--- title: Improvement Era description: Monthly periodical of the Mormon church, 1897 onward. This library holds the issues of November 1897 to December 1930. authors: - Roberts, B. H. collections: - periodicals tags: - magazine - improvement-era periodical: Improvement Era volume: 11 number: 8 published: 1908-06 publisher: Young Men’s Mutual Improvement Associations publisher_place: Salt Lake City language: en type: magazine reference: 'B. H. Roberts, "Seventy’s Council Table," *Improvement Era* 11, no. 8 (June 1908): 634–637.' source: url: https://archive.org/details/improvementera1108unse transcription: Transcribed from the Internet Archive scan of each issue (the item for each issue is named in the issue's own source); unnumbered advertising leaves are omitted, printed page numbers are kept as page markers. identifier: improvementera1108unse start_page: 634 end_page: 637 rights: status: public-domain basis: US publication 1930 or earlier (published 1908-06) source: https://archive.org/details/improvementera1108unse publication_year: 1908 note: The Internet Archive item metadata carries a blanket "© Copyright by Intellectual Reserve, Inc." notice. The library owner judged it inapplicable because this issue was published in 1908, before 1931; a scan-level notice does not restore copyright. --- # Seventy’s Council Table — : . SEVENTY'S COUNCIL TABLE. BY B. H. ROBERTS, MEMBER OF THE FIRST COUNCIL. Excusing Seventies From Class Meetings. This question is submitted: — "Have the presidents of stakes or bishops of wards any authority to excuse a Seventy from attending his class meetings without the consent of the presidents of his quorum?" Certainly not. Common courtesy would say "no," if no other principle governed the matter. But other principles do govern the case. The Seventy's quorums are not ward organizations, nor stake organizations, but are general Church quorums, having their local presi- dency in the councils of the respective quorums, and a general presi- dency in the First Council. In their quorum capacity and labor, they are under the jurisdiction of these councils, and may not be properly excused from quorum duties and appointments, except by consultation had, and consent obtained, from the local council as to members, and with the First Council as to presidents. See also the Council Table, in the May number of the Era, page 557. "Let This Cup Pass from Me."— Question: "Will you kindly confer a favor by explaining what is meant by the words of the Savior, 'If it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.' " Answer: The crucial hour in the experience of the Messiah had come "Behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners" (Matt. 26: 45). He had come to the garden of Gethsemane with his disciples; then, taking Peter and James and John apart, he said to them, "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here and watch with me." Then he withdrew apart and offered the prayer above. Luke, in describing the incident of this prayer, says, "And being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly, [the prayer was made three times] and he sweat as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground" (Luke 22: 44). The Son of God was suffering the . sorrow and anguish of a world's sin. Sin is the transgression of law; and for every transgression of law there is a penalty due, for the strength of the law is its justice and its penalty; and laws without penalty would be mere nullities- Every transgression of law, then, is attended by penalty to be paid: it en- tails suffering. How great that is in individual eases, man may know in part, for he is permitted, for his instruction, to feel the weight of his own sins in part, and behold, how great is even that partial suffering for sin ! But saith the Lord Behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent, but if they would not repent, they must suffer even as I, which suffering caused myself , even God. the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit; and would SEVENTTS COUNCIL TABLE.. 635 that I might not drink the bitter cup and shrink. Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men. IDoc. and Gov., Sec. 19, vers. 16-19). The Savior, then, in Getbsemane was passing through this ordeal of suffering for the sins of all men, he was bowing beneath the weight of the sura total of every man's sin in all the world, and in all generations thereof. He was receiv- ing the stripes due to man's sins; the itiquity of us all was being laid upon him (Isaiah 53). No wonder he "sweat great drops of blood falling down to the ground;" and no wonder he prayed, "Father, if it be possible let this cup pass from me." But it was not possible. The means of salvation had to be provided for a fallen world. The bands of death for man had to be broken; the suffering due to a world's sum total of sin, had to be endured, that mercy, through love, might be introduced into this world's economy of things. If this Christ had failed, another must needs have been appointed, for only through such redemption as was wrought out by the Christ was salvation possible to man. It was not pos- sible, therefore, for the cup to pass; it must be drunk, and was drunk by the Son of God; for, true to his mission, and in loving obedience, even in the very midst of his agony, he rose to the sublime heights of saying — "nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt." "And I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men." The Meaning of a Passage in Isaiah.