Behold Your God




Fred T. Wright

Click to go to our Home Page




Chapter Fifteen

Urged to Destroy


     God provided in Christ’s life and teachings the complete and final means whereby every theory about Him can be tested. By this means, every interpretation of God’s behavior can be infallibly categorized as true or false. Thus, for instance, the idea that God destroys those who defy Him, is classified as erroneous.

     If faith can take firm hold upon the principle that Christ is the perfect and incontrovertible expression of all that God is, the groundwork has been thoroughly laid for revising the common interpretations of the Old Testament stories. Confidence will be established in the truth that there is an alternative version of what God actually did in  those terrible situations.

     To strengthen that confidence and expectation, further consideration will now be given to the testimony of Jesus. When, upon this earth, He showed no disposition to reach out in acts of punishment and destruction, it was not because He was afforded no opportunity or power to do so. He certainly had the power as was manifested in His miracles of healing, His command of the wild storms, and His ability to restrain the demoniacs.

     There was no lack of occasion for the administration of punishment and destruction, for He was continually confronted with those who despised His offers of salvation, not only refusing to obey Him, but actually working in open rebellion against Him.

     More than this, He was urged to raise His hand and rain fire upon those who had turned against Him.

     “And it came to pass, when the time was come that He should be received up, He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem.

     “And sent messengers before His face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for Him.

     “And they did not receive Him, because His face was as though He would go to Jerusalem.

     “And when His disciples, James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt Thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?

     “But He turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

     “For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.” Luke 9:51-56.

     The Samaritans could have offered no greater insult to the Son of God. The offer of hospitality to a stranger is regarded in the east as being an obligation on all, and to refuse this is to indicate rejection of the worst kind. If ever, from the human point of view, a sin needed to be punished to teach a lesson of warning to all others, then this was it.


Page 148


     “James and John, Christ’s messengers, were greatly annoyed at the insult shown to their Lord. They were filled with indignation because He had been so rudely treated by the Samaritans whom He was honouring by His presence. They had recently been with Him on the mount of transfiguration, and had seen Him glorified by God, and honored by Moses and Elijah. This manifest dishonour on the part of the Samaritans, should not, they thought, be passed over without marked punishment.

     “Coming to Christ, they reported to Him the words of the people, telling Him that they had even refused to give Him a night’s lodging. They thought that a grievous wrong had been done Him, and seeing Mount Carmel in the distance, where Elijah had slain the false prophets, they said, ‘Wilt Thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, as Elias did?’” The Desire of Ages, 487.

     Those men were familiar with Old Testament history and they thought they understood quite well the way in which God had dealt with similar offences in the past. Therefore, they believed that they were asking Christ to do just what they were sure God would have done under the circumstances. Their misunderstanding of His character led them to expect Christ to endorse their suggestion.

     Like millions before and since, those men had a concept of God and His kingdom which differed in no way from earthly kings and their kingdoms. For this reason they held to the expectation that Christ would establish a kingdom by using force and compulsion. So firmly entrenched was this idea that Christ’s efforts to disillusion them proved fruitless. They came to the last Passover making no provision whatsoever for Christ’s rejection, a crown of thorns, and a crucifixion.

     In order to understand the Samaritan incident, it is important to recognize that the apostles did have a very wrong concept of God’s character and that their request to Jesus was made in harmony with that erroneous idea. They looked upon God as a majestic Being of judgment and destruction who would miss no opportunity of asserting His authority by making an example of the impenitent.

     They believed that Christ was on the journey to His coronation in Jerusalem so that if there was ever a time when men should have a signal lesson of the peril of withholding homage, this was that moment. A few lives sacrificed now would save many later.

     If the disciples had been correct in their assessment of God’s character; if what they thought they understood Him as doing in the Old Testament had been what He really had done, then, because Christ did only as and what the  Father did, He would have called down fire from heaven there and then. This would have been a splendid opportunity for Christ to show forth the character of God as the executioner of those who rebelled against Him. Christ would have taken full advantage of such a splendid opportunity to show this aspect of God’s policies.


