history

The Morning Star

by

For many years before the beginning of the Reformation, the Bible was an almost unknown book. Except for the Waldenses, who had for hundreds of years had the Bible in their own tongue, it had been locked up in a language known only to the highly educated. As centuries passed, the darkness appeared to increase in intensity; but by the beginning of the fourteenth century, in many countries there appeared tokens of the coming dawn. Just as in the darkness of the nighttime sky the morning star can be seen, brightly shining, giving promise of the near approach of day, so in fourteenth century England there arose a man who was destined to strike a blow against Rome that would eventually result in the freeing of men, churches and nations. He was the herald of reform, not only for England but for all of Christendom.

Born in 1324 in the parish of Wycliffe, John followed his ancestors in taking as his surname the place of his residence. There is little known of his early life, for history has preserved for us almost nothing of the personal incidents in his life. The services done for his own time and for future generations are the things that have occupied the interest of historians, almost to the exclusion of any personal matters.

At the age of sixteen, Wycliffe was sent to Oxford. A quick mind, a penetrating intellect and a retentive memory allowed him to advance very quickly in the learning of his day. In addition to his other studies, Wycliffe became proficient in both canon and civil laws. This branch of learning was to be especially valuable to him in the coming battle that was soon to arise between the crown of England and the pontiff of Rome.

While in college, Wycliffe’s attention was directed to the Scriptures. In the study of God’s Word he found satisfaction for the great want of his soul. As he studied, the determination arose within him to share the truths he had found. His devotion to truth, however, could not help but bring him into conflict with Rome.

In 1365, Wycliffe was appointed to be head of Canterbury Hall, a new college at that time. Through rivalry, he was later removed from that position by a new archbishop of Canterbury. He appealed to the pope, but in 1370 the case was decided against him. From this point on, his conflict was no longer to be with the primate of England but with the very pontiff of Christendom. However, to properly understand the situation, we need to go back a century in time.

In 1205, Hubert, the primate, or head of the church in England, died. The churchmen, in a secret meeting that very same night and without consulting with the king, elected Reginald as the new archbishop of Canterbury. By the next morning, Reginald was on his way to Rome to receive his confirmation from the pope. When King John learned of what had taken place, he was furious and set about to place the Bishop of Norwich in that position. Then both parties—the king and the churchmen—sent their representatives to Rome to plead their cause.

The man who then reigned as pope was Innocent III. Innocent, who was vigorously pursuing the course laid out by Gregory VII—that of humbling the pride of kings—was working with all the skill and power at his command to make the power of kings subject to the papal see. John had appealed to the pope to arbitrate the case, and in this he had revealed his weakness. The pope was not slow to recognize the advantage and to make the most of it. Innocent annulled both elections and appointed his own nominee, Cardinal Langton to be archbishop.

King John could clearly see the danger of such an encroachment on the royal pregrogative. The see of Canterbury was the highest seat of dignity and jurisdiction in England, excepting only that of the throne itself, and in an age when ecclesiastical authority was even more to be feared than temporal authority, this was a dangerous threatening of the authority of the king and of the national independence. Filled with the bitterness of humiliation, John ordered all of the prelates and abbots out of England and refused to seat the pope’s appointee. Unfortunately, John was one of the weakest of England’s kings, and the pope was not slow to strike back, placing all of England under interdict. Being under interdict meant that the gates of heaven were locked and that no one in England could enter. All who died were condemned to wander as disembodied ghosts in some doleful region, amid unknown sufferings, until it should please the pope to open heaven to them. The church doors were closed and the dead were buried in ditches or open fields, while marriages were performed in church yards.

The king braved this situation for two whole years. Eventually, Innocent pronounced the sentence of excommunication upon him, deposing him from his throne and absolving his subjects from allegiance to him. It was one thing to pronounce the king deposed but quite another to enforce the decree. In order to fully accomplish this, the pope recognized that he needed an army, and looking around him, he determined to secure the assistance of Philip Augustus of France. Promising Philip the kingdom of England as his prize, the pope succeeded in obtaining his help.

When John saw the fearful danger he was in, his resolve left him and he determined to make peace with the pope at any cost. As a part of the bargain, the king agreed that he and all future kings of England should hold England as tenants of the land, on condition of loyalty to Rome. In recognintion of this arrangement, England would make an annual payment of a thousand marks to Rome. Should John or any of his successors default in payment, they would immediately forfeit all right to their dominions, which would immediately revert to Rome. On May 15, 1213, it is said that the king met with the papal legate and placed his crown at the legate’s feet. The haughty legate there upon kicked it around as though it was a worthless object before placing it again on John’s head.

The barons of England were appalled at John’s cowardly stand. Determined not to be slaves of the pope, they unsheathed their swords and vowed to maintain the ancient liberties of England, or die in the attempt. Appearing before the king in April of 1215, they presented him with a charter confirming the rights of England. Though the king stormed and at first refused, on June 15, 1215, John signed the Magna Charta at Runnymede. This, in effect, told Innocent that John revoked his vow of vassalage and took back the kingdom he had laid at the pontiff’s feet.

When the news reached Innocent, he correctly interpreted the significance of what had taken place. He realized that the Magna Charta was a great political protest against, not only himself but his whole system. In it he saw the beginning of an order of political ideas and a class of political rights entirely antagonistic to the fundamental claims of the papacy. He was infuriated and immediately declared the whole transaction null and void.

The bold attitude of the barons saved the independence of England, and though future kings of England came to the throne without taking the oath of loyalty to the pope, they continued, year by year to send the thousand marks which John had agreed to pay. At last, during the reign of Edward II, the annual tribute payment was quietly stopped without protest from Rome.

Nearly thirty-five years passed without any payment being made. Then suddenly and quite unexpectedly, in 1366, Pope Urban V demanded not only the annual tribute but all of the arrears. Urban, however, was not dealing with John but with Edward III. During the hundred years that had passed since the signing of the Magna Charta, England had been increasing in strength and greatness. Not only had she advance as center of learning but she had won some brilliant military victories and was already beginning to be feared and respected by nations of the continent. When the summons from the pope arrived, England hardly knew whether to meet it with indignation or with derision.

While acting as chaplain for the king, the position he now held, Wycliffe showed that the papal assumption of authority over secular rulers was contrary to both reason and revelation.

At this moment the eyes of all of Europe were on England. Should England submit, it would so greatly add to the prestige and power of the papacy as to reduce the whole world to vassalage. “The demands of the pope had excited great indignation, and Wycliffe’s teachings exerted an influence upon the leading minds of the nation. The king and the nobles united in denying the pontiff’s claim to temporal authority and in refusing the payment of the tribute. Thus an effectual blow was struck against the papal supremacy in England.” The Great Controversy, 82

The crisis was a great one, and the decision of England determined that the tide of papal tyranny would, from that point on, recede. Even though it was Edward III and Parliament who issued the decision that struck the blow against papal tyranny, it was Wycliffe who was the real champion in turning the tide of the battle.

The next great battle that Wyclffe was to fight for England was against the monastic orders. The pope had given these monks the power to hear confessions and to grant pardons. In spite of the fact they were sworn to poverty, these friars were constantly playing upon the superstitions of the people to increase their wealth. Wycliffe began to write tracts against these orders. In his writing, he not so much attacked the men as he sought to point the people to Bible truth. His plain speaking, however, soon attracted the attention of Rome, and bulls were dispatched to England demanding immediate measures be taken against the reformer to silence him. Just when it appeared that his enemies would succeed in silencing him, the pontiff of Rome died.

Though only sixty years of age, Wycliffe became seriously ill. The news of his illness brought great joy to the friars and they quickly made their way to his bedside, expecting to hear his recantation. Instead of recanting, the reformer raised himself and said in a strong voice: “I shall not die, but live; and again declare the evil deeds of the friars. Astonished and abashed, the monks hurried from the room.” Ibid., 88

The idea occurred to Wycliffe to give the whole Bible to the people of England so that every man in the realm might read for himself the Word of God. No one had ever thought to do this before, but this was the work Wycliffe now set himself to do. He realized that if he were successful in this endeavor, he would do more to place the liberties of England on a sound foundation than might be accomplished by a hundred brilliant victories.

