CHAPTER 1

THE INCARNATION – WAS CHRIST EXEMPT?

The word “incarnation” derives from the two Latin words, in carnis, which mean “in flesh” or “in the flesh.” As a theological term, it denotes “the taking on of the human form and nature by Jesus, conceived of as the Son of God.” In this sense John uses the word when he says, “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God. And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God.” 1 John 4:2,3. This makes belief in the incarnation a test of discipleship, though doubtless more is meant than a mere belief in the historical appearance of Christ.

The coming into the world of a new life—the birth of a babe—is in itself a miracle. Infinitely more so must be the incarnation of the very Son of God. It will ever remain a mystery beyond human comprehension. All man can do is accept it as a part of the plan of redemption which has been gradually revealed since the fall of man in the garden.

For reasons which we cannot fully fathom, God permitted sin. In doing so, however, He also provided a remedy. This remedy comprises the plan of redemption and is bound up with the incarnation, the death, and the resurrection of the Son of God. It cannot be conceived that God did not know what creation would cost Him; and the ‘council of peace’ which decided the matter, must have included provisions for every foreseen contingency. Paul calls this plan “God’s wisdom in a mystery, even the wisdom that hath been hidden, which God foreordained before the worlds unto our glory.” 1 Corinthians 2:7.

The phrase “before the worlds” means before there was creation of any kind. Thus the plan of salvation was not an afterthought. It was “foreordained.” Even when Lucifer sinned, the plan was not fully revealed, but was “kept in silence through times eternal.” Romans 16:25 A. R. V. For this God gives no reason. Paul informs us “that by revelation He (God) made known unto me the mystery. . . the mystery of Christ which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.” Ephesians 3:3-5.

Became

There are two words in the epistle to the Hebrews which are of interest in this connection. They are “became” in verse ten of chapter two, and “behoved” in verse seventeen of the same chapter.

The Greek word for became is prepo, and is defined as “suitable, proper, fit, right, comely.” Paul, whom we believe to be the author of Hebrews, is very bold when he thus presumes to attribute motive to God and declares that it is fit and right for God to make Christ “perfect through suffering.” Hebrews 2:10. He considers it “comely” of God to do this; that is, He approves of it. In judging God, he emulates Abraham who was even bolder than Paul. Misunderstanding what God intended to do, Abraham counseled God not to do it. Said he, “Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?

That be far from Thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked. . . That be far from Thee. Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?” Genesis 18:23,25.

Moses also essayed to admonish God and instruct Him. When Israel danced about the golden calf, God said to Moses, “Let Me alone that My wrath may wax hot against them and that I may consume them.” Exodus 32:10. Moses attempted to pacify God and said, “Lord, why doth Thy wrath wax hot against Thy people?. . . Turn from Thy fierce wrath and repent of this evil against Thy people.” Exodus 32:11,12. “And the Lord repented of the evil which He thought to do unto His people.” Verse 14.

We readily see that in this interesting episode God was merely testing Abraham, and giving him an opportunity to plead for the people. But we also note that this illustrates God’s willingness to talk over matters with His saints; yes, and with those who are not saints. His invitation to mankind is, “Come now, and let us reason together.” Isaiah 1:18. God is anxious to communicate with His people. Neither Abraham nor Moses was rebuked for his boldness.

Behoved

The other word to which we would call attention is “behoved.” Speaking of Christ, Paul says, “In all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.” Hebrews 2:17. While “became” in verse 10 is a mild word, “behoved” in verse 17 (ophilo in Greek) is a strong word, and is defined “under obligation,” “ought,” “must,” “should,” “bound,” “indebted,” “duty,” “owe.” If Christ is to be a merciful and faithful High Priest, Paul says it behoves Him “in all things” to be like His brethren. This is obligatory. It is a duty He owes and must not avoid. He cannot make reconciliation for men unless He takes His place with them and in all things becomes like them. It is not a question of choice. He should, He must, He ought to, He is under obligation to, He owes it. Unless He has to struggle with the same temptations men do, He cannot sympathize with them. One who has never been hungry, who has never been weak and sick, who has never struggled with temptations, is unable fully to sympathize with those who are thus afflicted.

