to be the Sabbath of the Lord. And that was the very seventh day which that same word declared was the one on which God rested from creation, the day which he, at creation, blessed and sanctified. That was the only weekly Sabbath that was ever known to Moses or to Israel; and with its institution Moses had nothing whatever to do, either subtly or otherwise. And when Mr. Elliott brings in Christ as, “more subtly than Moses, yet as really ...instituting a new Sabbath,” it is simply saying, as a matter of fact, that Christ really instituted no new Sabbath at all. And that is the truth. 

“That which he has asserted he had the power to do, we have the right to assume he has done,” says Mr. Elliott. Is, then, the authority of the “Christian Sabbath” to rest upon assumption? Is the first day of the week to be brought in by an inference? The day that has received “the highest and strongest sanction possible even to Deity;” the day which has been specified in the word “formed in air by the power of the Eternal himself;” the day that was pointed out by weekly miracles for forty continuous years,—that is to be supplanted by one that is brought in merely upon the assumption that what the Lord has asserted that he had the power to do, he has done! But any such assumption is wholly illegitimate. And we shall prove by Mr. Elliott’s own words that this, his assumption, is simply willful. 

Christ said, “The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day.” Now in that declaration there is just as much of an assertion of his power to entirely set aside the Sabbath, as there is of his power to change it. Therefore, upon Mr. Elliott’s proposition, there is just as much “right to assume” that Christ abolished the Sabbath, as there is to assume that he changed it. Mr. Elliott says: “As Lord of the Sabbath, he doubtless had the power to set it entirely aside.” Therefore, if his assertion of his power to do a thing gives right to the assumption that he has done it, why is it not right to assume that he has set it entirely aside? But no; Mr. Elliott will not at all allow that. But in the very next sentence he says: “He had the right to change its day,” and, “That which he has asserted he had the power to do, we have the right to assume he has done,” therefore the inference is that whatever change has come over it, was “by his authority and in fulfillment of his purpose.” 

We repeat, and this Mr. Elliott’s argument allows, that in Christ’s quoted words there is just as much assertion of the power to set the Sabbath “entirely aside,” or do with it any imaginable thing, as there is to “change its day;” and Mr. Elliott’s argument is just as sound a basis for the assumption that the Sabbath has been abolished, or that any other wild scheme has been accomplished with it, as it is for his assumption that it has been changed. And when Mr. Elliott lays down this proposition, which equally allows any assumption that the imagination might frame, it depends simply upon the wishes of the individual as to what shall be assumed, and therefore the assumption is wholly willful. Christ has asserted his power to call from their graves, all the dead; by Mr. Elliott’s proposition we have the right to assume that he has done it. Christ has asserted his power to destroy death; under this novel proposition we have the right to assume that he has done it. Everybody knows, however, that such assumptions would be absolutely false; but they would be no more so than is Mr. Elliott’s assumption that Christ changed the Sabbath. Mr. Elliott’s proposition is simply absurd. The fact is that we have no right to assume anything in the premises. 

Christ said: “When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which was our duty to do.” Luke 17:10. No man can do more than his duty. But when we have done all that is commanded, we have but done our duty. Therefore nothing can be duty that is not commanded. No man ever yet cited a commandment of God for keeping the first day of the week; there is no such commandment. Therefore until a commandment of God can be produced which enjoins the observance of the first day of the week, there can be no duty in that direction, Mr. Elliott’s five-hundred-dollar-prize assumptions to the contrary, notwithstanding. (End Excerpt)

God Needs No Rest.

 God Rested. 

God Needs No Rest.

Isa 40:28  Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding. 

Previously in this current study - mention was made of God's resting being a sign of God completing something, not of His needing time off from a hard job.

How often have you started a project that took a long time to finish and when you finally finish the project, even if you're not physically tired, you have a sense of satisfaction, fulfillment, a sigh of relief (even if you were thrilled and happy doing the entire project)? There comes that special feeling you truly only get when you've finished a project. Of course, comparing any of our projects with God's work of creation is unfathomable, but we get a small glimpse into something that enables us to have a tiny bit of comprehension, yes? 

God completed the work of Creation. The finishing touch, the capstone on creation was a day of recognition of that completed work through a recognized day of no work.   We understand the term holiday don't we? In the sense that if I say this or that day is a holiday it makes it a special day. On that special day we like to have it "off" if we are working, or we like to get paid double if we "have" to work on that special day. A holiday is only a holiday because we a people have made it such. There are plenty of holidays that have only come into being over time- not throughout all time. 

From the internet I get this bit of information-

The first four congressionally designated federal holidays were created in 1870, when Congress granted paid time off to federal workers in the District of Columbia for New Year's Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day.

From <https://www.google.com/search?q=when+did+the+first+holiday+begin&rlz=1C1AVFC_enUS845US845&oq=when+did+the+first+holiday+begin&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30i395j0i390i395.18894j1j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8> 

Another tidbit of information-

This time of year "Happy Holidays" is common greeting in United States. But, where and when did the word come from. The word holiday came from an Old English word that was first recorded in 950 AD, as hāligdæg (hālig for "holy" and dæg for "day"). The first recorded spelling as holiday was in 1460 AD. Around the Middle English period, it took on a new meaning as "a day when commoners were exempt from labor". In celebration, people often feasted on a flatfish called butte. Today's halibut got its name from hali or holy and butte or flatfish.

From <https://prolingo.com/blog/where-do-our-holiday-words-come-from/> 

Commoners exempt from labor… granted paid time off to federal workers…  

We all are familiar with this concept and have been for a very long time.

God has made the seventh day of the week His weekly Holy Day and He made it FOR US.   

God memorialized Creation week and never wanted us to forget that we are CREATED beings living in a CREATED world.  

On the various holidays we celebrate, we know the name of the holiday and what it represents, why we are celebrating that holiday.  It's NO different for celebrating the weekly holiday we've been given by our Creator. NO MAN created this holiday, God created it, for US.  

How glorious it is to recognize our God, our Creator! How wondrous it is to take the seventh day Sabbath created for us, and celebrate the glory of God! This is such a special commandment, one of the royal ten laws, a commandment embracing a precept from our very creation, our very beginning as human beings. The importance of this day is right in our face in the very fact it is WEEKLY!  We take holidays that are once a year and make a big huge deal over them. We think about them off and on, but until they are usually close to be celebrated we don't think about them overly much. Yes, you might go out and buy a Christmas present the day after Christmas for the following year, but most people do not do that every day throughout the year or even every week.  We do place importance upon these days- for the most part, not everyone does. Every human being however should comprehend the importance of their existence and God wants us to comprehend HIS glory and our forever need to be thankful for our very lives. 

We are BLESSED to have this HOLY day, and we are BLESSED to be commanded to recognize this HOLY day every Sabbath. 