Wycliffe had but a few years of time left to complete this great work he had set his hand to accomplish. He was a good Latin scholar and he turned to the Vulgate Scriptures for his source from which to translate, a translation which, unfortunately, contained many errors. In spite of the flawed source, Wycliffe’s Bible was remarkable in its effect upon the language, contributing to the formation of the English tongue by way of perfecting and enlarging its vocabulary. Because he wrote largely for the common people, Wycliffe studied to be simple and clear.

Once having completed this greatest of all his accomplishments, Wycliffe had no fear of death. In giving the Bible to England he had kindled a light which could never be put out. The Magna Charta which the barons had wrested from King John would have turned to little account had not Wycliffe given his countrymen the even mightier charter of freedom. “It might take one or it might take five centuries to consummate their emancipation; but with the Bible in their mother-tongue, no power on earth could retain them in thralldom. The doors of the house of their bondage had been flung open.” Wylie, The History of Protestanism, vol. 1, 111

Once the work was completed, though there were no printing presses, the interest in Wycliffe’s work was so great that hundreds of expert hands were ready to assist in multiplying the copies.

When the hierarchy learned what Wycliffe had done, they were greatly perplexed. They had comforted themselves with the thought that Wycliffe had but a short time to live, and once he was gone, they felt certain his work would come to nothing. Though they might successfully silence the reformer, a mightier voice than his was now raised against the errors of Rome. The horrified prelates raised a great cry.

The question was raised as to the right of the people to read the Bible. As the question had never before been raised in England, there were no laws governing its circulation. Though laws were soon enacted to prohibit it being read, the clergy had been caught so completely by surprise that it had an opportunity to become quite widely distributed before its circulation was banned.

It seems that in the life of every reformer there comes a moment when he must stand alone, forsaken by all others, painfully aware of his isolation. Following the release of his Bible, a general clamor was raised against the reformer. “He was accused of being a heretic, a sacrilegious man; he had committed a crime unknown to former ages; he had broken into the temple and stolen the sacred vessels; he had fired the House of God. Such were the terms in which the man was spoken of, who had given to his country the greatest boon England had ever received.” Ibid., 113

It was under Wycliffe that English liberty had its beginning. The English Bible assured England’s greatness. As she began to resist the papacy she began to grow in power and wealth.

Wycliffe expected that his death would be by violence. The primate, the king and the pope were all working to bring about his destruction. However, on the last Sunday of 1384, while he was in the act of consecrating the bread and wine, he was struck with an attack of palsy and fell to the church floor. He was carried to his bed in the rectory where he died on December 31, 1384. That a man who defied the whole hierarchy and who never gave into compromise of any kind, should die in his own bed, was truly a miracle.

“The papists had failed to work their will with Wycliffe during his life, and their hatred could not be satisfied while his body rested quietly in the grave. By the decree of the Council of Constance, more than forty years after his death his bones were exhumed and publicly burned, and the ashes were thrown into a neighboring brook. ‘This brook,’ says an old writer, ‘hath conveyed his ashes into Avon, Avon into Severn, Severn into the narrow seas, they into the main ocean. And thus the ashes of Wycliffe are the emblem of his doctrine, which now is dispersed all the world over.’—T. Fuller, Church History of Britain, b. 4, sec. 2, par. 54.

Little did his enemies realize the significance of their malicious act.” The Great Controversy, 95, 96

The political measures that Parliament adopted at Wycliffe’s advice in order to guard the country against the usurpations of the popes, reveal how clearly he saw the true purposes of the papacy to devour the wealth and liberty of the nations. Under his wise guidance, England was able to foresee the great evil and took precautions to protect themselves only after it had all but destroyed them.

In his submission to the Bible lay the secret of Wycliffe’s wisdom. He turned the eyes of England from popes and councils to the inspired Word of God. He taught that the Word of God was an all sufficient rule and that every man, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, had a right to interpret it for himself. Thus he taught men to throw off the blind submission to the teachings of men, which is bondage, and to submit their conscience to the Word of God, which alone is liberty.

It was under Wycliffe that English liberty had its beginnings. The real secret of England’s greatness is found in her acceptance of the Bible, very early in her development, and the principles of order and liberty which it brought her. This love for freedom and submission to law are the foundation upon which our political constitution and our national genius was built. It was Wycliffe who laid that foundation.

“Wycliffe was one of the greatest of the reformers. In breadth of intellect, in clearness of thought, in firmness to maintain the truth, and in boldness to defend it, he was equaled by few who came after him. Purity of life, unwearying diligence in study and in labor, incorruptible integrity, and Christlike love and faithfulness in his ministry, characterized the first of the Reformers. And this notwithstanding the intellectual darkness and moral corruption of the age from which he emerged.” Ibid., 93

The End

The Rending Of The Robe

by

In the Scriptures, our robe, or our clothing, is used as a symbol of our character. We see this in the experience of Adam and Eve. They had a robe of light, representing a righteous character. When they sinned and lost that covering, they made some fig leaf garments to replace it. These artificial garments have become synonymous with righteousness by works, but they are not acceptable.

In place of the garment of leaves, the Lord prepared a garment for them from the skin of an animal. This garment, which cost the life of the innocent animal, was symbolic of the garment of Christ’s righteousness, which cost the life of His own Son and which all must wear who will be saved. In Revelation 19:7-8, we find our clothing referred to as our works. “Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready. And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.” As acts are repeated, they become habits, and those habits become character.

You can read in Ephesians 5 concerning the church, that the church will be arrayed in linen, a garment of character that will be without spot or wrinkle, without blemish. Speaking of Armageddon, we read: “Behold I am coming as a thief. Blessed is he who watches, and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked and they see his shame” Revelation 16:15. If your garment is torn or becomes spotted or wrinkled, you will not be ready for Armegeddon.

In the Old Testament, there is one robe that was a special symbol, and that was the robe worn by the high priest. Speaking of this robe, we are told: “The pattern of the priestly robes was made known to Moses in the mount. Every article the high priest was to wear, and the way it should be made, were specified. These garments were consecrated to a most solemn purpose. By them was represented the character of the great antitype, Jesus Christ.” The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 5, 1104

Because it represented Christ’s character, under no condition was this robe to be torn or rent. The penalty for failing to comply with this requirement was death. The Jews, however, had gotten together and had written a church manual that contained rules differing from those in the Bible. According to their church manual, there was one exception to God’s rule. In the case of blasphemy, in order to show his horror, the high priest was allowed to tear his robe. It is quite obvious that Caiaphas placed a higher value on the church manual than on the Bible. By the way, in those days you could not even be a high priest unless you were willing to go along with the church manual. That was a prerequisite.

So, when Caiaphas tore his robe, though his action was approved of by the church manual, according to God’s Word, he was deserving of death. Of course, nothing like this could ever happen again, could it?

“We want to understand the time in which we live. We do not half understand it. We do not half take it in. My heart trembles in me when I think of what a foe we have to meet, and how poorly we are prepared to meet him. The trials of the children of Israel, and their attitude just before the first coming of Christ, have been presented before me again and again to illustrate the position of the people of God in their experience before the second coming of Christ.” Selected Messages, book 1, 406

The condition of Israel then, according to Ellen White, was representative of our experience just before the second coming of Jesus Christ. Jesus told the people of His day, “You have made the commandments of God of no affect by your tradition.” Matthew 15:6

Have you ever heard of a “duly appointed leader”? Or have you ever heard the phrase, “properly constituted church authority”? Was Caiphas a duly appointed leader? Well, who is a duly appointed leader? This is something that we need to understand.

“For thus rending his garment in pretended zeal, the high priest might have been arraigned before the Sanhedrin. He had done the very thing that the Lord had commanded should not be done. Standing under the condemnation of God, he pronounced sentence on Christ as a blasphemer. He performed all his actions toward Christ as a priestly judge, as an officiating high priest, but he was not this by the appointment of God, the priestly robe he rent in order to impress the people with his horror of the sin of blasphemy covered a heart full of wickedness. He was acting under the inspiration of Satan.” The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 5, 1105

Was he duly appointed? He was not appointed by God. Who was directing his actions? Do God and the devil ever work in partnership? No! Never! The Bible is very clear on that. First Corinthians 10:20-21 says, “You can not drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils.” It does not say you should not; it says you cannot. You can have it one way or the other but not both.