For this reason it is necessary for Christ in all things, to become like His brethren. If He is to be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, He must Himself be “compassed with infirmity.” Hebrews 4:15; 5:2. Therefore, if men are afflicted, He also must be afflicted “in all their affliction.” Isaiah 63:9. Christ Himself testifies: “I was not rebellious, neither turned away back. I gave My back to the smiters, and My cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not My face from shame and spitting.” Isaiah 50:5,6.

He “Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.” Matthew 8:17. In nothing Christ spared Himself. He did not ask to be exempt from any trial or suffering of man; and God did not exempt Him.

These experiences were all necessary if Christ was to be a merciful High Priest. Now, He can sympathize with every child of humanity; for He knows hunger by actual experience and sickness and weakness and temptation and sorrow and affliction and pain, and feeling forsaken of God and man. He has been “tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin.” Hebrews 4:15. It is Christ’s partaking of men’s afflictions and weaknesses which enables Him to be the sympathizing Saviour that He is.

Was Christ Exempt?

With these reflections in mind, we read with astonishment and perplexity, mingled with sorrow, the false statement in Questions on Doctrine, p. 383, that Christ was “exempt from the inherited passions and pollutions that corrupt the natural descendants of Adam.” To appreciate the import of this assertion, we need to define “exempt” and “passions.”

The College Standard Dictionary defines “exempt”: “To free or excuse from some burdensome obligation; free, clear or excuse from some restriction or burden.: Webster’s New World Dictionary, College Edition defines exempt: “to take out, deliver, set free as from a rule which others must observe; excuse, release. . . freed from a rule, obligation, etc., which binds others; excused, released. . . exemption implies a release from some obligation or legal requirement, especially when others are not so released.”

“Passion” is defined: “originally suffering or agony. . . any of the emotions as hate, grief, love, fear, joy; the agony and sufferings of Jesus during the crucifixion or during the period following the Last Supper. Passion usually implies a strong emotion that has an overpowering or compelling effect.” Passion is an inclusive word. While originally it has reference to sorrow, suffering, agony, it is not confined to these meanings nor to passions of the flesh only, but includes all man’s emotions as mentioned above, as well as anger, sorrow, hunger, pity; it includes, in fact, all temptations that incite men to action. To take these emotions away from a man, to exempt him from all temptation, results in a creature less than a man, a kind of no-man, a shadow man, a non-entity, which Markham calls a “brother to the ox.” Temptations are the character building ingredients of life for good or ill, as man reacts to them.

If Christ was exempt from the passions of mankind, He was different from other men, none of whom is so exempt. Such teaching is tragic, and completely contrary to what Seventh-day Adventists have always taught and believed. Christ came as a man among men, asking no favors and receiving no special consideration. According to the terms of the covenant He was not to receive any help from God not available to any other man. This was a necessary condition if His demonstration was to be of any value and His work acceptable. The least deviation from this rule would invalidate the experiment, nullify the agreement, void the covenant, and effectively destroy all hope for man.

Satan’s contention has always been that God is unjust in requiring men to keep the law, and doubly unjust in punishing them for not doing what cannot be done, and what no one has ever done. His claim is that God ought at least to make a demonstration to show that it can be done, and done under the same conditions to which men are subject. Noah, Job, Abraham, David—all were good men, but all failed to come up to God’s high standard. “All men have sinned,” says Paul. Romans 3:23.

God was not moved by Satan’s challenge; for long before, even from eternity, God had decided upon His course of action. Accordingly, when the time came, God sent “His own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, and condemned sin in the flesh.” Romans 8:3. Christ did not condone sin in the flesh; He condemned it, and in so doing upheld the power and authority of the law. By dying on the cross He further enforced the law by paying the penalty required for its transgression, and upheld the infliction of its penalty by paying its demand, He was now in position to forgive without being accused of ignoring the law or setting it aside.