God insured that we would KNOW beyond a doubt which day of the weekly seven was His Holy day….  God's chosen people of Israel were given the command to recognize the day and they've kept that day since. Jesus kept that day. The Apostles kept that day. We know what day it is without any disputing.  Some like to imagine God changed the day, but He never, ever did. Man dared to, but not God. Why God would ever take His designated day of rest memorializing Creation for all time, and change it is incomprehensible. He could not say- God rested the first day from all He'd created and made… it would be a lie and God does not lie! 

We have this special connection to our very creation, and so many turn their noses up to it in so many ways.  

May God bless us with spiritual comprehension of His TRUTH in all things!

(Excerpt)

CHAPTER III. SOME FIVE-HUNDRED-DOLLAR LOGIC

It must be borne in mind that the book entitled “The Abiding Sabbath” was written to prove “the perpetual obligation of the Lord’s day;” and that by the term “Lord’s day,” the author of the book means, in every instance, the first day of the week. Therefore, “being interpreted,” the book, “The Abiding Sabbath,” is an argument to prove the perpetual obligation of the first day of the week. It is likewise to be remembered that the trustees of Dartmouth College paid the Fletcher prize of five hundred dollars for the essay which composes the book “The Abiding Sabbath.” This certainly is tangible proof that those trustees, and the Committee of Award appointed by them, considered that the object of the essay had been accomplished, and that thereby the perpetual obligation of the first day of the week had been proved. But we are certain that any one who has read the two preceding chapters on this subject, will wonder how, in view of the arguments there used, the author can make it appear that the first day of the week is “the abiding Sabbath.” Well, to tell in a few words what we shall abundantly demonstrate, he does it by directly contradicting every sound argument that he has made, and every principle that he has established. 

In the first chapter of the book, from the scripture “God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made” (Genesis 2:3), he proves the institution of the Sabbath at creation, and says: “Whatever institutions were given to man then, were given for all time.” 

And again: “‘God rested the seventh day,’ and by so doing has given to the law of the Sabbath the highest and strongest sanction possible, even to Deity.... It is therefore-bounded by no limits of time, place, or circumstance, but is of universal and perpetual authority.”

It was the seventh day upon which God rested from the work of creation; it was the seventh day which he then blessed; it was the seventh day which he then sanctified; and he says, “The seventh day is the Sabbath.” Now if, as Mr. Elliott says, this institution was given to man “for all time,” and that, too, “with the highest and strongest sanction possible even to Deity;” and if it is bounded “by no limits of time, place, or circumstance,” how can it be possible that the first day of the week is the abiding Sabbath? It is clearly and absolutely impossible. The two things cannot stand together. God did not rest the first day of the week. He did not bless, nor did he sanctify, the first day of the week. He has never called the first day of the week the Sabbath; nor as such an institution has he ever given it any sanction of Deity, much less has he ever given it the “highest and strongest sanction possible even to Deity.” Then upon no principle of truth can it ever be made to appear that the first day of the week is the abiding Sabbath. 

Then in Part II, on the fourth commandment,—the “Sabbath of the Law,”—he says of the Sabbath therein given to Israel when God brought them out of Egypt: “The first institution of religion given to the emancipated nation was the very same with the first given to man” (p.110). He says that it has “a meaning not for the Hebrews alone, but for the whole race of mankind;” that “the reason of the commandment recalls the ordinance of creation;” that “the ideas connected with the Sabbath in the fourth commandment are thus of the most permanent and universal meaning;” and that “the institution, in the light of the reasons assigned, is as wide as creation and as eternal as the Creator” (pp. 114, 126). 

And yet into this commandment, which says as plainly as language can speak, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” Mr. Elliott proposes to read the first day as “the abiding Sabbath.” 

Before noticing his reasons for such a step, we would repeat one of his own paragraphs:— 

“Long should pause the erring hand of man before it dares to chip away with the chisel of human reasonings one single word graven on the enduring tables by the hand of the infinite God. What is proposed?

To make an erasure in a Heaven-born code; to expunge one article from the recorded will of the Eternal! Is the eternal tablet of his law to be defaced by a creature’s hand? He who proposes such an act should fortify himself by reasons as holy as God and as mighty as his power. None but consecrated hands could touched the ark of God; thrice holy should be the hands which would dare to alter the testimony which lay within the ark.”— 128, 129. 

And so say we. 

After proving that the ten commandments are of universal and perpetual obligation, he discovers that the decalogue “contains transient elements.” He says:— 

“It may be freely admitted that the decalogue in the form in which it is stated, contains transient elements. These, however, are easily separable. For example, the promise attached to the requirement of filial reverence, ‘that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee,’ has a very evident reference to Israel alone, and is a promise of national perpetuity in possession of the promised land.” 

But lo, just here he discovers that this is not a “transient element,” and that it has not “reference to Israel alone;” for he continues in the very same paragraph:— 

“Even this element is not entirely of limited application, however, for Paul quotes the commandment in his letter to the Christians of Ephesus (Ephesians 6:2), as ‘the first ...with promise,’ evidently understanding the covenant of long life to have a wider scope than simply the Hebrew nationality. 

And it is clear that nothing can be imagined which could give more enduring stability to civil institutions than that law-abiding character which is based on respect for superiors and obedience to their commands.”—Pp. 120, 121. 

His proposition is that “the decalogue contains transient elements.” And to demonstrate his proposition, he produces as an “example,” a “transient element” which he immediately proves is not a transient element at all. Then what becomes of his proposition? Well, by every principle of common logic, it is a miserable failure. But by this new, high-priced kind, this five-hundred-dollar-prize logic, it is a brilliant success; for by it he accomplishes all that he intended when he started out; that is, that by it he might put aside as a “transient element” the seventh day, and swing into its place the seventh part of time. For after proving that his example of a transient element is not a transient element at all, he continues:— 

“This serves to illustrate how we may regard the temporal element in the law of the Sabbath. It does not bind us to the precise day, but to the seventh of our time.” 

To the trustees of Dartmouth College, and to the Committee of Award which they appointed, and to the American Tract Society, it may serve to illustrate such a thing; but to anybody who loves truth, sound reasoning, and fair dealing, it only serves to illustrate the deplorable weakness of the cause in behalf of which resort has to be made to such subterfuges. 

Besides this, his admission that the decalogue contains transient elements is directly contrary to the argument that he has already made on this very subject. On page 116, he had already written of the ten commandments:—

“These statutes are therefore not simply commands or precepts of God; for God may give commandments which have only a transient and local effect; they are in a distinctive sense the word of God, an essential part of that word which ‘abideth’.... By the phrase ‘the ten words,’ as well as in the general scope of Hebrew legislation, the moral law is fully distinguished from the civil and ceremonial law. The first is an abiding statement of the divine will; the last consists of transient ordinances having but a temporary and local meaning.” 