“Under a gorgeous priestly dress, he was fulfilling the work of the enemy of God.” Ibid.

Is it properly constituted church authority to do the work of the devil? Now notice the next sentence.

“This has been done again, and again.” Ibid.

Let me ask you this question. How much authority did Caiphas have?

“With Caiaphas the Jewish high priesthood ended. This proud, overbearing, wicked man proved his unworthiness ever to have worn the garments of the high priest. He had neither capacity, nor authority from heaven.” Manuscript Releases, vol. 12, 387

How much authority did he have? Though he had what they called properly constituted authority, he had no authority from heaven.

“He had not one ray of light from heaven to show him what the work of the priest was, or for what the office had been instituted. Such ministration could make nothing perfect, for in itself it was utterly corrupt. The priests were tyrannous and deceptive, and full of ambitious schemes. The grace of God had nought to do with this.” Ibid., 388

“Oh,” but someone says, “he was the high priest.” Well, let us just look at that for a moment. Was he the high priest? Now remember, it was several years before A.D. 34. Was Caiaphas the leader of God’s people? No, no he was not. “Virtually Caiaphas was no high priest.” The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 5, 1101

Was he the high priest or was he not the high priest? He was not the high priest, though he may have been so by profession. Do you see why we say that there is a difference between the professed church and the true church? There is a difference, and in a time of apostasy, there is a great difference. We have been trying to teach people this for a few years now, but it is so ingrained that unless the Holy Spirit works on their minds, they never understand the point. Profession and reality are not necessarily the same thing.

How is it with you today, friend? Is your character in harmony with your profession? If it is not, your profession is telling a lie and you can never go to heaven, although you call yourself a Seventh-day Adventist. If the things you profess to believe are not a reality in your life, your life is a lie because your character is not in harmony with your profession.

“He [Caiaphas] was uncircumcised in heart. With the other priests he instructed the people to choose Barabbas instead of Christ.” Manuscript Releases, vol. 12, 388

When Caiaphas asked Jesus if He was really the Christ and Jesus replied that He was, Caiaphas tore his robe. Why did Caiaphas tear his garment? He did it deliberately, and he did it for a reason. It was a custom among the Jews that whenever one of your relatives had died, you would tear your clothes as a way of expressing extreme sorrow and grief. The Lord had prohibited the priests from doing this, but, as was pointed out earlier, they had found a way around God’s clear command.

The experience Christ was subjected to was repeated many times during the Protestant Reformation. First, the Protestant Reformers were excommunicated, or disfellowshipped, from their churches. When this did not stop the Reformation, they were placed in prison. Finally, when other measures had failed to suppress their activities, it was determined that they must die. The men who were responsible would maintain that they certainly hated to treat them so, but they were left no choice. This is what Caiaphas was telling Jesus. He was saying, in essence, “I’m going to have to kill you because of your theological errors, but I’m so sorry about it.” The trouble with such a statement was that Caiaphas was not really sorry at all. Ellen White makes this very clear.

“So perverted had the priesthood become that when Christ declared Himself the Son of God, Caiaphas, in pretended horror, rent his robe, and accused the Holy One of Israel of blasphemy.” The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 5, 1104

It is wrong to pretend under any circumstance, but the worst kind of pretense is when you pretend to be pious, and that is the kind of pretension this was—he was pretending to be in terrible sorrow and shock, and it was not even so. This made the act even more wicked than it would have been otherwise.

By the way, have any of you ever received any letters that begin something like, “I’m so sorry to have to inform you,” and then go on to explain the unpleasant action they have been forced to take? Friend, you had better never tell someone you are sorry if it is not really the truth, because God hates pretense.

Caiaphas also showed that he did not realize, if he ever knew, what his robe represented. It represented the character of the One standing before him. It was terrible blasphemy for him to tear his robe because Christ’s character had not been torn; it had never been defiled.

When he tore his robe, he said, in effect, we will not have this Man to rule over us. What had he done? He separated himself—remember now, he was a representative of the whole Jewish nation—from God.

God has given to you and me the power of choice, but I want to tell you, He honors our power of choice. People say, “Well the church is going through.” Do you believe that we have the power of choice? Did Caiaphas have the power of choice? Certainly he did, but he made a choice, and God honored his choice. I want to tell you, friend, God honors people’s choices.

“In Christ the shadow reached its substance, the type its antitype. Well might Caiaphas rend his clothes in horror for himself and for the nation; for they were separating themselves from God, and were fast becoming a people unchurched by Jehovah. Surely the candlestick was being removed out of its place.” Ibid., 1109

What were they doing? They were become a people unchurched. Do you want a synonym for that? That means they were disfellowshipping themselves. By this act, Caiaphas was separating, or divorcing himself from God; and everyone who followed his example, yielding to his influence, was doing the same thing. Because of this choice, millions of people lost their lives.

By the way, they still went to church; they went to the building; they said the same prayer; they went through the same service. They still had the same organization; they still had the same bank account; they still had the same name; but they were disfellowshipped, and they did not even know it.

If they had been striving to be in harmony with God’s will and to obey Him, Caiaphas would have been killed for the crime he had committed; but they decided instead to follow him.

What was God’s response?

“When Caiaphas rent his garment, his act was significant of the place that the Jewish nation as a nation would thereafter occupy toward God. The once favored people of God were separating themselves from Him, and were fast becoming a people disowned by Jehovah.” The Desire of Ages, 709

God accepted the choice that Caiaphas made; and God is watching the choices that you and I are making, the choices that every minister is making and the choices that every church is making God is going to respond in keeping with the decision of each person.

Here is what happened when Jesus died on the cross:

“It was not the hand of the priest that rent from top to bottom the gorgeous veil that divided the holy from the Most Holy Place. It was the hand of God. When Christ cried out, ‘It is finished,’ the Holy watcher that was an unseen guest at Belshazzar’s feast pronounced the Jewish nation to be a nation unchurched.” The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 5, 1109

Do you realize that this was some time before A.D. 34?

When Caiaphas rent his garment, there was more than one rending that took place. We have been looking at the outward rending of the garment of the high priest and its spiritual significance. It was a symbolic act of the separation, the divorcing of God’s people from Himself. When was this act completed? It was completed when the priest said, “We have no king but Caesar.” John 19:15

The Church is to be the bride, the wife of Christ; but if that church chooses to depart from the Lord and to form an alliance with the state, it has said in effect, we will no longer have the Lord to be our ruler. You cannot have two masters; it is impossible. No church or religious group can go to the state for the enforcement of their religious teachings without having left the Lord, and God will recognize that choice.

Are you aware that the Spirit of Prophecy says that there are three things the Lord will do when the church goes to the state for assistance in enforcing her decrees? First, He says that He will not hear their prayers. If that was the only thing to happen, that would be so serious that it should shake us to the bottom of our foundation. Second, she says that He will take the Holy Spirit away from them. Without the Holy Spirit you are lost. The third thing that the Lord will do is write them in the book of heaven as unbelievers. See Selected Messages, book 3, 299-302. If you are written in heaven as unbelievers, you are not even part of the church. You have torn the garment; you have separated yourself from the Lord.

There is a true rending of the garment.

“Christ mourned for the transgression of every human being. He bore even the guiltiness of Caiaphas, knowing the hypocrisy that dwelt in his soul, while for pretense he rent his robe. Christ did not rend His robe, but His soul was rent. His garment of human flesh was rent as He hung on the cross, the sin-bearer of the race. By His suffering and death a new and living way was opened.” The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 5, 1105

Jesus had an inner rending of His soul, and, friend, we are to enter into that experience if we are going to be saved.

“Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in My holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand;…Therefore also now, saith the LORD, turn ye even to Me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning: and rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the LORD your God: for He is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth Him of the evil. Joel 2:1, 12, 13

“And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son.” Zechariah 12:10

what are these verses talking about? Oh, friend, when Jesus hung on the cross, it was your sin that pierced Him; and it was my sin that pierced Him. The past, the present and the future are all alike to God. God saw you, and that is why Jesus came and died on the cross. When he hung on the cross, His heart was pierced; it was torn for you. The tearing of His flesh, His hands and His feet is just a symbol or a type of the real pain that was in His heart. The pain in His heart was so great, Ellen White says in the Desire of Ages, that the physical pain was hardly felt. We do not realize how bad sin is until we come to Calvary, and even then we cannot fully comprehend it.

Have you ever met parents who had only one child and that child died? The Lord says, that is the way My people are going to mourn in the last days. They are going to mourn as parents mourn who have lost their only child and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.

“Many today who claim to be Christians are in danger of rending their garments, making an outward show of repentance, when their hearts are not softened nor subdued. This is why so many continue to make failures in the Christian life. An outward appearance of sorrow is shown for wrong, but their repentance is not that which needs not to be repented of. See 2 Corinthians 7:10. May God grant to His church true contrition for sin. Oh that we might feel the necessity of revealing true sorrow for wrong-doing!” Review and Herald, June 12, 1900

Did you know that there was one garment that was not torn that day? Jesus had on an outer garment that the Bible says was without seam. As it had no seam, the soldiers decided not to tear it. Prophecy said that it would not be torn; it said they would cast lots for it. Do you realize the significance of this?

“Christ’s seamless garment is a representation of the unity that should exist in the church.” Manuscript Releases, vol. 5, 371

You are never going to have unity with just profession; but if you have a group of people who have had the true rending of the heart and not the garment, you are going to have a true unity. One of the most exciting things that I am finding as I travel is that all over the world God is drawing together faithful, Historic Seventh-day Adventists—just little groups here and there—and they are having the most marvelous experience of unity that I have ever seen. There is no question that God is going to have a united movement at the end. The only question is, Am I going to be part of it?

The devil is determined that this unity will never happen, but it is going to happen anyway. I would consider it the greatest privilege of my life if I could just have a little part in it. How about you?

That seamless robe represents the unity that is to exist among Christ’s true believers, and it must never be torn. We must always think of that seamless robe in all of our dealings with each other. We are not to tear it. The body of Christ is one body, and when one part suffers, all of the rest suffer. Oh, friend, Christ’s seamless robe represents the unity that is to exist among His true followers until the end of time. Do you want to be a part of it?

The End

The Last Crusade

by

The apostasy that darkened Europe was never universal. There never was a time when God left His truth without a witness. When one group of faithful would yield to the darkness, or was cut off by violence, another group would arise in another land. In every age in some country or another of Christendom, there were those who cried out against the errors of Rome and in behalf of the gospel which it sought to destroy.

From the fifth to the fifteenth century, the Lamp of Truth burned dimly. At times, its dim light appeared as if about to go out, yet it never did. There were times it burned most brightly in the cities of northern Italy and again on the plains of southern France. At other times, its beauty shone from along the Danube in Germany or sent its beams of light across Europe from the shores of England. As early as the ninth century, like the breaking of day across the land, its light shone gently across the landscape of Europe from the valleys high in the Alps.

Just as light shines more brightly in contrast with darkness, so error necessitates a fuller development and a clearer definition of truth. As the darkness of superstition and error deepened over Europe, the seed of truth found congenial soil in which to grow in the mountains of northern Italy. From the very country where the darkness was spreading over the world, the truth shone forth, shedding the light of truth amidst the dark apostasy that gripped Europe. It was in the fertile valleys of the mountains of northern Italy that the Waldenses, one of the most ancient groups to oppose the errors and superstitions of Rome, made their home. No group more stoutly defended the truth nor suffered more for the truth’s sake than these simple people of the valleys.

Satan realized that it was impossible to maintain his control of the people while they had the Holy Scriptures, because they would be able to discern his deceptions and withstand his power. He therefore urged the papal bishops and prelates to take the Bible from the world. For hundreds of years the circulation of the Bible was prohibited, and what copies were available were locked up in a language that was not understood by any but the highly educated.

The Waldenses were the first people in all of Europe to obtain a translation of the Scriptures in their native tongue. In their valleys, protected by the surrounding mountains, the Waldenses witnessed the truth for centuries before the light of the Reformation broke forth. Because they had the truth unmixed with error, they were the special object of hatred by the Church of Rome.

The Church of the Alps, in its simplicity of organization, was much like that of the early Christian church. The entire territory of the Waldenses was divided into parishes. Over each parish was a pastor who was helped by laymen. Once a year a conference, or synod, met, which all the pastors and an equal number of lay members attended. Sometimes as many as a hundred and fifty barbs, or pastors, were present.

The barbs were the young people’s teachers. Not only was the Bible their textbook, but they were required to commit to memory and be able to recite accurately whole Gospels and Epistles. This was necessary because before the age of printing, copies of the Bible were very rare. Besides memorizing, they spent part of their time transcribing the Bible by small sections that they would later distribute when they went forth as missionaries.

It was not uncommon for the Waldensian youth, after having completed all the education they could gain in their native land, to go to one of the universities in the surrounding countries. In these institutions of higher education, their purpose was twofold. Not only were they able to extend their field of study but they quietly and with great care opened the truth to the other students as they showed an interest. Converts to the true faith were won, and from these centers of education, they took the seeds of truth back to their native lands. At times the principles of truth were found permeating the entire school, but try as they might, the papal leaders were unable to trace the teaching to its source.

Not content to merely practice the truth, keeping the precious light to themselves, the Waldenses sent out missionaries over the greater part of Europe. Every young person who expected to enter the ministry was required to first gain experience as an evangelist, serving three years as a missionary. Of course, had these men gone out as preachers of the gospel, their purpose would have been defeated. Instead, they traveled as merchants, carrying with them many valuable articles, such as jewelry and silks, not easily obtainable except at far away marts of business. While they would have been despised as missionaries, as peddlers they found entrance. From the humble peasant’s cottage to the baron’s castle, they found a ready welcome.

In preparing for their mission, they took care to conceal among their wares and in their clothing, copies of the Word of God, usually portions they had written themselves. Wherever they found an interest in spiritual truth, they would call the attention of their customers to these portions of Scripture. When means were not available to purchase these portions of Scripture, they gladly left them as a gift to those who were interested in having them.

Their travels took these itinerant missionaries to the west as far as Spain and to Germany, Bohemia and Poland in the north and east. To the south, they successfully penetrated even the city of Rome. During the years that the Church of Rome was expanding its borders, seeking to engulf the whole of Europe, in southern France the simple gospel was taking a hold of the minds of the people. The people who accepted the gospel in this area became known as Albigenses. Disciples multiplied and congregations were formed. In some areas, cities and even whole provinces joined in the movement. For a short time it appeared that all of southern France might become truly Christian, throwing off the superstitions of the Roman Church a full three-hundred years before the Reformation began. Mercifully, providence veiled the future from these devout followers of Christ.

Meanwhile, in Rome the Church suddenly awakened to the fact that while her attention had been directed to far away conquests, right within the dominions that she had considered secure, a new threat was arising. For a number of years the popes had viewed with comparative indifference the small and seemingly insignificant sects that were springing up across Europe and particularly in southern France. For a time the Church even hoped that eventually they could be blended into the larger Catholic Church. After years of fighting the Moslems in the East with little to show for all the blood shed and expense, Rome began to see that the zeal and blood which she so freely shed on distant shores might be turned to a better account nearer to home.

With the ascension of Innocent III to the papal throne, a new policy was adopted. He recognized that the principles of these communities were completely foreign in their nature to those of the papacy and that they would never fit into the Roman Church. More than that, left to themselves these new principles would most certainly result in Rome’s eventual overthrow. The very existence of this people, holding the faith of the ancient church, testified to Rome’s apostasy and therefore excited her most bitter hatred. Accordingly, she set out to destroy them.

In those days, France, rather than forming an entire monarchy, was divided into four great divisions. It was the southern most of these territories that had proved to be most receptive to the preaching of the true gospel. It was a fertile land, plentifully watered by the Rhone River and bordering on the Mediterranean Sea. The people were intelligent and industrious, and under their care the whole area blossomed like a garden.