When it became evident that God intended to send His Son and in Him demonstrate that man can keep the law, Satan knew that this would constitute the crisis, and that he must overcome Christ or perish. One thing greatly concerned him; would Christ come to this earth as a man with the limitations, weaknesses and infirmities which men had brought upon themselves because of excesses? if so, Satan believed he might overcome Him. If God should exempt Him from the passions that corrupt the natural descendants of Adam, he could claim that God played favorites, and the test was invalid. In the following quotations we have God’s answer:

“God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life’s perils in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss.” –Desire of Ages, p. 49.

“Many claim that it was impossible for Christ to be overcome by temptation. Then He could not have been placed in Adam’s position. . . . Our Saviour took humanity with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man with the possibility of yielding to temptation.” –Ibid., p. 117.

“The temptations to which Christ was subject were a terrible reality. As a free agent He was placed on probation with liberty to yield to Satan’s temptations and work at cross purposes with God. If this were not so, if it had not been possible for Him to fall, He could not have been tempted in all points as the human family is tempted.” –Youth’s Instructor, Oct. 28, 1899.

“When Adam was assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon him. He stood in the strength of perfect manhood, possessing the full vigor of mind and body. . . It was not thus with Jesus when He entered the wilderness to cope with Satan. For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, in moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depth of his degradation.” –Desire of Ages, p. 117.

Christ “vanquished Satan in the same nature over which Satan obtained the victory. The enemy was overcome by Christ in His human nature. The power of the Saviour’s Godhead was hidden. He overcame in human nature relying upon God for power. This is the privilege of all.” –Youth’s Instructor, April 25, 1901.

“Letters have been coming in to me, affirming that Christ could not have had the same nature as man, for if He had, He would have fallen under similar temptations. If He did not have man’s nature, He could not be our example. If He was not a partaker of our nature, He could not have been tempted as man has been. If it were not possible for Him to yield to temptations, He could not be our helper. It was a solemn reality that Christ came to fight the battle as man, in man’s behalf. His temptation and victory tell us that humanity must copy the Pattern; men must become a partaker of the divine nature.” –Review and Herald, Feb. 18, 1890.

“Christ bore the sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to the earth to help man. . . . He took human nature, and bore the infirmities of the degenerate race.” –The Temptations of Christ, pp. 30,31.

If Christ had been exempt from passions, He would have been unable to understand or help mankind. It, therefore, behoved Him “in all things to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest. . . for in that He Himself hath suffered, being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted.” Hebrews 2:17,18. A Saviour who has never been tempted, never has had to battle with passions, who has never “offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him who was able to save Him from death,” who “though He were a son” never learned obedience by the things He suffered, but was “exempt” from the very things that a true Savior must experience: such a savior is what this new theology offers us. It is not the kind of Savior I need, nor the world. One who has never struggled with passions can have no understanding of their power, nor has he ever had the joy of overcoming them. If God extended special favors and exemptions to Christ, in that very act He disqualified Him for His work. There can be no heresy more harmful than that here discussed. It takes away the Savior I have known and substitutes for Him a weak personality, not considered by God capable of resisting and conquering the passions which He asks men to overcome.

It is, of course, patent to all, that no one can claim to believe the Testimonies and also believe in the new theology that Christ was exempt from human passions. It is one thing or the other. The denomination is now called upon to decide. To accept the teaching of Questions on Doctrine necessitates giving up faith in the Gift God has given this people.

Some History

It may interest the reader to know how these new doctrines came to be accepted by the leaders, and how they came to be included in Questions on Doctrine, and thus receive official standing.

The question of the nature of Christ while in the flesh is one of the foundation pillars of Christianity. On this doctrine hangs the salvation of man. The apostle John makes it a deciding factor by saying, “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God. And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God.” 1 John 4:2,3.

In what kind of flesh did Jesus come to this earth? We repeat a quotation which we have given above: “Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depth of his degradation.” –Desire of Ages, p. 117.