Yet directly in the face of this, he will have it freely admitted that the decalogue “contains transient elements.” Are there transient elements in the divine will? Can that which abideth be transient? And if the decalogue contains transient elements, then wherein is it “fully distinguished” from the “civil and ceremonial law,” which “consists of transient ordinances”? The genuine logic of his position is (1) the ceremonial law consists of transient ordinances; (2) the decalogue is fully distinguished from the ceremonial law; (3) therefore the decalogue consists of nothing transient. But with the aid of this five-hundred-dollar-prize logic it is thus: The ceremonial law consists of transient ordinances. The decalogue is fully distinguished from the ceremonial law. Therefore it may be freely admitted that the decalogue contains transient elements!! And so “with the ceremonial system vanished the Jewish Sabbath,” which he defines to be the seventh day (pp. 177, 190). By one argument on these transient elements, he manages to put away the precise seventh day, and to put in its place “the seventh of our time;” by another he is enabled to abolish the seventh of our time, as well as the precise seventh day, by which he opens the way to insert in the commandment the precise first day as the “abiding Sabbath” and of “perpetual obligation.”

Again we read:—  

“While the Sabbath of Israel had features which enforce and illustrate the abiding Sabbath, it must not be forgotten that it had a wholly distinct existence of its own...Moses really instituted something new, something different from the old patriarchal seventh day.”—P. 134. 

With this read the following:— 

“The first institution of religion given to the emancipated nation was the very same with the first given to man.”—P. 110. 

How the Sabbath of Israel could be the very same with the first given to man, and yet have a wholly distinct existence of its own; how it could be the “very same” with the first given to man, and yet be “something new” 2500 years afterward; how it could be something different from the old patriarchal seventh day, and yet in it there be “still embodied the true Sabbath,” we cannot possibly conceive; but perhaps the genius that can discern in the decalogue transient elements which it proves are not transient at all, could also tell how all these things can be. 

Just one more illustration of the wonderful feats that can be performed by a prize essay. On page 135 he says:— 

“In the Mosaic Sabbath, for the time of its endurance and no longer, was embodied, for a particular people and no others, this permanent institution which was ordained at creation, and which lives now with more excellent glory in the Lord’s day.” 

That is to say: (1) In the Mosaic institution, “for the time of its endurance [1522 years] and no longer,” was embodied an institution which is “rooted in the eternal world” (p. 28), and which is as eternal as the Creator (p. 126); (2) in the Mosaic institution, which was “for a particular people and no others,” was embodied an institution whose “unrelaxed obligation” extends to “every creature,” “to all races of earth and all ages of the world’s history” (pp. 122, 124). 

In other words, in an institution that was for a particular people and no others, for 1522 years and no longer, was embodied an institution that is eternal, and for all races in all ages of the world’s history. 

Now we wish that Mr. Elliott, or some of those who were concerned in paying the five-hundred-dollar prize for this essay, would tell us how it were possible that an institution that is as eternal as the Creator could be embodied in one that was to endure for 1522 years and no longer; and how an institution that is of relaxed obligation upon all races in all ages, could be embodied in one that was for a particular people and no others. And when he has told us that, then we wish he would condescend to inform us how in the Mosaic Sabbath there could be embodied three such diverse elements as (1) the “permanent institution which was ordained at creation,” which was the seventh day; (2) “something new,” which he says was “not improbably a different day;” and (3) “the institution which lives now with more excellent glory in the Lord’s day,” which he says is the first day of the week. 

We have not the most distant idea, however, that Mr. Elliott, or any one else, will ever explain any of these things. They cannot be explained. They are absolute contradictions throughout. But by them he has paved the way by which he intends to bring in the first day of the week as the abiding Sabbath, and they are a masterly illustration of the methods by which that institution is made to stand. (End excerpt)

Sacred Sabbath.

 

(Excerpt)

CHAPTER II. SABBATH OF THE LAW

As a basis for the further notice of “The Abiding Sabbath,” we shall here give some extracts from the author’s discussion of the fourth commandment, showing the universal and everlasting obligation of the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord. He says:— 

“The giving of the law at Sinai is the loftiest landmark in the history of Israel. It is the beginning of their civil and religious polity. From that moment Israel became the nation of Jehovah, the nation of the law, the leader among the nations of the earth in the search after a positive righteousness. That the Sabbath is a part of that code, has therefore a meaning not for the Hebrew alone, but for the whole race of mankind. 

“Everywhere in the sacred writings of the Hebrews they are reminded that they are the people peculiarly guided by Providence. Historian, psalmist, and prophet never tire in recounting the marvelous interpositions of Jehovah in behalf of his chosen people. And this thought is the key-note to the decalogue, ‘I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage’ 

(Exodus 20:2), is the introduction to the law. When therefore the Sabbath is introduced into the decalogue, while its old significance as a testimony of creation is not lost, but especially recalled, it becomes, beside, a monument of the divine Providence whose particular manifestations Israel, among the nations, has most largely experienced. The Sabbath of the law is the Sabbath of Providence. 

“The declaration on Sinai is perhaps the strongest attestation which the Sabbatic ordinance has received. It is henceforth based upon an express command of God himself, is given in circumstances of the most impressive solemnity, and has received the awful sanction of embodiment in the moral law, against which ‘the soul that sinneth, it shall die.’ Ezekiel 18:4. God has spoken, and his creatures must obey or perish. 

“We commonly speak of the decalogue as the ‘ten commandments.’ A more precise rendering of the Hebrew terms would be the ‘ten words’ (Exodus 34:28, margin; Deuteronomy 4:13; 10:2, 4, margin), an exact equivalent of which we have taken from the Greek, in the word ‘decalogue.’ These statutes are therefore not simply commands or precepts of God, for God may give commandments which have only a transient and local effect; they are in a distinctive sense the word of God, an essential part of that word which ‘abideth.’ In the decalogue we get a glimpse of that inner movement of the divine will which is the permanent foundation for all temporary ordinances. It is not contended that this use of language is rigidly uniform, but only that by the phrase, ‘the ten words,’ as well as in the general scope of Hebrew legislation, the moral law is fully distinguished from the civil and ceremonial law. The first is an abiding statement of the divine will; the last consists of transient ordinances having but a temporary and local meaning and force. The decalogue is also called the ‘testimony’ (Exodus 25:16 and in many other places), that is, the witness of the divine will; also the words of the ‘covenant’ (34:28), and ‘his (i. e., Jehovah’s) covenant’ (Deuteronomy 4:13), upon obedience to which his favor was in a special manner conditioned. The names given to this code declare its unchanging moral authority. 