— Question: "In the study of the Book of Isaiah in our quorum, the fifth verse of the twenty-fourth chapter, so often quoted by our elders, was discussed, and we found that it had been inter- preted differently in different missions. The main point in question is, what is " meant by the 'Everlasting covenant?' Answer: The verse in question is found in the midst of that remarkable prophecy of Isaiah's concerning the apostasy from "the everlasting covenant," "the everlasting gospel;" and of which elsewhere I have given the following exposition, which I hope will answer the above question: "Behold, the Lord maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof. And it shall be as with the people so maid, so with the priest; as with the servant, so with the master; as with the the leader, so with her mistress; as with the buyer, so with the seller; as with giver of usury to with the borrower; as with the taker of usury, so with the Lord has him. The land shall be utterly emptied, and utterly spoiled; for the mourneth and fadeth away, the world languisheth spoken this word. The earth The earth is also and fadeth away, the haughty people of the earth do languish. defiled under the inhabitants thereof." Why? "Because they have transgressed everlasting covenant. Therefore the laws, changed the ordinances, broken the and they that dwell therein are desolate; there- hath a curse devoured the earth, fore the inhabitants of the earth are burned and few men are left'" (Isaiah). Of that defilement of the earth, and the this prophecy it is to be observed .the opening sentences wretchedconditonof the inhabitants thereof, described in the not quoted, are the result of trans- and in the remaining verses of the chapter the law, changing the ordinances, and breaking the "everlasting gressing transgressing the law, and covenant." The prophet cannot have reference to 636 IMPROVEMENT ERA. changing the ordinances of the Mosaic covenant, for the Mosaic Law was not an everlasting covenant, but merely a temporary law, "added to the Gospe because of transgression" (Galatians 3). It was a law of carnal commandments to act as a schoolmaster to bring the people to Christ; and when Christ came was laid aside, having fulfiled its purpose. It was not, therefore an everlasting cove- nant, and hence was not the thing the prophet Isaiah had in mind in his great prophecy. On the other hand, Paul refers to the blood of Christ as the "blood of the everlasting covenant" (Heb. 13). Hence, it is the covenant sealed by that blood to which Isaiah must have had reference —the Gospel; and the transgression of its laws, the changing of its ordinances, the breaking of that covenant, was to result in making desolate the earth and the inhabitants thereof. Hence, the everlast- ing covenant in the passage, represents the gospel covenant. St. Luke. — The following questions are asked about St. Luke: "Was he an eye witness to the works of the Savior? Was he a Gentile? If so, why the controversy over the gospel being taken to the Gentiles?" Smith's Dictionary of the Bible (Hackett edition) has the following, bearing on the questions concerning the third evangelist: The name Luke occurs three times in the New Testament (Gal. 4; 14; II Tim. 4: 11; Philem. 24); and probably in all three, the third Evangelist is the person spoken of. To the Colossians he is described as "the beloved physician," probably because he has been known to them in that capacity. Timothy needs no additional mark for identification; to him the words are, "only Luke is with me." To Philemon, Luke sends his salutation in common with other "fellow-laborers" . of St. Paul. As there is every reason to believe that the Luke of these passages is the author of the Acts of the Apostles, as well as of the gospel which bears his name, it is natural to seek in some former book for some traces of that con- nection with St. Paul which these passages assume to exist, and although the name of St. Luke does not occur in the Acts, there is reason to believe that under the pronoun "we" several references to the evangelist "are to be added to Vie three places just quoted. Combining the traditional element with the Scrip- tural, the uncertain with the certain, we are able to trace the following dim out- lines cf the evangelist's life. He was born at Antioch in Syria, (Eusebius Hist.,* 3:4) in what condition of life is uncertain. That he was taught the science of medicine does not prove that'he was of higher birth than the rest of the disciples; medicine in its earlier and ruder state was sometimes practiced even by a slave. * * * He was not born a Jew, for he is not reckoned among them "of the circumcision" by St. Paul (comp. Co). 