Only as Christ placed Himself on the level of the humanity He had come to save, could He demonstrate to men how to overcome their infirmities and passions. If the men with whom He associated had understood that He was exempt from the passions with which they had to battle, His influence would immediately have been destroyed and He would be reckoned a deceiver. His pronouncement, “I have overcome the world” (John 16:33), would be accepted as a dishonest boast; for without passions He had nothing to overcome. His promise that “to him that overcometh will I grant to sit with Me in My throne, even as I also overcame and am set down with My Father in His throne” (Revelation 3:21), would be met by the claim that if God would exempt them from passions, they also could do what Christ had done.

That God exempted Christ from the passions that corrupt men, is the acme of all heresy. It is destruction of all true religion and completely nullifies the plan of redemption, and makes God a deceiver and Christ His accomplice. Great responsibility rests upon those who teach such false doctrine to the destruction of souls. The truth, of course, is that God “spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us” (Romans 8:32); rather because His nature was sensitive to the least slight or disrespect or contempt, His tests were harder and His temptations stronger than any we have to endure. He resisted “even unto blood.” No, God did not spare or exempt Him. In His agony He “offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to save Him from death, and was heard in that He feared.” Hebrews 5:7.

He were a son, yet learned He obedience by the things which He suffered.” Verse 8.

In view of all this, we repeat the question, how did this God-dishonoring doctrine find its way into this denomination? Was it the result of close and prayerful study by competent men over a series of years, and were the final conclusions submitted to the denomination in public representative meetings, advertised beforehand in the Review giving the details of what changes were contemplated, as the denomination has voted as the proper procedure? None of these things were done. An anonymous book appeared, and men were judged and the brakes tightened on any one who objected.

Here is the story of how these new doctrines found their way into the denomination as reported by Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse, editor of the religious journal, Eternity, in the September, 1956, issue of his magazine, later issued as a copyrighted article entitled “Are Seventh-day Adventists Christians?” With permission we quote from this article. We may inject that Dr. Barnhouse advises us that the entire content of the article was submitted to the Adventist brethren for approval before publication. The fact that this report has been in print for nearly three years and no correction or protest has been forthcoming from our leaders would strongly argue that they accept the truthfulness of the account.

Dr. Barnhouse reports that “a little less than two years ago it was decided that Mr. Martin should undertake research in connection with Seventh-day Adventism.” Mr. Walter R. Martin was at that time a candidate for degree of Doctor of Philosophy in New York University and also connected with the editorial staff of Eternity. Wishing to get firsthand and reliable information, Mr. Martin went to Washington to the Adventist headquarters where he got in touch with some of the leaders. “The response was immediate and enthusiastic.”

Mr. Martin “immediately. . . perceived that the Adventists were strenuously denying certain doctrinal positions which had been previously attributed to them.” Chief among these were the question of the mark of the beast, and the nature of Christ while in the flesh. Mr. Martin “pointed out to them that in their bookstore adjoining the building in which these meetings were taking place, a certain volume published by them and written by one of their ministers categorically stated the contrary to what they were now asserting. The leaders sent for the book, discovered that Mr. Martin was correct, and immediately brought this fact to the attention of the General Conference officers, that the situation might be remedied and such publications be corrected.”

This concerned particularly the doctrine of the mark of the beast, one of the fundamental doctrines of the Adventist church held from near its beginning. When the leaders discovered that Mr. Martin was correct, they suggested to the officers that the situation be “remedied and such publications be corrected.” This was done. We are not informed which publications were so “remedied and corrected,” nor if the authors were notified before the changes were made; nor if the duly appointed book committee was consulted; nor if the book editors or the publishing house were agreeable to the changes. We do know, however, that in the Sabbath school lessons for the second quarter of 1958, which dealt with the book of Revelation, chapter by chapter, the thirteenth chapter which discusses the mark of the beast was entirely omitted. Chapter 12 was there, so was chapter 14, but there was no chapter 13. The Sabbath school lessons had evidently been “remedied and corrected.”

It is certainly anomalous when a minister of another denomination has enough influence with our leaders to have them correct our theology, effect a change in the teaching of the denomination on a most vital doctrine of the church, and even invade the Sabbath schools of the world and withhold from them the important lessons of Revelation 13. For our leaders to accept this is tantamount to an abdication of their leadership.