“The manner in which this law was given attests its special sanctity and high authority. Before its announcement, the people of Israel, by solemn rites, sanctified themselves, while the holy mountain was girded with the death-line which no mortal could pass and live. When the appointed day came, to the sublime accompaniment of pealing thunders and flashing lightnings, the loud shrilling of angel-blown trumpets, the smoking mountain, and the quaking earth, from the lips of Jehovah himself sounded forth ‘with a great voice’ the awful sentences of this divine law, to which in the same way ‘he added no more.’ Deuteronomy 5:22. Not by the mouth of an angel or prophet came this sublimest code of morals, but the words were formed in air by the power of the Eternal himself. And when it was to be recorded, no human scribe took down the sacred utterances; they were engraved by no angel hand; but with his own finger he inscribed on tables of stone, whose preparation, in the first instance, was ‘the work of God,’ the words of his will. Exodus 31:18; 32:16; 34:1, 4, 28. 

“The law declared by his own mouth and indited by his own hand was finally placed in the ark of the covenant, underneath the mercy-seat, where sprinkled blood might atone for its violation; .. and beneath the flaming manifestation of the very presence of the Almighty, the glory of the shekinah; circumstances signifying forever the divine source of this law and the divine solicitude that it should be obeyed. This superior solemnity and majesty of announcement and conservation distinguish the decalogue above all other laws given to man, and separate it widely from the civil polity and ritual afterwards given by the hand of Moses. These latter are written by no almighty finger and spoken to the people by no divine voice; for these it is sufficient that Moses hear and record them. 

“Of the law thus impressively given, the fourth commandment forms a part. Amid the same cloud of glory, the same thunders and lightnings, uttered by the same dread voice of the Infinite One, and graven by his finger, came forth these words as well: ‘Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.’ It is impossible, in view of these facts, to class the Sabbath with the ceremonial institutions of Israel. By the sacred seal of the divine lip and finger, it has been raised far above those perishing rites. In other words, it belongs to that moral law which Paul calls ‘holy, and just, and good’ (Romans 7:12), and not that ritual law of which Peter declares, ‘Neither our fathers nor we were able to bear’ it. Acts 15:10. 

“Nothing can be found in the form of words in which the fourth commandment is expressed which indicates that it is less universal in its obligation or less absolute in its authority than the other nine with which it is associated.... But it is sometimes claimed that this is simply a Mosaic institute, and therefore of transient force; that this has not, like the others, an inward reason which appeals to the conscience; that it is, in short, not a moral but a positive precept... 

“The proof which would exclude this commandment from the throne of moral authority on which the others are seated should amount to demonstration.... The distinction cannot be maintained between this commandment and the remainder of the decalogue. The prohibition of image-worship is not deemed essential by either Roman or Greek Christianity; but the more spiritual mind of Protestantism can see that this law is absolutely necessary to guard a truly spiritual conception of Deity. So, many excellent Christians have failed to discern the moral necessity of the Sabbath. Clearer insight will reveal that all the laws of the first table are guarded by this institution, as all in the second table are enforced by the tenth, ‘Thou shalt not covet.’ 

Abiding Sabbath.

 • (EXCERPT)

THE ABIDING SABBATH

CHAPTER I. INSTITUTION OF THE SABBATH

The late Hon. Richard Fletcher, of Boston, Mass., by his last will, established in charge of the trustees of Dartmouth College, “a fund from the income of which they were to offer, once in two years, a prize of $500 for the essay best adapted” to counteract “the numerous and powerful influences constantly active in drawing professed Christians into fatal conformity with the world, both in spirit and practice.” 

The fifth time of offering the prize fell in 1883. Accordingly the trustees of the fund and of Dartmouth College selected as the “specific theme” of the desired essay, “The Perpetual Obligation of the Lord’s Day,” and offered the five-hundred-dollar prize for the best. 

The committee of award was composed of the following gentlemen: “Prof. William Thompson, D. D., Prof. Llewellyn Pratt, D. D., and Rev. George M. Stone, D. D., all of Hartford, Conn.” This committee, “after a careful and thorough examination,” awarded the prize to an essay which proved to have been written by the Rev. George Elliott, of West Union, Iowa. The essay, entitled “The Abiding Sabbath,” appeared in 1884, and was issued from the press of the American Tract Society in the winter of 1884-85, in the form of a book of two hundred and eighty pages. …

The book is divided into three parts,—“Sabbath of Nature,” “Sabbath of the Law,” and “Sabbath of Redemption.” We shall quote quite largely from the first two parts, and that without argument, there being in fact no room for argument between us, because the author of “The Abiding Sabbath,” in these two parts, proves to perfection the perpetual obligation of the seventh day as the Sabbath, and that is exactly what we believe. We ask our readers to study carefully his argument on the “Sabbath of Nature” and the “Sabbath of the Law,” which we quote, (1) because it is excellent reading, and (2) because we want them to see clearly, by what curious freaks of logic it is, that after absolutely demonstrating the perpetual obligation of the seventh day, another day entirely is to be observed. He says most truly:— 

“The Sabbath is an institution as old as the completion of the world.... It shares with marriage the glory of being the sole relics saved to the fallen race from their lost paradise. One is the foundation of the family, and consequently of the State; the other is equally necessary to worship and the church. These two fair and fragrant roses man bore with him from the blighted bliss of Eden. 

“It is not, however, the mere fact of age that lends sacredness to these institutions; for years alone cannot give consecration or compel regard to anything which does not possess in itself some inherent sanctity and dignity. It is in the circumstances of its first institution, and in its essential character, that we must hope to discover the necessity and holiness of the Sabbath day. 

“‘God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.’ Genesis 2:3. Such is the sublimely simple statement which forms the last strain of that magnificent hymn of creation which is our only glimpse into the beginning of things. It is surely consistent with sound common sense and sound interpretation to see in these words much more than a mere anticipation of the theocratic Sabbath of Israel. It seems absurd to express in words what some have implied in their reasonings on this passage: ‘God rested on the seventh day; therefore 2,500 years afterwards he blessed and sanctified it.’ The same form of language is used to describe what took place on the seventh day as in relating what took place in the six preceding days. 

“It is certain that a first reading of this passage conveys to the mind the idea that the sanctification of the Sabbath as a day of rest took place at the very close of the creative week. That such was the case would probably never have been denied, if the denial had not been necessary to support a peculiar view. Doubt in regard to this proleptic interpretation is sustained by the recent discovery of mention of a day of rest in the Assyrian account of creation, which is believed to antedate Moses by nearly six hundred years, and the further discovery of the actual observance of a Sabbath in Babylonia long before the time of the Mosaic institution. Is not God saving his facts, in Egyptian tombs, on Assyrian bricks, and in all historic remains everywhere, that, at every crisis of his truth, when even the mouths of believers are silenced by the tumult of doubt, the very ‘stones’ may ‘cry out’? ...