To stamp out the rival religion, the pope called for a crusade. In exchange for forty days of service, the soldiers were promised that all who engaged in the battle against these enemies of God and the Church would receive forgiveness of all their sins—and atonement for a lifetime of vice and crime. In addition, as a part of the reward, all of the homes and property of the hated sect were to be given to those who helped to destroy them. Going beyond these immediate rewards they had the word of the pope that at death they would find angels prepared to carry them directly through the gates of Paradise where crowns and rich rewards awaited them. Never had heaven been so cheap!

Throughout the years of 1207 and 1208 the preparations for war went on. Like the mutterings of distant thunder, the dreadful sound echoed throughout Europe, reaching the doomed provinces where they were heard with terror.

In the spring of 1909, the armed host was ready to move. Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, a French nobleman who had returned from the crusades, was the chief military officer. The army of over 50,000 soldiers was followed by an even larger host of ignorant and fanatical rabble, bringing the total closer to half a million men. The multitude that followed the soldiers, though ill prepared to do battle with knights, were armed with scythes and clubs, prepared to murder the women and children.

It is never safe to compromise with wrong, but Raymond VI, the Count of Toulouse, seeing the dreadful storm approaching, was overcome with terror. Quickly he wrote a letter to the pope, offering to come to his terms, whatever they might be. As the price of his reconciliation, he was required to give over to the pope seven of his strongest towns. In addition, he was to appear at the town where a papal legate lay, who had been murdered in his dominions. He was there beaten with rods. Next a rope was placed around his neck and he was dragged by the legate, in the presence of several bishops and an immense multitude of spectators, to the tomb of the friar. After all of this, he was obliged to take the cross and join with those who were plundering his cities, massacreing his subjects, and by fire and sword, turning his territories into a desert waste. Stung by the humiliation, he again changed sides, but it was too late to save himself. In the end, he lost all of his possessions, which were given to Simon de Montfort.

The person next in rank and prestige to the Count of Toulouse to oppose the invading force was young Raymond Roger, Viscount of Beziers. As he watched the horde of murderers draw closer, he realized that submission would only invite destruction. Working quickly, he placed his kingdom in a position of strong defense. Given the number of subjects he had, and their defenses, he had reason to hope that they might succeed in defeating the undisciplined mob that threatened them. A Catholic himself, he called together his knights and told them of his purpose. Though many of them were also papists, they willingly supported him in his determination to resist. The castles were garrisoned and provisions gathered. From the surrounding villages the peasants were brought into the fortified cities, there to await the advancing host.

In the middle of July, 1209, the crusaders arrived before the walls of Beziers. To the defenders it appeared as if the whole world was gathered against them. Deciding that the best defense would be an early attack before the invaders had an opportunity to fortify their encampment, they immediately attacked.

The assault was repelled, and the crusaders, mingling with the citizens as they retreated to the town, entered the gates along with them. Before they had even formulated a plan of attack, the papal army had the city in their hands. The knights, realizing that there were many faithful Catholics in the town, asked the papal legate, the Abbot of Citeaux, how they might distinguish the Catholics from the heretics. In reply, he cried: “Kill all! Kill all! The Lord will know His own.” Wylie, The History of Protestantism, vol. 1, 42

The city that normally had a population of 15,000 was now filled with more than 60,000 people. As soon as they realized the city was taken, the multitude fled to the churches and began to toll the bells by way of supplication. Instead of gaining mercy for them, the sound only attracted the invaders, and soon the dead bodies of innocent victims covered the floors of the churches. The bodies of the helpless victims were heaped in piles around the altar while their blood flowed out the doors in torrents. In one church alone, 7,000 bodies were counted. When the last living creature in all Beziers had been killed and every home pillaged of anything that was worth carrying off, the city was burned to ashes. Not one house remained inside; not one human was left alive.

In the terrible fate of Beziers, the other towns and villages read the fate that awaited them. Many smaller towns and villages were entirely vacated as the people fled to the caves and forests for refuge. The advancing host burned and destroyed everything in their path.

Finally, on the first of August, the crusaders advanced to Carcassonne. This city stood on the bank of the Aude, and its fortifications were strong. The young count, Raymond Roger, was the leader. There were many defenders inside, and as the multitude advanced, they were met with a stout defense. From inside the walls the defenders poured streams of boiling water and oil on the crusaders and crushed them with great stones and other heavy projectiles. As often as they attacked, they were repulsed. Meanwhile, the forty days’ service for which most of the men had signed up was expiring, and in the face of continued resistance, the army was beginning to melt away. Arnold, the papal legate, seeing that if there was not a sudden change of things all might yet be lost, decided to resort to craft.

In all ages, the righteous have obtained help from God. The enemies of His people can never put down those whom God would lift up, as long as they remain faithful to principle. Time and again Satan has tried to destroy those whom God is leading and guiding, but if the followers of Jesus are faithful, they need not be terrified by the rulers of darkness of this world. The power of the enemy is limited; God has set limits that he cannot go beyond. When unable to destroy God’s people by an open frontal attack, Satan often resorts to policy and deceit, seeking to lead them to concede to a compromise. Our great fear should not, therefore, be the enemies who come against us, but that we will fail to maintain our integrity. There can never be agreement between those who have aligned themselves with error and those who have chosen to defend the truth, but Satan seeks to persuade God’s people to listen to his agents. He knows well that the road to compromise is entered upon as soon as God’s people agree to discuss their differences with those who have shown themselves to be enemies of truth.

The papal legate offered Roger the hope of an honorable surrender and promised to respect his liberty if he would only come out of the city. Listening to God’s enemies is always dangerous, and on coming out, Roger was immediately arrested, along with the 300 knights who had accompanied him. On the inside of the city, the garrison, seeing what had happened to their leader, determined, along with the citizens of the town to make their escape by a secret passage known only to themselves.

The next morning, upon entering the city without meeting any resistance, the papal legate was amazed to find it completely deserted. Though deprived of the full victory he had anticipated, he was determined not to be wholly deprived. He might not have the greater satisfaction he had anticipated, but he could certainly have a measure of triumph. Casting about, he was able to gather together 450 persons, a group made up partly of fugitives whom he had earlier captured and partly of the 300 knights who had accompanied the viscount. Of these, he burned 400 persons alive, and the remaining 50 he hanged.
Though this was the last of the crusades, the next twenty years were dedicated to rooting out any seeds of heresy that remained. In the place of the crusades, Rome introduced a new and more to be dreaded engine of terror—the Inquisition. The rich plains of southern France which had once yielded bountiful harvests were turned into a desert wasteland. The once flourishing towns and villages were swept away, leaving only blood and ashes.

But Rome, with all her violence, was unable to fully arrest the progress of truth. In seeking to crush the flame of truth, she only managed to scatter the sparks that were to later spring up over an even wider area. And though she had succeeded in slowing the movement that would become the Reformation, new instruments of power, unknown to that age, were being prepared to spread the gospel more quickly and over a wider field than had yet been dreamed possible. The divine principles upon which the Reformation was to build, though seemingly extinguished, were yet to burn ever more brightly, filling the whole earth with their light.

The End

New? Movement

by

After the death of Wycliffe in 1384, his followers, variously known as Wycliffites or Lollards, traversed the length and breadth of England preaching the gospel. An effort to restrict these activities resulted in the passage of a law that allowed for fines, confiscation of property and imprisonment for the crime of preaching “without license of the ordinaries.” “These preachers were not troubled with doubts touching their right to assume the sacred office. They reasoned that the same charter which gave to the Church her right to exist, gave to her members the right to discharge those functions that are needful to her welfare. They went not to Rome, therefore, but to the Bible for their warrant to minister.” Wylie, The History of Protestantism, vol. 1, 350

Today, Adventism is faced with a similar situation as a “new movement” has sprung up of Seventh-day Adventist ministers who do not look to any earthly authority for their authorization to preach the gospel, not only within the United States but indeed all over the world.

Just as the preaching of present truth for fourteenth century England evoked a harsh response from the combined religious and civil powers, so today the leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church have sought ways and means by which they might avail themselves of the assistance of the civil power to eliminate, and failing in that, make as difficult as possible, the work of the independent ministries.