The Same Procedure

But this is not all. Dr. Barnhouse reports that the same procedure was repeated regarding the nature of Christ while in the flesh, the subject with which we have been here dealing. Our leaders assured Mr. Martin that “the majority of the denomination has always held (the nature of Christ while in the flesh) to be sinless, holy, and perfect, despite the fact that certain of their writers have occasionally gotten into print with contrary views completely repugnant to the church at large.”

If our leaders told Mr. Martin this, they told the greatest untruth ever. For the denomination has never held any other view than that expressed by Mrs. White in the quotations used in this article. We challenge our leaders, or anybody, to produce proof of their assertion. How grossly untrue is the statement that certain writers got into print with views “completely repugnant to the church at-large.” Mrs. White was one of those writers who “got into print.” Hear also what our standard book, Bible Readings for the Home Circle, sold to the public by the millions, has to say on the subject. I have before me two copies, one printed by the Pacific Press in 1916, the other by the Southern Publishing house in 1944. They both read alike. Here is the accepted teaching by the denomination:

“In His humanity Christ partook of our sinful, fallen nature. If not, then, He was not made ‘like unto His brethren,’ was not ‘in all points tempted like as we are,’ did not overcome as we have to overcome, and is not, therefore, the complete and perfect Savior man needs and must have to be saved. The idea that Christ was born of an immaculate or sinless mother (Protestants do not claim this for the virgin Mary), inherited no tendencies to sin, and for this reason did not sin, removes Him from the realm of a fallen world, and from the very place where help is needed. On His human side, Christ inherited just what every child of Adam inherits—as inful, fallen nature. On the divine side, from His very conception He was begotten and born of the Spirit. And this was done to place mankind on vantage-ground, and to demonstrate that in the same way every one who is ‘born of the Spirit’ may gain like victories over sin in his own sinful flesh. Thus each one is to overcome as Christ overcame (Revelation 3:21). Without this birth there can be no victory over temptation, and no salvation from sin (John 3: 3-7).” Page 21.

In explanation of how these writers “got into print” with their views, our leaders told Mr. Martin that “they had among their number certain members of their ‘lunatic fringe,’ even as there are similar wild-eyed irresponsibles in every field of fundamental Christianity.” I think this is going too far. Mrs. White did not belong to the “lunatic fringe” who got into print, nor did the authors of Bible Readings. Our leaders should make a most humble apology to the denomination for such a slur upon their members. It is almost unbelievable that they should ever have made such statements. But the accusation has been in print nearly three years, and there has been no protest of any kind. I am humiliated that such accusations should have been made, and even more so that our leaders are completely callous in their attitude toward them.

That the reader may see for himself the original report of Dr. Barnhouse, I herewith reproduce portions of the reprint, “Are Seventh-day Adventists Christians?” This is not the report in full, but only that part which relates to the questions here discussed. Later I shall present other extracts.

“A little less than two years ago it was decided that Mr. Martin should undertake research in connection with Seventh-day Adventism. We got into touch with the Adventists saying that we wished to treat them fairly and would appreciate the opportunity of interviewing some of their leaders. The response was immediate and enthusiastic.

“Mr. Martin went to Takoma Park, Washington, D. C., the headquarters of the Seventh-day Adventist movement. At first the two groups looked upon each other with great suspicion. Mr. Martin had read a vast quantity of Adventist literature and presented them with a series of approximately forty questions concerning their theological position. On a second visit he was presented with scores of pages of detailed theological answers to his questions. Immediately it was perceived that the Adventists were strenuously denying certain doctrinal positions which have been previously attributed to them.