Page 149


     But Christ would not even consider doing any such thing. Instead, He rebuked the disciples. “They were surprised to see that Jesus was pained by their words, and still more surprised as His rebuke fell upon their ears, ‘Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.’ And He went to another village.” ibid.

     Christ did not use this opportunity to show forth the Father as an executioner because that is not God’s character. But this does not mean that He missed the chance of revealing the Father. Far from it. This was a golden opportunity to do so and He made the most of it.

     He instructed His followers that the course they proposed sprang from a spirit foreign both to Him and His Father. Such a spirit and its fruit, not being found in the divine nature, found its source in Satan’s heart. It was his way, not God’s to destroy  those who failed to serve him.

     Having denied identification with that spirit, Christ reiterated what He had come to do. Close attention should be paid to what He said with care taken not to read into it what He did not say. Explicitly, He declared, “For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.”

     He did not say, “The Son of man is come to save all who will be saved and then to destroy the remainder.”

     But this is what the Saviour would have had to say if the accepted view of God’s ways is correct. Furthermore, He would have been obliged to demonstrate the veracity of His words by destroying every Samaritan whose rejection of Him was final. But He neither spoke such words nor performed such actions.

     Instead with great plainness, He said, “The Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives . . .”

     Men set out to achieve with the best of intentions and noble principles, only to find that they did not realize the complications which would arise. Too often, they then compromise their principles and modify their plans to meet the unexpected.

     It is not so with God. At the outset, He is fully aware of every difficulty which will develop. In the fullness of that foreknowledge, He outlines the course He will pursue. With infallible consistency thereafter, He adheres to His stated principles. No pressure can be mounted sufficient to cause the least deviation.

     When Christ said that He did not come to destroy men’s lives, we can be assured of the absolute reliability of those words. Therefore, we can know that He did not destroy when He came. Further, inasmuch as He did only what the Father did, then we can know that the Father does not come to destroy us. Christ came only to save. Likewise, the Father comes to us as a Saviour and a Saviour only.

     “It is no part of Christ’s mission to compel men to receive Him. It is Satan, and men actuated by his spirit, that seek to compel the conscience.


Page 150


Under a pretense of zeal for righteousness, men who are confederate with evil angels bring suffering upon their fellow men, in order to convert them to their ideas of religion; but Christ is ever showing mercy, ever seeking to win by the revealing of His love. He can admit no rival in the soul, nor accept of partial service; but He desires only voluntary service, the willing surrender of the heart under the constraint of love. There can be no more conclusive evidence that we possess the spirit of Satan than the disposition to hurt and destroy those who do not appreciate our work, or who act contrary to our ideas.” ibid.

     The Samaritans did not appreciate Christ’s work and they certainly acted contrary to His ideas. Had He shown the least disposition to hurt or destroy them, He would have given the strongest evidence that He possessed the spirit of Satan. It was because He did not possess that spirit that He did not show any such disposition.

     If we project this principle back to the Father’s behavior, the same conclusions must be maintained. Let the popular concept of God’s character be thus tested.

     It is true that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah did not appreciate the works of God and they certainly acted contrary to His ideas. The longer they lived, the greater the depths of apostasy to which they carried this. In the meantime, they resisted wilfully and stubbornly every outreach of God to bring them back into appreciation of His works and to actions harmonizing with His ideas. Consequently, so popular theology declares, God destroyed them by raining fire upon them. In the light of the statement quoted above, if this is true, then God provided all with convincing evidence that He was actuated with the spirit of the devil.

     There is no other conclusion which can be drawn but this. The only way to deny this is to prove the statement quoted to be false, and this cannot be done for it is the inspired word of God.

     When the implication of the popular belief stand thus exposed, it is evident that there is the need for another better informed and more spiritual investigation of God’s performance in that holocaust. It is certain that God does not possess the spirit of Satan. Therefore, it is equally certain that He does not hurt nor destroy those who do not appreciate His work and act contrary to His ideas.

     The stand made by Christ against His apostles in the matter of the Samaritans, is a valuable revelation of His utter refusal to be involved in any kind of punitive work of destruction. He made it quite clear that such had no part with Him and therefore no part with His Father in heaven. The life of Christ utterly denies the idea that God destroys anyone for any reason.