4: 11 with ver- 14). If this be not thought conclusive, nothing can be argued from the Greek idioms in his style, for he might be a Hellenist Jew, nor from the Gentile tendency of his gospel, for this it would share with the inspired writings of St. Paul, a Pharisee brought up at the feet of Gamaliel. The date of his conversion is uncertain. He was not indeed an "eye- witness and minister of the word from the beginning' (Luke 1 2), or he would ' : have rested his claim as an evangelist upon that ground. Still he may have been converted by the Lord himself, sometime before his departure; and the state- ment of iEpiphanius (Cont. Haer. 51: 11) and others, that he was one of the seventy disciplfe, has nothing verv improbable in it; whilst that which Theophy- lact adopts (on Luke 24), that he was one of the two who journeyed to Emmaus with the risen Redeemer has found modern defenders. Tertullian assumes that the conversion of Luke is to be ascribed to Paul. * * * fhe first ray of historical light falls on the evangelist when he joins St. Paul at Troas, and shares his journey into Macedonia The sudden transition to the first person plural in SEVENTY S COUNCIL TABLE. 637 Acts 16: 10 is most naturally explained, after all the objections that have been urged, by supposing that Luke, the writer of the Acts, formed one of St. Paul's company from this point. His conversion had taken place before, since he silently assumes his place among the great Apostle's followers without any hint that this was his first admission to the knowledge and ministry of Christ. From what is here set down, it would seem that our knowledge of St. Luke issomewhat uncertain. While not an "eye-witness" of the works of the Savior, from the beginning, for the excellent reason assigned in the quotation above, yet he may have been a convert of the Lord himself before the crucifixion. He may or may not have been a Jew, it is somewhat uncertain. Had he been a Gentile, and been received into the companv of disciples in the lifetime of Jesus, and made companion to the apostles, the thought in the third question "Why, — then, the controversy over the gospel being taken to the Gentiles?" is pertinent; — for surely had Luke been a Gentile, his case would somewhere have appeared in that controversy. The fact that it does not, is perhaps the strongest evidence that he was a Jew, either born or proselyted, when he became a convert to Chris- tianity . Result of Claiming that Revelation Ceased with the Completion of the New Testament Canon.— Recently in reading Mr. Frederic Harrison's The Creed of a Layman, I was struck with the force of the following quotation on the subject of the suicidal results to Christianity, in claiming that revelation ceased with the close, as it is called, of the New Testament canon, and think the statement of the absurdity of such a theory by Mr. Harrison might be a val- uable passage for our Seventies to use when discussing the topic of the cessation of revelation, and hence give it: We are told that this canon [of the New Testament] embodies the best forms and utterances of this spirit as it moves onwards. For a time it may be said in some measure to do so. From Moses to St. Paul the teaching of the long suc- cessions of prophets may be said to be represented. WLy^ then, does it suddenly stop there? The current of sacred inspiration itself does not pause; why, then, this abrupt cessation of its words? It would hardly satisfy us if the Jewish roll were held unopened, and the prophets and the poets rejected as uncanonical,nor if the prophets were divided from each other, or the sacred story closed before the time of Ezra. How much more would it be intolerable that the gospels them- selves should be excluded? or if we were told that the new dispensation was ideally present in the old, and the Hebrew Scriptures were adequate embodiments of the life of Christian societies? Such a suggestion sounds preposterous. But it is not thought preposterous to close the canon in the lifetime of the apostles, and to confine the eighteen centuries of many-sided Christian energy in the scanty formulae and thoughts of times when not a Christian society existed, and a catholic church was a faint vision even to the greatest of the apostles. The effort to prove that, although inadequate as a representation of succeeding ages, the Scripture surpasses all subsequent writings in intensity and elevation, may for a moment succeed. But such an argument is in the long run terribly suicidal. Directly it is urged, under any possible theory, that the highest and most distinct utterances of the church were made eighteen centuries since, and stand above and marked off from all later words, the inevitable conclusion rushes in that the church does not in reality advance, that if it grows in extent it does not rise in true strength of spiritual life — in short, that it does not develop.