“A special authority attaches itself to the primitive revelation. Whatever critical opinions may assert concerning the early history of the world, to the Christian the testimony of Jesus Christ remains in force to the high obligation of the Edenic law. In reproving the corruptions of the marriage relation which had arisen under the Mosaic code, he reverts to the primitive law: ‘From the beginning it was not so.’ That is to say, the law of the beginning is supreme. Whatever institutions were given to man then were given for all time. There is given thus to marriage, and to its related institution, the Sabbath, a permanent character and authority which transcend the Hebrew legislation in their universal and binding force. Those elements of truth which were given to the infant race, are the possession of humanity, and not of the Jew alone; they are the alphabet of all the growing knowledge of man, not to be forgotten as the world grows old, but to be borne with him in all his wanderings, to last through all changes, and be his guide up those rugged steeps by which he must climb to the lofty summits of his nobler destiny. 

“Not to a single race, but to man; not to man alone, but to the whole creation; not to the created things alone, but to the Creator himself, came the benediction of the first Sabbath. Its significance extends beyond the narrow limits of Judaism, to all races, and perhaps to all worlds. It is a law spoken not simply through the lawgiver of a chosen people, but declared in the presence of a finished heaven and earth. The declaration in Genesis furnishes the best commentary on the saying of Jesus: ‘The Sabbath was made for man.’ For man, universal humanity, it was given with its benediction. 

“The reason of the institution of the Sabbath is one which possesses an unchanging interest and importance to all mankind. The theme of the creation is not peculiar to Israel, nor is worship of the Creator confined to the children of Abraham. The primary article of every religious creed, and the foundation of all true religion, is faith in one God as the Maker of all things. Against atheism, which denies the existence of a personal God; against materialism, which denies that this visible universe has its roots in the unseen; and against secularism, which denies the need of worship, the Sabbath is therefore an eternal witness. It symbolically commemorates that creative power which spoke all things into being, the wisdom which ordered their adaptations and harmony, and the love which made, as well as pronounced, all ‘very good.’ It is set as the perpetual guardian of man against that spiritual infirmity which has everywhere led him to a denial of the God who made him, or to the degradation of that God into a creature made with his own hands.” 

Further he says:— 

“While the reason remains, the law remains. The reason of the Sabbath is to be found in the fact of creation; it is God’s one monument set in human history to that great event; and so long as the truth of creation and the knowledge of a Creator have any value to human thought, any authority over the human conscience, or make any appeal to human affections, so long the law and the institution of the Sabbath will abide with lasting instruction and undiminished obligation. 

“God ‘rested the seventh day from all his work which he had made.’ Such is the record, declared in the beginning, embodied in the decalogue, and confirmed by the epistle to the Hebrews. It is a statement not to be easily understood at the first glance ‘Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary?’ Isaiah 40:28. If he is never weary how can we say of him that he rests? ...God is a Spirit, and the only rest which he can know is that supreme repose which only the Spirit can know—in the fulfillment of his purpose and the completeness as well as completion of his work. Just as, in the solemn pauses between the creative days, he pronounced his creatures ‘very good,’ so did he rejoice over the finishing of his work, resting in the perfect satisfaction of an accomplished plan; not to restore his wasted energy, as man rests, but to signify that in the coming of man the creative idea has found its consummation and crown. Such is the rest possible to a purely spiritual nature—the rest of a completed work.... 

“There is a still deeper sense in which the example of Deity reveals this obligation. Suppose the question to be asked, How can we know that any precept is moral in its meaning and authority, and not simply a positive and arbitrary command? What better answer could be given to this inquiry than to say that a moral precept must have the ground of its existence in the nature of God? Our highest conception of the moral law is to regard it as the transcript of his nature.... No more perfect vindication of the moral character of a law can be given than to show that it is a rule of the divine conduct; that it has been imposed upon his own activity by that infinite Will which is the supreme authority both in the physical and moral government of the universe. That law to which the Creator submits his own being must be of absolute binding force upon every creature made in his image. Such is the law of the Sabbath. ‘God rested the seventh day,’ and by so doing has given to the law of the Sabbath the highest and strongest sanction possible even to Deity. In no conceivable way could the Almighty so perfectly and with such unchallengeable authority declare, not simply his will in a positive institution, but the essentially moral character of the precept, as by revealing his own self-subjection to the rule which he imposes on his creatures.... Its obligation is addressed, not to man’s physical nature alone, but to man as a spiritual being, made in the image of God; it is laid, not only on his bodily powers and natural understanding, but upon his moral reason as right, and upon his conscience as duty. It is therefore bounded by no limits of time, place, or circumstance, but is of universal and perpetual authority.” 

Then he closes Chapter I of his book with the following most just conclusion:— 

“The Sabbath is therefore shown to be given in the beginning to all men; to have the lofty sanction of the example of God; to be rooted in the eternal world; to be the witness of the most important truths possible for man to know; to be a blessing to man’s nature; to inclose a duty of worship to God. By all these revealings which are given by the institution at its first ordainment, we are justified in believing that it has a moral meaning within it, and imposes upon all races and generations of men an unchanging and unrelaxed obligation of dutiful observance.” 

We have quoted more than half of the whole first chapter; but we have no apology to make. We honestly thank Mr. Elliott that he has given us so masterly a demonstration of the perpetual and universal obligation of the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord. Again we ask the reader to study it carefully; for it is a vindication of principles that are eternal, and that no ingenuity of man can undermine. ' (End Excerpt)

Spiritually Dressed Daily.

 I've never been a soldier, the closest I've come to a soldier in action is watching them in the movies or tv shows. Soldiers on active duty during wartime obviously have to prepare for their day differently than others. I can't imagine an active duty soldier not having any protective gear on, can you? A soldier who is going into war on the front lines wouldn't dream of going there without their bullet proof vests, their helmets, boots and so on and so forth. Why do Christian soldiers insist on going about their lives without armor? Sure, military soldiers can take leaves from war and go home, but Christian soldiers are on duty for life. Our armor is needed daily. And we need a DAILY consecration, a DAILY conversion to God, because we live in a very dangerous world- every day we have to commit our lives to God. Every day. God gives us our armor as we consecrate ourselves to Him. We can't produce the armor ourselves, not a single boot can we give to ourselves. We must daily, DAILY, submit ourselves to our LORD. 

(Excerpts)

'There is truth to be received if souls are saved. The keeping of the commandments of God is life eternal to the receiver. But the Scriptures make it plain that those who once knew the way of life and rejoiced in the truth are in danger of falling through apostasy, and being lost. Therefore there is need of a decided, daily conversion to God.'   (Faith I Live By EGW)

'Self-sufficiency blinds their eyes to their great need. There is a positive necessity for a daily conversion to God, a new, deep, and daily experience in the religious life.'  (Counsels On Health EGW)

'Let Us Ask of God.

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. James 1:5. 

It is the privilege of every believer first to talk with God in his closet, and then as God's mouthpiece to talk with others. In order that we may have something to impart, we must daily receive light and blessing. Men and women who commune with God, who have an abiding Christ, who, because they cooperate with holy angels, are surrounded with holy influences, are needed at this time. The cause needs those who have power to draw with Christ, power to express the love of God in words of encouragement and sympathy. 