     There are , of course, those two instances mentioned in the previous chapter which, on the surface, would seem to provide occasions when Christ did stretch forth His hands to use force and to destroy. They are the cursing of the fig tree and the expelling of the desecrators from the temple precincts.


Page 151


     Let the case of the wasted fig tree be considered first.

     This occurred very late in Christ’s ministry. A few days before the last Passover, He had ridden triumphantly into Jerusalem. This was an act of final appeal to the Jewish leaders, their rejection of which placed them beyond any further hope of deliverance.

     He spent the night in Bethany and the next morning returned to the temple. “On the way He passed a fig orchard. He was hungry, ‘and seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, He came, if haply He might find anything thereon: and when He came to it, He found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.’

     “It was not the season for ripe figs, except in certain localities; and on the highlands about Jerusalem it might truly be said, ‘The time of figs was not yet.’ But in the orchard to which Jesus came, one tree appeared to be in advance of all the others. It was already covered with leaves. It is the nature of the fig tree that before the leaves open, the growing fruit appears. Therefore this tree in full leaf gave promise of well-developed fruit. But its appearance was deceptive. Upon searching its branches, from the lowest bough to the topmost twig, Jesus found ‘nothing but leaves.’ It was a mass of pretentious foliage, nothing more.

     “Christ uttered against it a withering curse. ‘No man eat fruit of thee hereafter forever,’ He said. The next morning, as the Saviour and His disciples were again on their way to the city, the blasted branches and drooping leaves attracted their attention. ‘Master,’ said Peter, ‘behold, the fig tree which Thou cursedst is withered away.’” The Desire of Ages, 581, 582.

     “Jesus looked upon the pretentious, fruitless fig tree, and with mournful reluctance pronounced the words of doom. And under the curse of an offended God, the fig tree withered away. God help His people to make an application of this lesson while there is still time.” The Review and Herald, February 25, 1902.

     The strong words in these statements are “uttered against it a withering curse,” and “under the curse of an offended God.”

     Now, pause and ponder what kind of picture these words call before your mind. Practically anyone will find that this is what they see. The unabated spirit of rejection and apostasy on the part of the children of Israel had brought God to the point where He became offended, indignant, wrathful, infuriated, and judgmental. So He cursed the fig tree whose pretentious foliage was a symbol of the Jew’s hypocrisy. This act of cursing is seen as a direct sending forth of a stream of death from God to the tree. In other words, God thus appears as one who specifically decides what the fate of the tree will be and then administers judgment on the tree.

     Having developed this picture, let another one now be projected. This time let the words be used in describing the actions of the witch-doctor. He utters against another man a withering curse and under the curse of the of-


Page 152


fended witch-doctor, the man withers and dies. This happens continually in the dark lands of heathenism. In Australian aboriginal land, the curse is transmitted by pointing the bone. The victim towards whom the bone is pointed invariably dies. The witch-doctor has decreed the death of his victim and now he exercises his power for the direct purpose of transmitting the curse of death to the man.

     Except for fine details perhaps, there is no difference between these two pictures. Some will say that there is a large difference, pointing to the righteousness of God versus the sinister evilness of the witch-doctor’s character. This is to argue that God’s righteousness give His actions a sanctity which the evil of the witch-doctor cannot give to the same actions.

     But a good character produces good deeds. It cannot sanctify evil deeds. Here is where thousands are deceived by a false philosophy. If this mist is cleared away, and the actions of the witch-doctor, as such, are compared with those which God is purported to do as in the paragraph above, then it will be seen that there is no difference.

     The Scriptures emphasize that God’s ways are different from the ways of men, and, therefore, particularly of witch-doctors. So we need to take a deeper look at what Christ really did there at the fig tree, for we cannot be satisfied with the popular view.

     In the Word of God we shall find a very different view of this than is common to men.

     The disciples, even though they expected this of Christ, were surprised. “Christ’s act in cursing the fig tree had astonished the disciples. It seemed to them unlike His ways and works. Often they had heard Him declare that He came not to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. They remembered His words, ‘The Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.’ Luke 9:56. His wonderful works had been done to restore, never to destroy. The disciples had known Him only as the Restorer, the Healer. This act stood alone. What was its purpose? They questioned,” The Desire of Ages, 582.