The history of the early Reformation in England reveals that when lesser efforts failed, it ultimately resulted in a death decree being passed against the Lollards by King Henry IV. In the preamble of this infamous act, we find enumerated the activities in which the Lollards were engaged which were so offensive to those who opposed them that they felt constrained to resort to such harsh tactics. It was there stated that the Lollards “were going from diocese to diocese, holding conventicles, opening schools, writing books, and wickedly teaching the people.” Ibid., 351.

In comparing these charges with the record of those who today speak on behalf of Historic Adventists, we find some remarkable parallels. The leaders in the movement, if it may be called that, of Historic Adventists, not only travel widely, preaching and holding conventions, but they have organized training programs and Bible-worker training schools.

It is interesting to note that William Sawtrey, the rector of St. Margarets’s in Lynn and the first Lollard martyr, was martyred on the charge that he would not worship the cross. Yet, in Montana, one home church group was formed over precisely this same issue. The pastor of the church which a family that has since started a home church had been attending, reportedly erected a cross on the platform and then, with his wife, sang a hymn to it and kissed it.

I hope it is thus clear to all our readers that the Historic Adventist Movement is not new at all. In fact, it goes back at least as far as the first century A.D. We read in Acts 19:8-10 of Paul’s failure to convert all of the Jews of his day and the resulting separation that took place. “And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God. But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus. And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.”

Let us take special note of the fact that the separation occurred only after certain of the Jews hardened their hearts against the truth. Then Paul was presumably forced to move his location of worship service and Sabbath school out to a private location, a school of one brother named Tyrrannus. Reread verse 10 and note that this separation did not happen overnight. It occurred over a period of years. This was clearly a period of turmoil and perplexity as apostolic Christianity became distinct from Jewish orthodoxy. This is the corresponding period in which we find ourselves today.

What is it that motivates Adventists to separate from the fellowship of their brethren? The answer lies in the fact that they believe that it is neither wise, nor safe, to continue listening to error week after week. This is not a personal preference but a biblical principle. “Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge.” Proverbs 19:27

Were this principle not true, there would never have been a need for the early Adventists to have separated from the other denominations from which they came. Neither was this separation something peculiar to the early Adventists. Many true Christians have had to make this painful transition—the Waldenses, the Lollards, the Hussites, the Lutherans—to name only a few.

That those who value truth refrain from listening to error is no surprise. The thing that is so surprising is that apparently good and faithful Adventists continue to excuse themselves in listening to wolves in sheep’s clothing preach to them such errors as the pre-fallen nature of Christ, of His inability to save us from sin, and kindred heresies.

The idea of home churches is not a new one but extends back at least as far as New Testament times. In Romans 16, Paul refers to this. “I commend unto you Phoebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea: that ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you; for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also. Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus: who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my well beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfrutis of Achaia unto Christ.” Romans 16:1-5 [All emphasis supplied]

In addition, there are several other places where home churches are referred to. “The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.” 1Corinthians 16:19. “And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house.” Philemon 1:2. In Colossians 4:15, we read of yet another home church, “Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.”

Returning our attention to fourteenth century England, we read of William Thorpe, a Lollard Protestant, whose chief sins in the eyes of the establishment of his day were his refusal to believe in the transubstantiation of the communion bread and his refusal to worship images such as the cross. While his final fate is unknown to us, it seems most likely that he perished in a dungeon for there is no record of his release of public execution. So I class William with the lengthy list of martyrs and request your attention to his recorded statement as to what constitutes God’s church. “And I believe in the holy Church—that is, all they that have been, and that now are, and that to the end of the wold shall be, a people that shall endeavor to know and keep the commandments of God.” The History of Protestantism, vol. 1, 357

It is a remarkable thing, but a point well to be remembered, that in every moral crisis within the church, when the majority have followed after error, leading those who choose to be faithful to the truth to separate from them, there has been unity of understanding as to what constitutes the church of Christ. Thorpe’s understanding of God’s church was that it is “a people that shall endeavor to know and keep the commandments of God.” God’s church is not and never has been a man-made structure. It is simply those people who love God supremely and keep His commandments. How very different is this ancient but simple understanding from that of the majority in every age who have viewed the corporate structure as the church!

By way of illustrating the point, consider in your mind a church. Most often the picture that comes to mind is a typical church building. Generally, most people will form a mental picture of a building with doors, windows, probably a steeple, and perhaps with a cross on the top.

Starting at the top of this structure, we must recognize that the cross is not at all a Christian symbol but was imported from pagan sun worship. Its introduction occurred in the ninth century and it caused a schism in the establishment of that day. Claude, the bishop of Turin, stoutly resisted cross worship, commenting, “…in kneeling to the image, or kissing the cross, you do what the second commandment forbids, and what the Scripture condemns as idolatry. God commands one thing and these people do quite the contrary. God commands us to bear our cross, and not to worship it; but these are all for worshipping it, whereas they do not bear it at all. To serve God after this manner is to go away from Him. For if we ought to adore the cross because Christ was fastened to it, how many other things are there which touched Jesus Christ! Why don’t they adore mangers and old clothes, because He was laid in a manger and wrapped in swaddling clothes? Let them adore asses, because He entered Jerusalem upon the foal of an ass.” Ibid., 22

In tracing back the history of the cross, its origin appears to have been the first letter of the name of Tammuz, the illegitimate son of Ishtar, the evil queen who originated sun worship and astrology. After Tammuz’s death in a hunting accident, Ishtar shrewdly encouraged his worship by the populace of Babylon, thereby retaining her position of authority. Very quickly the “T” was used as Tammuz’s symbol in the same manner that the sign of the cross is practiced today by Roman Catholics. It is from this satanic religion that pagan Rome apparently borrowed the cross as the form on which to practice crucifixion. The Bible lists a number of pagan practices within God’s church in Ezekiel 8, calling them abominations. In the fourteenth verse we read of this worship of Tammuz. “Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the LORD’s house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz.”

Moving away from this satanic symbol of cruelty and idolatry and striking it from the top of our mental picture of a church, we move our consideration down to the steeple.

The fifteenth edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 11, 232, correctly identifies the origin of the steeple as the obelisk. The obelisk was the externally identifying mark of temples of the sun god in the Middle East, just as the steeple today commonly identifies the buildings of many Christian denominations. The very center of modern spiritual Babylon, the Vatican, has gone to great pain and cost to identify itself with the mystery religion of ancient Babylon by erecting the largest obelisk in Europe in the very heart of the papacy, St. Peter’s Basilica.

Now, recognizing that the steeple is not more Christian than the cross, we strike it from our mental image of a church building, and what do we have left? Just a house—a home church. Yes, the home is the real center for Christian worship.

In closing, let us take a quick look at a passage of Scripture that is commonly twisted out of its proper context to attack the home church movement. How often we hear that we are not to forsake “the assembling of ourselves together.” See Hebrews 10:25. Let us, however, consider this admonition in the context in which it was given. “Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for He is faithful that promised;) and let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.” Hebrews 10:23-26. The context clearly identifies that the meeting that we are not to forsake is one where we provoke one another to good works, not one where virtually everybody does no more good than warming the pews once a week. And of current import, do not miss the fact that in verse 26, Paul clearly connects sinless living with the meeting of the saints. Yet the meetings forsaken by those who have joined the home church movement are those where the preacher openly preaches that sinless living is impossible until Jesus returns.

Given the errors and outright apostasy of the corporate Sabbath gatherings that I have seen, these verses in Hebrews demand that we find meetings apart from those which contradict the biblical gospel. For further bible study on this topic see also: 1 Corinthians 6:15-18; Proverbs 5:3-8; and Proverbs 7:10-22. As you read, keep in mind that a harlot is the biblical symbol for an apostate church.

Brothers and Sisters, I do not believe that this Historic Adventist Movement is some new phenomenon but a necessary continuation of historic theology and practice. We presently know of over 600 groups that have satellite receivers and we have reason to believe that there are approximately 1000 home churches which meet regularly.

We have seen that though a conventional church building may be desirable as a place of meeting, it is not necessary, and certainly not synonymous with the church. I would like to urge each reader to not only consider this home church alternative, but to support the leaders of this movement. Once you have joined or started your home church, remember that every successful reformatory movement has been characterized by active proselytizing by all members. If we do not seize our opportunity to do the task in front of us, taking the gospel to the whole world, our candlestick will also be removed from its place.