As the believer bows in supplication before God, and in humility and contrition offers his petition from unfeigned lips, he loses all thought of self. His mind is filled with the thought of what he must have in order to build up a Christlike character. He prays, “Lord, if I am to be a channel through which Thy love is to flow day by day and hour by hour, I claim by faith the grace and power that Thou hast promised.” He fastens his hold firmly on the promise, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, ... and it shall be given him.” 

How this dependence pleases the Master! How He delights to hear the steady, earnest pleading! ... With wonderful and ennobling grace the Lord sanctifies the humble petitioner, giving him power to perform the most difficult duties. All that is undertaken is done unto the Lord, and this elevates and sanctifies the lowliest calling. It invests with new dignity every word, every act, and links the humblest worker ... with the highest of the angels in the heavenly courts.... 

The sons and daughters of God have a great work to do in the world. They are to accept the Word of God as the man of their counsel and to impart it to others. They are to diffuse light. All who have received the engrafted word will be faithful in giving that word to others. They will speak the words of Christ. In conversation and in deportment they will give evidence of a daily conversion to the principles of truth. Such believers will be a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men, and God will be glorified in them.

(Our Father Cares EGW)

 

Treasured Truths.

 Exo 20:4  Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 

Exo 20:5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 

Exo 20:6  And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. 

Why not? Or rather, why? God gave ten royal laws, laws that were written in stone, unlike other laws given- ceremonial etc. God put only the ten royal laws into the Ark of the Covenant that was placed in the Most Holy Place of the Tabernacle and Temple.  To say the ten royal laws were held as special is truly an understatement of the fact it is of supreme importance. You do not place a treasure inside of a treasure box if it's meaningless, at least, not as a rule. Treasure boxes were to hold only treasure, while other boxes could contain things of much lesser importance. You don't build a safe with state of the art technology to put meaningly bric-a-brac inside. You build that safe to guide your precious, treasured possessions.  Banks and other financial institutions have safes because they hold the treasures of many. There are safe guards upon safe guards for things that are highly prized, we know this, we can be logically about this. Treasure, prized possessions- all are expected to be inside containers that can protect them.

The Ark of the Covenant was a treasure of God's.  The Ark contained the prized possessions of God. The Mercy Seat was over top of the prized possessions, the lid of the Ark. The Mercy Seat …

Exo_25:17  And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold…

Exo_25:21  And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.

Exo_25:22  And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

Exo_26:34  And thou shalt put the mercy seat upon the ark of the testimony in the most holy place.

Exo_30:6  And thou shalt put it before the vail that is by the ark of the testimony, before the mercy seat that is over the testimony, where I will meet with thee.

GOD WILL MEET WITH THEM THERE. GOD WILL COMMUNE WITH THEM FROM ABOVE THE MERCY SEAT.

The sheer enormity of that statement is mind-blowing. God, who no temple made with hands could contain. God, whose earth is His footstool. God chose a place to commune with mankind and that place was sacred. The testimony in the ark was of supreme importance- the ten royal laws and one of those laws was this one--

Exo 20:4  Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 

Exo 20:5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 

Exo 20:6  And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. 

These laws were reinforced by Jesus, kept by Jesus and brought to life by Jesus, stripped down to their very core by Jesus. 

When we read that we are not to make ANYTHING to bow down to… GOD MEANS JUST THAT!  He did NOT want us to even bow down to the tabernacle, the ark, the altars, there was NO instruction to bow down to anything man made. Yet how many people find themselves even today bowing before altars, statues, crosses, buildings, candles, and the like? How many cry out, they do it to honor and show respect to God, but God has told them NOT to do it! They are calling EVIL - GOOD! They've convinced themselves beyond any doubt that it's harmless and good, a blessing, a reverence for Him, even as their mouths speak the words of worship towards this saint and that saint. GOD did NOT want us to worship ANY kind of image, not even His own- so He did not show Himself to mankind.  God is Spirit and we must worship Him in Spirit, not in things. We take away something vital that belongs to God alone, when we worship at the feet of things man creates. 

Satan has a huge storehouse filled with deceptions, in fact it's so huge we cannot fathom it's true size. Satan wants us to ultimately ignore God's truth and choose substitutions for that truth. When Christ comes for His people, many will cry out that they belong to Him, and He will tell them to depart from Him, that He never knew them and that will be the truth!  How shocked they are going to be by that pronouncement, yet they will know in that same instant as soon as the words leave the Savior's mouth, where they have erred. They won't be left with doubt for long. They'll know where and how they turned their backs on God's truth and accepted Satan's delusions instead.  PLEASE LORD WE DO NOT WANT TO BE AMONG THOSE WHO ARE DECEIVED! Please, Lord, KEEP US FROM EVIL! Please, Lord, please. 

(Excerpt)

'April 23, 1901

“The Keeping of the Commandments. The Second Commandment” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 78, 17, pp. 264, 265.

“I AM the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 

“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.” Exodus 20:2, 4-6. 

As already stated, Gregory II was pope when the great controversy over the worship of images was raised, by the efforts in the East to abandon it. 

This pope Gregory made himself chief champion of the images and their worship. In 730 he wrote in defense of image of worship, to Emperor Leo the Isaurian who was trying to destroy the images. Since the cause of image worship prevailed, and was established as a part of Catholic faith, this letter of Pope Gregory II is important as giving the principles and arguments upon which that worship rests. 

To Emperor Leo, the pope wrote:— 

Ten years by God’s grace you have walked aright, and not mentioned the sacred images; but now you assert that they take the place of idols, and that those who reverence them are idolaters, and want them to be entirely set aside and destroyed. You do not fear the judgment of God, and that offense will be given not merely to the faithful, but also to the unbelieving. Christ forbids our offending even the least, and you have offended the whole world, as if you had not also to die and to give an account. 

You wrote. “We may not, according to the command of God (Exodus 20:4), worship anything made by the hand of man, nor any likeness of that which is in the heaven or in the earth. Only prove to me, who has taught us to worship (aibrothos kai procaunein) anything made by man’s hands, and I will then agree that it is the will of God.” But why have not you, O emperor and head of the Christians, questioned wise men on this subject before disturbing and perplexing poor people? You could have learnt from them concerning what kind of images made with hands cheiropoieta God said that. But you have rejected our Fathers and doctors, although you gave the assurance by your own subscription that you would follow them. The holy Fathers and doctors are our scripture, our light, and our salvation, and the six synods have taught us (that); but you do not receive their testimony. I am forced to write to you without delicacy or learning, as you also are not delicate or learned; but my letter yet contains the divine truth. 