     They were not then able to see and understand all things. The light on this was to shine through for them later, but we are blessed with the words of inspiration beyond that which they had, so we are without excuse if we do not understand. The truth of what Christ did is spelled out in the following statement.

     “God ‘delighteth in mercy.’ ‘As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked.’ Micah 7:18; Ezekiel 33:11. To Him the work of destruction and denunciation of judgment is a ‘strange work.’ Isaiah 28:21. But it is in mercy and love that He lifts the veil from the future, and reveals to men the results of a course of sin.

     “The cursing of the fig tree was an acted parable. That barren tree, flaunting its pretentious foliage in the very face of Christ, was a symbol of the Jewish nation. The Saviour desire to make plain to His disciples the


Page 153


cause and the certainty of Israel’s doom. For this purpose He invested the tree with moral qualities, and made it the expositor of divine truth. The Jews stood forth distinct from all other nations, professing allegiance to God. They had been specially favored by Him, and they laid claim to righteousness above every other people. But they were corrupted by the love of the world and the greed of gain. They boasted of their knowledge, but they were ignorant of the requirements of God, and were full of hypocrisy. Like the barren tree, they spread their pretentious branches aloft, luxuriant in appearance, and beautiful to the eye, but they yielded ‘nothing but leaves.’ The Jewish religion, with its magnificent temple, its sacred altars, its mitered priests, and impressive ceremonies, was indeed fair in outward appearance, but humility, love, and benevolence were lacking.

     “All the trees in the fig orchard were destitute of fruit; but the leafless trees raised no expectation, and caused no disappointment. By these trees the Gentiles were represented. They were as destitute as were the Jews of godliness; but they had not professed to serve God. They made no boastful pretensions to goodness. They were blind to the works and ways of God. With them the time of gifs was not yet. They were still waiting for a day which would bring them light and hope. The Jews, who had received greater blessings from God, were held accountable for their abuse of these gifts. The privileges of which they boasted only increased their guilt.

     “Jesus had come to the fig tree hungry, to find food. So He had come to Israel, hungering to find in them the fruits of righteousness. He had lavished on them His gifts, that they might bear fruit for the blessing of the world. Every opportunity and privilege had been granted them, and in return He sought their sympathy and cooperation in His work of grace. He longed to see in them self-sacrifice and compassion, zeal for God, and a deep yearning of soul for the salvation of their fellow men. Had they kept the law of God, they would have done the same unselfish work that Christ did. But love to God and man was eclipsed by pride and self-sufficiency. They brought ruin upon themselves by refusing to minister to others. The treasures of truth which God had committed to them, they did not give to the world. In the barren tree they might read both their sin and its punishment. Withered beneath the Saviour’s curse, standing forth sere and blasted, dried up by the roots, the fig tree showed what the Jewish people would be when the grace of God was removed from them. Refusing to impart blessing, they would no longer receive it. ‘O Israel,’ the Lord says, ‘thou hast destroyed thyself.’ Hosea 13:9, “ ibid. 582, 583.

     There are several key sentences in this statement which clarify Christ’s actions. “That barren tree . . . was a symbol of the Jewish nation. The Saviour desired to make plain to His disciples the cause and the certainty of Israel’s doom . . . In the barren fig tree they might read both their sin and its punishment . . . the fig tree showed what the Jewish people would be when the grace [Spirit][1] of God was removed from them.”


Page 154


     Thus Christ’s act was a prophecy. He was declaring in advance just what was going to happen to the Jewish nation. In order for the prophecy to be accurate, Christ had to do to the fig tree exactly what He would later do to Jerusalem. Prophecy is valueless if it is not accurate.

     It is a principle that a prophecy is never fully understood until it has been fulfilled. Jesus indicated this in these words, “And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.” John 14:29.

     A careful study of the history of prophetic interpretation clarifies just what Christ meant when He uttered those words. The more distant the future prophecy stood, the less it was understood by God’s children. For instance, in the days following the apostolic era, the Christians of that day understood the rise and fall of the four great empires, expected the partition of the Roman Empire into ten great divisions, but did not understand the one thousand, two hundred and sixty days, the image of the beast, or the battle of Armageddon.