The End

Health – Remember History and Praise God for His Health Laws

by

In the 1800s doctors really believed that if you had a fever, you had too much vitality and so they would then remove some of your blood!

Dr. Kellogg stated in 1876: “Twenty years ago, when a man had a fever, the doctors thought he had too much vitality—too much life—and so they bled him, and purged him, and poisoned him with calomel, and blue mass, and sundry other poisons, for the purpose of taking away from him a part of his vitality—his life—in other words, killing him a little. If a man was extraordinarily tough, he survived in spite of the killative influence of both disease and doctors …”—J.H. Kellogg, M.D., in The Health Reformer, January, 1876. (Battle Creek, Michigan.)

No cooling allowed! No sunshine allowed! No water allowed!

Those were the prescriptions for patients in the 1800s along with mercury, arsenic and other drugs. In the same history, we are told:

“During the mid 19th century, physicians had no knowledge of physics, chemistry, or physiology. A common treatment was to take one half to one liter of blood from the patient (bleeding), and sometimes more than once per day. If someone had a fever they were put in a hot, dark place without fresh air, fluids or water. The physician used a variety of toxic substances such as mercury, arsenic, antimony, nicotine, strychnine, opium, digitalis and others. …

“In 1777, many sailors on a long voyage became ill with typhus. It was customary to put sick sailors in the bottom of the ship and deprive them of water or other fluids. They were given drugs that were not helpful and often worsened the disease. The sick sailors were denied fresh air and body cooling measures were avoided. So many became ill that there was no room for them in the bottom of the ship. Therefore, those who were not expected to live were placed on deck. These sick men were so miserable they asked the crew to pour water over them. Since they were not expected to live, the ship’s doctor granted their requests. Surprisingly, they recovered. This experience was passed on to other ships’ physicians and, when duplicated, the same good result was seen. Due to the prejudice and disbelief of physicians this enlightenment did not prevail and the old methods continued.” Spiritualistic Deceptions in Health and Healing, page 18, by Edwin A. Noyes, M.D., M.P.H. 2007, Homeward Publishing, Monrovia, CA.

Tobacco a remedy for lung issues!

“A Dr. Chapman is quoted as recommending the use of tobacco as a remedy for the infections of the lungs, ‘the vapor to be produced by smoking a cigar,’ and advising ‘that the patient should frequently draw in the breath freely, so that the internal surface of the air vessels may be exposed to the action of the vapor.’ ” The Story of Our Health Message, page 22, D.E. Robinson, Southern Publishing Association, 1965.

Poor little one with the croup!

“Pity the poor youngster who had croup in those days, and whose parents consulted another authority on the subject on home treatment. He would find by sad experience that for this affliction ‘the remedies principally relied on are bleeding, emetics, and calomel.’ … ‘Let the little patient be bled very freely at the commencement of the case. Then give to the child of three years old or upwards a teaspoonful of antimonial wine [made by dissolving a scruple of emetic tartar in a pint of sherry wine], and repeat it, if necessary, in half an hour. If the second dose does not cause vomiting, double its quantity, unless the case be very mild. … The vomiting should be encouraged by warm drinks, and the nausea should be continued for a few hours.’—Dr. J. Boyd, in Family Medical Adviser, p. 118, Philadelphia: 1845.” Ibid., 22, 23.

What Elder Loughborough saw when his father died.

“… At the age of eight he peered one day through the thick blankets that curtained and covered the tall posts of the bed on which his father lay dying of typhoid fever. The sufferer had been faithfully and lovingly dosed with drugs, and then had been forbidden by his attending physician the comfort of a drink of cold water or even a refreshing breath of pure air.” Ibid., 23.

George Washington’s Death:

“On Friday 13, December 1799, the sixty-seven-year-old hero of the American Revolution and former President, George Washington, woke up in the night at his home in Mount Vernon, not feeling very well. He had been soaked by rain the day before, and now he felt first chilled to the bone and then feverish, with a painfully constricted sore throat and labored breathing. He decided that a bleeding might give him some relief and alerted his household: they at once sent for a bleeder in the neighborhood who took twelve or fourteen ounces of blood from Washington’s arm. But although the General’s family was extremely anxious, he refused to allow them to trouble his doctor in the middle of the night, and the whole household returned to an uneasy sleep.

“Next morning Washington was no better, and Dr. James Craik, his personal physician, arrived at 11 o’clock. It was the start of a grim medical marathon. Dr. Craik, alarmed by Washington’s condition, promptly sent for two other physicians to join him in consultation. Meanwhile, he ordered two more ‘copious’ bleedings; a blister was applied to Washington’s throat; two doses of mercury were given him; and a cathartic injection was forced up his rectum – all to no avail: Washington’s breathing grew more painful and labored. The consultant physicians arrived in the afternoon, and Dr. Craik suggested yet another bleeding. In this suggestion he was seconded by Dr. Brown, but vigorously opposed by Dr. Elisha Dick, who pointed out that they had already drawn perhaps three pints of blood from a sick and aging man. ‘He needs all his strength,’ he argued, ‘bleeding will diminish it.’ He was overruled … and a fourth bleeding was ordered. This time, no less than thirty-two ounces of blood were drawn off – ‘without the smallest apparent alleviation of the disease’ – the doctors later reported.

“A third huge dose of calomel – ten grains – was now given him, followed by several doses of tartar emetic (antimony); vapours of water and vinegar were blown around his throat; to the fiery blister on his throat was added a bran-and-vinegar poultice, and more blisters were strapped to the soles of his feet. After hours of this torture, and several vain struggles to speak, Washington at last managed to make known to his doctors his desire to be left to die in peace. Late on Saturday night – a bare twenty-four hours after he had woken with a chill and a sore throat – he breathed his last.

“It was calculated that over four pints of blood – about half his total bodily content – were removed from Washington. A blood loss of this order would today be considered a major medical emergency, necessitating immediate blood transfusions and intensive care, to avert the otherwise inevitable death from lowered blood pressure, collapse and acute shock … .” Green Pharmacy, The History and Evolution of Western Herbal Medicine, pages 148, 149, by Barbara Griggs, 1997.

These are just a few of the reasons God shared with us the health message along with its laws: nutrition, exercise, water, sunlight, temperance, air, rest and trust in divine power. These health laws were unknown and because of this, many people suffered and died from something which may have been prevented or they may have been restored to health with their use.

Remember history and praise God for His Health laws!

Life Sketches Series – The Resurrection

by

The resurrection of Jesus is one of the most attested facts of history, without which there never would have been such a thing as the Christian church.

One of the most amazing stories in the Bible is about a man who was the most bitter and relentless persecutor of the church of Christ who later became the most able defender of the church and the most successful herald of the gospel. This man wrote over half the books in the New Testament. With the apostolic brotherhood, those Galilean peasants who had been disciples of Jesus, the Lord chose to associate a man who had never seen the Lord while He had dwelt among men. In fact, not only had he never seen Him, but he had only heard the name of Jesus spoken in unbelief and contempt. How did this happen? There are in the universe Beings who the Bible says have infinite intelligence and infinite wisdom and were able to discern beneath the blindness and prejudice of this strict Pharisee a heart that was loyal to truth and duty. The result was that the voice from heaven made itself heard above the clamors of his pride and prejudice.

In the promulgation of the gospel, in the first century right after the resurrection of Christ, divine providence decided to unite with the zeal and devotion of the Galilean peasants a man who would bring the fiery vigor and the intellectual power of a rabbi from Jerusalem to lead in the battle against pagan philosophy and Jewish formalism. Saul of Tarsus was chosen to lead in that battle. He himself had witnessed the debasing power of heathenism and had endured the spiritual bondage of Pharisaical exaction. But, before he became a Christian he was the most bitter and relentless persecutor of the church of Christ. He says in Galatians 1:13, 14, concerning his former life, “You have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God, beyond measure and tried to destroy it. And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.”