God gave that command because of the idolaters who had the land of promise in possession and worshiped golden animals, etc., saying: “These are our gods, and there is no other God.” On account of these diabolical cheiropoieta, God has forbidden us to worship them.... Moses wished to see the Lord, but He showed himself to him only from behind. To us, on the contrary, the Lord showed himself perfectly, since the Son of God has been made man.... From all parts men now came to Jerusalem to see Him, and then depicted and represented Him to others. In the same way they have depicted and represented James, Stephen, and the martyrs; and men, leaving the worship of the devil, have venerated these images, but not absolutely (with latria), but relatively.... 

Why, then, do we make no representation of God the Father?—The divine nature can not be represented. If we had seen Him, as we have the Son, we could also make an image of Him. 

This is precisely the reason that the Lord gives in His word, as to why He allowed no manner of similitude to be seen. Read that word again: “Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure.” Deuteronomy 4:15, 16. 

Thus the Lord allowed no similitude to be seen, expressly that the people should make no image, and because the people were so idolatrous that, had they seen any similitude, they would certainly have made a graven image. 

Yet Pope Gregory II plainly says of God: “If we had seen Him, ... we could also make an image of Him.” 

This is only to say that he and those of that way are in heart as idolatrous as were the people at Sinai. 

Pope Gregory says also, “We have seen the Son,” and thus can make images of Him, and, “If we had seen God the Father, as we have the Son, we could also make an image of Him.” But since God allowed no similitude to be seen, “lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make a graven image,” and since this word of Pope Gregory’s shows that he and those of that way are as idolatrous as were those at Sinai,—this, then, shows that the use of images of Christ in the Catholic Church is as essentially idolatrous as was ever the use of any images in the world. 

Further, the pope wrote:— 

You say: “We worship stones and walls and boards.” But it is not so, O emperor; but they serve us for remembrance and encouragement, lifting our slow spirits upward by those (persons) whose names the pictures bear, and whose representation they are. And we worship them not as God, as you maintain; God forbid! For we set not our hope on them; and if a picture of the Lord is there, we say: Lord Jesus Christ, help and save us. At a picture of His Holy Mother, we say: Holy God-bearer, pray for us with thy Son; and so with a martyr.... It would have been better for you to have been a heretic than a destroyer of images. 

But that is only the argument of open pagan idolaters. They know that the image itself if not their god; they say only that the image represents the god; it serves to aid the mind in rising to the true idea and worship of the god, of which the image is the representative and remembrancer. 

The war against image worship continued till A.D. 789, when Irene came to power as the guardian of her son Constantine VI. She entered diligently upon the work of re-establishing image worship. 

She opened correspondence with Pope Hadrian I, who “exhorted her continually to this.” In his argument promotive of image worship the pope used Hebrews 11:21,—Jacob blessed both the sons of Joseph, and “worshiped upon the top of his staff,“—and made it support image worship by casting out the preposition, so that it should read, “worshiped the top of his staff.—Bower’s “Lives of the Popes,” Hadrian, par. 40. And so it reads in the Catholic Bible to-day. 

But since the image worship had been abolished by a general council, it was only by a general council that image worship could be doctrinally restored. It took considerable time to bring this about, so that it was not till 787 that the council was convened. 

This council, called also the seventh general council, was held at Nice, in Asia, especially for the prestige that would accrue to it by the name of the Second Council of Nice. It was held Sept. 24 to Oct. 23, A. D. 787. “The inconoclasts appeared, not as judges, but as criminals or penitents; the scene was decorated by the legates of Pope Adrian, and the Eastern patriarchs; the decrees were framed by the president, Tarasius, and ratified by the acclamations and subscriptions of three hundred and fifty bishops. They unanimously pronounced that the worship of images is agreeable to Scripture and reason, to the Fathers and councils of the Church.”—Gibbons, “Decline and Fall,” chap 49., par. 17. 

The closing words of the decree of the council are as follows:— 

We are taught by the Lord, the apostles, and the prophets, that we ought to honor and praise before all, the holy God-bearer, who is exalted above all heavenly powers; further, the holy angels, the apostles, prophets, and martyrs, the holy doctors, and all saints, that we may avail ourselves of their intercession, which can make us acceptable to God if we walk virtuously. Moreover, we venerate also the image of the sacred and life-giving cross and the relics of the saints, and accept the sacred and venerable images, and greet and embrace them, according to the ancient tradition of the holy Catholic Church of God, namely, of our holy Fathers, who received these images, and ordered them to be set up in all churches everywhere. These are the representations of our incarnate Saviour Jesus Christ, then of our inviolate Lady and quite holy God-bearer, and of the unembodied angels, who have appeared to the righteous in human form; also the pictures of the holy apostles, prophets, martyrs, etc., that we may be reminded by the representation of the original, and may be led to a certain participation in His holiness. 

This decree was subscribed by all present, even by the priors of monasteries and some monks. The two papal legates added to their subscription the remark that they received all who had been converted from the impious heresy of the enemies of images.—Hefele. The council was not content with this formal and solemn subscription. With one voice they broke out into a long acclamation, “We all believe, we all assent, we all subscribe. This is the faith of the apostles, this is the faith of the Church, this is the faith of the orthodox, this is the faith of the world. We, who adore the Trinity, worship images. Whoever does not the like, anathema upon him! Anathema on all who call images idols! Anathema on all who communicate with them who do not worship images! Anathema upon Theodorus, falsely called bishop of Ephesus; against Sisinnius, of Perga; against Basilius, with the ill-omened name! Anathema against the new Arius Nestorius and Dioscorus, Anastasius; against Constantine and Nicetas (the iconoclast patriarchs of Constantinople)! Everlasting glory to the orthodox Germanus, to John of Damascus! To Gregory of Rome everlasting glory! Everlasting glory to the preachers of truth!”—Milman, “History of Latin Christianity,” book iv, chap 8, par. 27. 

In the West, Pope Adrian I accepted and announced the decrees of the Nicene assembly, which is now revered by the Catholics as the seventh in rank of the general councils. For the honor of orthodoxy, at least the orthodoxy of the Roman Church, it is somewhat unfortunate that the two princes [Constantine and Irene] who convened the two councils of Nice, are both stained with the blood of their sons.—Gibbon, “Decline and Fall,” chap 49, par. 18. 

Thus it was that image worship was established as a part of the faith of the Catholic Church, and that it is as clearly idolatry as ever was anywhere, the whole record, as well as the Scripture, shows. '

God's Word Our Only Standard.

 The excerpts I've been studying of late are from the very early 1900's. In the studies right now they are studying the very early history of Christianity. They are talking about things leading up to the reformation, bits of history not often thought of any longer. History that we tend to acknowledge and then ignore. 

That old saying- that we are to remember history or we're doomed to repeat it, is often spouted.  There is another saying, ignoring truth doesn't make it any less truthful. 