     In like manner, while Luther, Knox, and their contemporaries saw that the little horn was the papacy, they did not understand what was to happen beyond that. But when the period of papal dominance was about to end, Bible scholars on both sides of the Atlantic were able to know the very year in which it would happen and said so just before it did. Immediately the interest turned to Daniel 8:14, but it was not until after the great disappointment that an understanding developed of the nature of the image of the beast.[2]

     On the basis of the principle that the prophecy is never fully understood until it is fulfilled, there is an obvious advantage in that we have both the prophecy and the fulfillment of the parable of the cursed fig tree. The prophecy was made by Christ just prior to His crucifixion, and the fulfilment took place in the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

     What took place in the fulfillment is very clear. As already noted from The Great Controversy, 35, 36, God did not personally decree the nature of the punishment which should and did befall the Israelites. Instead, He sorrowfully and reluctantly submitted to their insistent demands that He leave them to their own way, thus exposing them to whatever potential of destruction was nearest to them. It proved in this case to be the enraged Romans who, freed of any restriction imposed by God’s presence, were able to wreak their vengeance upon the shelterless Jews.

     In order, then, for Christ to reveal in the prophecy what God would do in its fulfillment, He must do the same in the prophecy, Therefore, Christ simply withdrew His presence from the tree leaving it exposed to whatever plague, blight, or other destructive force was waiting to consume it. Some


Page 155


may say that it must have been very convenient for a destructive power to have been overshadowing that particular tree so that it would serve Christ’s purpose when He withdrew His protective power from it.

     Only those who do not appreciate the fact that a thousand unseen dangers are lurking over us and all of nature every moment of the day, would adopt such a view. It would not matter from what point or quarter the Lord was to withdraw His protection. Destruction would come flooding in, in some form or the other. Were we better aware of this, we would maintain toward God a spirit of gratitude and dependence far in excess of that which we now display.

     In this particular case the attack came at the roots of the tree for the Scriptures expressly say “And in the morning, as they passed by, they say the fig tree dried up from the roots.” Mark 11:20.

     Note also that it was not until the next day that the effects of the withdrawing of the Creator’s sustaining and protecting presence were apparent, whereas we would expect that if the Lord struck the tree with His own direct power, as so many suppose He did, then the tree would have instantly been blasted as if struck with lightning. But it was not so.

     The argument that the fulfillment clarifies the prophecy, does not mean that the prophecy is wholly obscure. Rather, in the comments from The Desire of Ages where the prophecy is spelled out in more detail, it is stated quite clearly that “. . . the fig tree showed what the Jewish people would be when the grace of God was removed from them.”

     Thus the evidence is clear for those who will dig a little deeper, that Christ did not strike the tree any more than He struck the Jews in the fall of Jerusalem when the prophecy was fulfilled. Thus is removed any possible reference to this event as an example of Christ using force or engaging in an act of destruction.

     Let an examination next be made of the driving out of the money changers and traffickers in the courtyard of the temple. Once again, the casual and superficial view of this incident is that Jesus drove these men out by force, but a careful study reveals another picture altogether.

     Here is the Scripture record of it:

     “And the Jews’ Passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,

     “And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:

     “And when He had made a scourge of small cords, He drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’’ money, and overthrew the tables;

     “And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not My Father’s house a house of merchandise.

     “And His disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of Thine house hath eaten Me up.” John 2:13-17.


Page 156


     The natural human tendency is to interpret the words, “He drove them out,” in the same way as they would be understood if used to describe human behavior. No greater mistake could be made, for the ways of God as revealed in Christ’s life are so different from men’s ways. Christ drove them out, it is true, but not as man would do it by dependence on physical power or force. Let there be the continual reminder that “Compelling power is found only under Satan’s government. The Lord’s principles are not of this order.” The Desire of Ages, 759.