Saul of Tarsus was a Jew, not only by descent, but by the stronger ties of lifelong training and patriotic devotion of religious belief and faith. He was a Roman citizen who was born in a Gentile city, but he had been educated in Jerusalem by the most eminent of the Jewish rabbis; he had been diligently instructed in all the laws and traditions of the Jews. He talks about this to the Jewish leaders in public many years afterward when they were attempting to kill him. “He said, ‘I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city (Jerusalem) at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our father’s law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today. I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women, as also the high priest bears me witness, and all the council of the elders, from whom I also received letters to the brethren, and went to Damascus to bring in chains even those who were there to Jerusalem to be punished’ (Acts 22:2–5).”

He shared fully the hopes, the aspirations, the lofty pride, and the unyielding prejudice of the Jewish nation. He claimed “he was a Hebrew of the Hebrews.” In Philippians 3:4–6, he said, “if anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.” Paul was a Pharisee of the Pharisees, he was the leading persecutor of the Christian church. In common with his nation, he had the hope that there would be a Messiah sent to the world who would reign as a temporal prince and who would break the Roman yoke from the neck of the Jews and exalt the Jewish nation to the throne of universal empire.

Paul had no personal knowledge of Jesus’ mission, but readily imbibed the scorn and hatred of the rabbis toward One who was so far from fulfilling their ambitious hopes. So, after the death of Christ, he joined with the priests and rulers in the persecution of His followers as a proscribed and hated sect. He describes it this way: “For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all [the rest of the apostles], yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me” (1 Corinthians 15:9, 10).

The Pharisees thought that Jesus’ disciples would be cowered into submission and fear. After seeing what happened to their leader, they thought that the disciples would never promote the teachings of Christ again. They thought that the work of Christ would end with Him and when the voice of Jesus was no longer heard, the excitement would die down, and the people would return to the doctrines and traditions that they had been taught by the Jewish religion. But instead of that happening, they witnessed the marvelous scenes of the day of Pentecost when the disciples were endowed with power and energy that they had never known before. They preached Christ to the vast multitude that had been assembled there from all parts of the world for the feast.

There were also signs and wonders which confirmed their words, and the result was that in the very stronghold of Judaism, in Jerusalem and in Judea, there were thousands who declared their faith in Jesus of Nazareth. Notice how direct Peter was in his preaching: “This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.” ’ Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:32–36).

His audience was the people that were responsible for crucifying Christ, and here he offers them forgiveness for what they have done. Salvation and the hope of eternal life is freely offered to them but first they must face the reality of what they have done. The people were accosted by Peter’s sermon. He told them that they were the ones who had crucified Jesus, but informed them that He is not dead anymore. He is raised up and He has gone to heaven.

“Now when they heard this, they were cut [stabbed, pierced, pricked] to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Men and brethren, what shall we do?’ Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission [forgiveness] of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.’ And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, ‘Be saved from this perverse generation.’ Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them” (verses 37–41).

Just a few weeks after the crucifixion, about 3,000 people in the very heart of Judaism, the very system and religion that had crucified the Lord Jesus, recognized that they had been mistaken and had crucified the Messiah. Devastated, they said, “What shall we do?” Peter said, “Repent.” The word repent simply means to change your mind – change your mind about Jesus, change your mind about sin, change your mind about being the boss of your own life and yielding to the sovereignty of Jesus Christ and His government.

Repent means to be sorry for your sins, be sorry enough to quit. What love was demonstrated to those who were guilty of crucifying the only One who could save them. Repent and you will be forgiven. Three thousand decided to repent that day and be baptized. They declared their faith in this Person whom the Jews said was a malefactor and a deceiver. They believed the evidence, Jesus was the Messiah, He was crucified, and He rose again and offered forgiveness to all who repented.

Have you ever thought about the fact that those people there are not the only people that are responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus? Notice what the apostle Paul says about this: “I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures …” (1 Corinthians 15:3). Why did Jesus die on the cross? The apostle Paul said that Jesus died on the cross for our sins. Romans 3:23 says that we have all sinned; we have all come short of the glory of God. So, if all have sinned then all are also responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus because He died for the sins of the world. Later in his life, Paul, writing to the Hebrew people who had become Christians, said, “According to the law almost all things are purged with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission [no forgiveness]” (Hebrews 9:22).

All are sinners and responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus, but through heart-felt repentance and a willingness for the Holy Spirit to create in them a clean heart and renew a right spirit in them (Psalm 51:10), the Holy Spirit will give the gift of repentance and a sorrow for sin enough to turn away from it.

A short time after Pentecost Peter and John went up to the temple. It was at the time of prayer. “A certain man lame from his mother’s womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms from those who entered the temple; who, seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple, asked for alms. And fixing his eyes on him, with John, Peter said, ‘Look at us.’ So he gave them his attention, expecting to receive something from them. Then Peter said, ‘Silver and gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk.’ And he took him by the right hand and lifted him up, and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength. So he, leaping up, stood and walked and entered the temple with them—walking, leaping, and praising God. And all the people saw him walking and praising God. Then they knew that it was he who sat begging alms at the Beautiful Gate of the temple; and they were filled with wonder and amazement at what had happened … ” (Acts 3:2–10).

It says that “all the people ran together.” They wanted to see this mighty miracle that had been worked. And when they came, the apostles declared to everybody that this man whom they all knew was healed in the name of Jesus of Nazareth. Everyone was astonished. It was the talk of the whole city. The apostles said that it was in the name of Jesus of Nazareth, whom they had crucified and who was now ascended into the heavens, that this man had been made whole. It was Jesus of Nazareth who had imparted this power to His followers to heal the sick and to uplift those who were in trouble. The apostles fearlessly charged the Jews again with the crime of Jesus’ rejection and murder.

In verses 12–16 it says, “When Peter saw it, he responded to the people: ‘Men of Israel, why do you marvel at this? Or why look so intently at us, as though by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk? The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go. But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and killed the Prince of Life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses. And His name, through faith in His name, has made this man strong, whom you see and know. Yes, the faith which comes through Him has given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.’ ”

Then Peter made an appeal: “Now, I know you didn’t understand what you were doing. You did it through ignorance, and so you need to repent” (verses 17, 19, literal translation). There were some who did repent, but there were others who resisted and became more furious than ever. After all, what do you do when a man is healed and made whole in the name of Jesus, whom you say is still dead?

Peter said, “To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities” (verse 26). The leaders of the Jewish religion were not happy at this and decided to arrest Peter and John. Force is always the last resort of every false religion. If you are searching for the true church, you should examine carefully to see if they persecute other people that do not believe the way they do. The words of the apostles could not be refuted and the only thing left for those who refused to believe the truth was to get rid of those promoting it. If you kill them, or at least cast them into prison, then they will not be able to deliver their message to the people.

Force is something that Jesus never used nor taught His disciples to use. That is not New Testament Christianity. However, it is one of the primary marks that indicates that you are dealing with a false religion. Force is the last resort of every false religion and you can be sure that a religion that uses force is not the religion of Jesus Christ.

“Now as they spoke to the people, the priests, the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees came upon them, being greatly disturbed that they taught the people and preached in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. And they laid hands on them, and put them in custody until the next day, for it was already evening. However, many of those who heard the word believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand” (Acts 4:1–4).

The bitterness, the malice of these religious leaders was unchanged, even though the evidence of the resurrection was too great to be denied.

Oh, friend, the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus has not diminished since that time. In fact, it is overwhelming. It is one of the most attested facts of history, far more than almost anything that you could read in a history book. Without Christ’s resurrection having happened, there never would have been a Christian church.

There was an attempt to keep the early church from developing, but the evidence in favor of the resurrection of Jesus was too strong.

One day we are all going to appear at what the apostle Paul calls the judgment seat of Christ. We are all going to give an account of the life we have lived in this world. Accountability is probably the main reason why people do not like to believe that Jesus came into this world. It is going to happen whether we believe it or not, just as in Noah’s day when the warning was given about the coming flood. It came whether the people believed or not. But the question is, What are you going to believe? Are you going to check it out and follow the weight of evidence or put your head in the sand and hope it all goes away?

(Unless appearing in quoted references or otherwise identified, Bible texts are from the New King James Version.)