“As Mr. Martin read their answers he came, for example, upon a statement that they repudiated absolutely the thought that seventh-day Sabbath keeping was a basis for salvation and a denial of any teaching that the keeping of the first day of the week is as yet considered to be the receiving of the anti-christian ‘mark of the beast.’ He pointed out to them that in their book store adjoining the building in which these meetings were taking place a certain volume published by them and written by one of their ministers categorically stated the contrary to what they were now asserting. The leaders sent for the book, discovered that Mr. Martin was correct, and immediately brought this fact to the attention of the General Conference officers, that this situation might be remedied and such publications be corrected. This same procedure was repeated regarding the nature of Christ while in the flesh which the majority of the denomination has always held to be sinless, holy, and perfect despite the fact that certain of their writers have occasionally gotten into print with contrary views completely repugnant to the Church at large. They further explained to Mr. Martin that they had among their number certain members of their ‘lunatic fringe’ even as there are similar wild-eyed irresponsibles in every field of fundamental Christianity. This action of the Seventh-day Adventists was indicative of similar steps that were taken subsequently.

“Mr. Martin’s book on Seventh-day Adventism will appear in print within a few months. It will carry a foreword by responsible leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist church to the effect that they have not been misquoted in the volume and that the areas of agreement and disagreement as set forth by Mr. Martin are accurate from their point of view as well as from our evangelical point of view. All of Mr. Martin’s references to a new Adventist volume on their doctrines will be from the page proof of their book, which will appear in print simultaneously with his work.

“Henceforth any fair criticism of the Adventist movement must refer to these simultaneous publications.

“The position of the Adventists seems to some of us in certain cases to be a new position; to them it may be merely the position of the majority group of sane leadership which is determined to put the brakes on any members who seek to hold views divergent from that of the responsible leadership of the denomination.

“To avoid charges that have been brought against them by evangelicals, Adventists have already worked out arrangements that the Voice of Prophecy radio program and the Signs of the Times, their largest paper, be identified as presentations of the Seventh-day Adventist church.”

In closing this paper, I wish to re-emphasize certain salient facts:

1. Questions on Doctrine, page 383, states that Christ was exempt. The Spirit of Prophecy makes clear that Christ was not exempt, from the temptations and passions that afflict men. Whoever accepts the new theology must reject the Testimonies. There is no other choice.

2. Mr. Martin was instrumental in having our teaching on the mark of the beast and the nature of Christ in the flesh changed. Similar changes were made in other books, but we are not informed what those changes are.

3. Our leaders have promised not to proselytize. This effectively will stop our work for the world. And we have promised to report to Mr. Martin those who transgress.

4. We have been threatened to have the brakes applied to such as fail to believe and follow the leaders. Such are characterized as ‘wild-eyed irresponsibles’ and are said to constitute the “lunatic fringe.”

5. We are appalled to learn that in some way these evangelical clergymen have had enough influence with our leaders to cause the Voice of Prophecy and the Signs of the Times to trim their sails to “avoid charges that have been brought against them by evangelicals.” This is terrifying news. These organs are instruments of God, and it is unbelievable that the leaders should permit any outside influence to affect them. In this a great sin against the denomination has been committed that can be blotted out only by deep repentance of the guilty parties, or in lieu of this, that the men concerned quietly resign from holy office.

Our members are largely unaware of the conditions existing, and every effort is being made to keep them in ignorance. Orders have been issued to keep everything secret, and it will be noted that even at the late General Conference session (1958) no report was given of our leaders’ trafficking with the evangelicals and making alliances with them. Our officials are playing with fire, and the resulting conflagration will fulfill the prediction that the coming Omega “will be of a most startling nature.”

Seven times I have asked for a hearing, and I have been promised one, but only on the condition that I meet privately with certain men, and that no record be given me of the proceedings. I have asked for a public hearing, or if it is to be a private one, that a tape recording be made, and that I be given a copy. This has been denied me. As I cannot have such a hearing, I am writing these messages which contain, and will contain, what I would have said at such a hearing. Can the reader surmise the reason why the officers do not want the hearing I ask?

I am a Seventh-day Adventist, and I love this message that I have preached for so long. I grieve deeply as I see the foundation pillars being destroyed, the blessed truths that have made us what we are abandoned.

I am thankful to be in good health and wish that the blessing of the Lord may be with each reader. We have come to strenuous times, and it behooves each to keep close to God in these perilous times. The Lord be with you.