     Therefore, compelling power or the use of physical force to achieve obedience is never found under God’s government. Inasmuch, then, as Christ was fully under God’s government, even to being the perfect expression of that government, no physical force was ever used by Him to achieve obedience. So, Christ did not drive those men out as other men would drive them out. He did not do it by physical force at all.

     A little thought would show the infeasibility of His attempting to do it by physical force. He was only one man pitted against a considerable number of wily, hardened opponents. How many there were, we are not exactly told, but they could have numbered a hundred or more. While their number is not revealed, their characters are. They were men whose souls were calloused with the sinful traffic of extortion. They feared no man on earth and would think nothing of resorting to physical violence to preserve their treasured gains. For Christ to have attempted their expulsion by physical power would have been a very rash and foolish enterprise.

     How did He do it?

     Christ stood before them that day in the role of the eternal and righteous Judge. Those men knew that He was reading the closely guarded secrets of their lives. They were conscious that His eye was seeing beneath the pretentious garments of righteousness with which they had sought to cover the sickness of their sin-diseased souls.

     Such the sinner cannot stand. One compelling desire fills him. He flees in abject terror from the presence of the Righteous One. They did it there in the temple courts and they will do it again when the Saviour returns in the clouds of heaven. Finally they will do it when they stand arraigned before the Judge of the heavens and the earth in the last and final day.

     The truth of this is laid out in these words:

      “And why did the priests flee from the temple? Why did they not stand their ground? He Who commanded them to go was a carpenter’s son, a poor Galilean, without earthly rank or power. Why did they not resist Him? Why did they leave the gain so ill acquired, and flee at the command of One Whose outward appearance was so humble?

     “Christ spoke with the authority of a king, and in His appearance, and in the tones of His voice, there was that which they had not power to resist. At the word of command they realized, as they had never realized before, their true position as hypocrites and robbers.
When divinity flashed through


Page 157


humanity, not only did they see indignation of Christ’ countenance; they realized the import of His words. They felt as if before the throne of the eternal Judge, with their sentence passed on them for time and for eternity.” The Desire of Ages, 162.

     It was the awful power of burning condemnation that drove those men from the presence of Christ. They could not endure it. No man ever can. They will always flee in terror from the presence of the Almighty Judge of the earth. God does not need to raise a single finger of physical power to drive them away. When the time comes that He must stand before them in that role, they will do nothing else but flee.

     Thus we need have no misgivings of the perfection of the revelation of God in Christ. Throughout His life Christ made no concessions whatsoever to the principles of Satan’s character. Flawlessly He showed that “God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejecters of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown.” The Great Controversy, 36. He came to reveal God as a Saviour and a Saviour only and He did it to perfection. There is not a single instance in Christ’s life in which any other character but this is shown. That life gives the total lie to the long-held view that God does destroy the finally impenitent. He does not do this but rather leaves them to their own desires. This means that they stand without protection from the onslaught of the grim reaper.

     If every person in the world could see God in Christ with the understanding that Christ gave a full and undimmed revelation of the Father; if they could know that “All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son,” Testimonies 8:286; they would reject every concept which sees God as One Who rises up and destroys those who are disobedient. They would see Him only as a Saviour, Who, while He cannot condone and support sin, will not destroy those who cherish it, but will accept their freedom to choose their own way and perish.

     May the Lord open the eyes of every reader to see God as He is to be seen in the face of Jesus Christ, “the Word of God—God’s thought made audible.”


Click here for Chapter 16


Click here to return to the Table of Contents for all Chapters
















[1] Note by Ron Beaulieu: Ellen White defines grace as the Spirit of Christ.


“They must have His grace, the Spirit of Christ, to help their infirmities, or they cannot form a Christian character. Jesus loves to have us come to Him, just as we are—sinful, helpless, dependent.” Faith and Works, p. 38.


“There must be a power working from within, a new life from above, before man can be changed from sin to holiness. TThat power is Christ. His grace [the Spirit of Christ] alone can quicken the lifeless faculties of the soul, and attract it to God, to holiness.” (ST, May 28, 1902, par. 3).


[2] These great truths may be studied in detail in The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. I-IV, by LeRoy Edwin Froom, published by The Review and Herald Publishing Association, Washington D.C. 1950.