Take out your favorite search engine and look up the Reformation and do a really good study on it all. Read about the large numbers of people willing to die for their faith, or rather wanting to return to the truth of the matter of faith. 

Some argue that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want, and guess what, they are allowed. They can believe and others can kill them for their beliefs, unfortunately. Right now, this very month, people have been killed for their beliefs. Being killed for believing is nothing new, most of the Apostles were martyrs- killed for their beliefs. 

Jesus NEVER advocated killing someone because they don't believe in Him. He did advocate dying for believing in Him, He died for us. The fact that there are those dying for believing in Jesus even today, is reality. 

Take God's word when you read things, such as these excerpts. When you read about people believing that we shouldn't worship idols, check that against your Bible. Find out where God's people are instructed to worship emblems, statues and so on and so forth. If you can't find where God has written such a thing, why do you do it then?  We need to find our answers in God's word, not in mankind's traditions. Do an honest study, don't accept beliefs blindly. Make an informed decision. You don't want to be worshiping in the ways of man, because when our Savior returns, He won't know you because you never really knew Him.  

God help us to only ever search for His truth in all things! May the Holy Spirit enlighten all who in sincerity of heart only want to follow their Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ our Lord now and forever! Amen. 

(Excerpt) 

April 16, 1901

“The Keeping of the Commandments. The Second Commandment” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 78, 16, pp. 249, 250.

THE KEEPING OF THE COMMANDMENTS

The Second Commandment "I AM the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or, that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." 

We have seen that from the days of Constantine to the end of the sixth century image worship had become universally established in the Catholic Church. Thus stood Catholic idolatry when, early in the seventh century, the Mohammedans swarmed up from the deserts of Arabia, executing judgment upon the " idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk." Rev. 9 : 20. " 

The triumphant Mussulmans, who reigned at Damascus and threatened Constantinople, cast into the scale of reproach the accumulated weight of truth and victory. The cities of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt had been fortified with the images of Christ, His mother, and His saints; and each city presumed on the hope or promise of miraculous defense. " 

In the rapid contest of ten years, the Arabs subdued those cities and these images;, and, in their opinion, the Lord of hosts pronounced a decisive judgment between the adoration and contempt of these mute and inanimate idols. 

In this season of distress and dismay the eloquence of the monks was exercised in the defense of images." 'Under the influence of the charge of idolatry, which the Mohammedans incessantly urged against the Catholics, some began to awake to the thought that perhaps the charge was true, and strongly desired the reformation of the Church. Besides these there were scattered throughout Christendom true Christians who constantly opposed, with the word of God 'and the example of primitive times, the worship of images. 

In a hundred years these influences had become so strong that Emperor Leo the Isaurian, in 727, ' took his stand, and issued an edict, against the worship of images: 'Opposition to this movement of the emperor's caused' the famous konoclastic Controversy, between the worshipers and the breakers of the images, which continued with bloody and unabated fury for one hundred and twenty years,— 726- 846,— and which finally resulted in the triumph of the worship of images, and the " religion of Constantine." The emperor ordered the images to be broken to pieces,- the walls of the churches to be whitewashed, and prosecuted with honest but imprudent vigor his design of extirpating idolatry. 

But a fierce dissension at once raged throughout all Christendom: the monks and the people arose in defense of their images and pictures, and the emperor, even in his own capital, was denounced as a heretic and a tyrant. There was an image of the Saviour, renowned for its miraculous powers, over the -gate of the imperial Palace called the Brazen Gate; from the rich tiles ,of gilt bronze that covered its magnificent vestibule. The emperor ordered the sacred figure to be taken down and broken to pieces. But the people from all parts of the City flew to the defense of their favorite idol, fell upon the officers; and put many of them -death. 

The women were even more violent than the men. Like furies they rushed to the spot, and, finding one of the soldiers engaged in the unhallowed labor at the top of the ladder, 'they pulled it down and tore him to pieces as he lay bruised upon the ground. "Thus,' exclaims the pious annalist, did the minister of the emperor's injustice fall at once from the top of the ladder to the bottom of hell.'

The women next flew to the great church, and finding the iconoclastic patriarch officiating at the altar, overwhelmed him with a shower of stones and a thousand opprobrious names. He escaped, bruised and fainting, from the building. The guards were now called out, and the female insurrection was suppressed; but not until several of the women had perished in the fray." 

"The execution of the imperial edicts was resisted by frequent tumults in Constantinople and the provinces; the person of Leo was endangered, his officers were massacred, and the popular enthusiasm was quelled by the strongest efforts of the civil and military power." 

In 728 the edict of the Eastern emperor abolishing "the worship of images was published in Italy. The pope defended the images, of course, and " the Italians Swore to live and die in defense of the pope and the holy images." And thus there was begun a war which, in its' nature and consequences, was in every 'sense characteristic of. the papacy. It established the worship of images, as' an article' of Catholic faith; it developed the supremacy of the pope in ' temporal affairs. When Leo's decree, against the worship of images was published in the West, "the images of Christ and the Virgin, of the angels, martyrs, and saints, were abolished in all the churches in Italy;" and the emperor threatened the pope that if he did not 'comply with the decree, he should be degraded and sent into exile. But the pope , Gregory II stood firmly for the worship of images, and sent pastoral letters throughout Italy, exhorting the faithful to do the same. 

"At this signal, Ravenna, Venice, dud the cities of the' exarchate and Pentapolis adhered to the cause of religious images ; their military force by sea and land consisted, for the most part, of the natives; and the spirit Of patriotism and zeal was transfused into the mercenary strangers. The Italians swore to live and die in the defense of the pope and the holy images. . . . The Greeks were overthrown and massacred, their leaders suffered an ignominious death, and the popes, however inclined to mercy, refused to intercede for these guilty victims." 

At Ravenna, A. D. 729, the riot and bloody, strife was so great that even the exarch, the personal representative of the emperor, was slain. " To punish this flagitious deed, and restore his dominion in Italy, the emperor sent a fleet and army into the Adriatic Gulf. 

After suffering from the winds and the waves much loss and delay, the Greeks made' their descent in the neighborhood of Ravenna. . . . In a hard-fought day, as the two armies alternately yielded and advanced,, a phantom was seen, a voice was heard, and Ravenna was victorious by the assurance of victory. The strangers retreated to their ships, but the populous seacoast poured forth a multitude of boats; the waters of the Po were so deeply infected with blood, 'that during six years the public prejudice abstained from the fish of the river; and the institution of an annual feast perpetuated the worship of images, and the abhorrence of the Greek tyrant. 

Amidst the triumph of the Catholic arms, the Roman pontiff convened a synod of ninety-three bishops against the heresy of the Iconoclasts. With their consent he pronounced a general excommunication against all who by word or deed should attack the traditions of the Fathers and the images of the saints." 

The establishment of the worship of images as an article of Catholic faith, will be related 'next week.'