Your ShelfYour Projects

Signs of the Times, Vol. 1, No. 30.

The Sermon

Signs of the Times

Jun 3, 1875

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, California · Jun 3, 1875

The Sermon.

By Eld. J. H. Waggoner

THE LAW OF GOD.—No. 1.

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.

MAN AT CREATION.

WERE the history of the creation of the world written out as fully as modern histories are written, it would furnish a volume of absorbing interest. But it would, doubtless, have less of the grandeur and sublimity which attaches to the brief account given in Genesis. While the superficial reader gathers comparatively little from the brief record in Genesis 1 and 2, the careful, the studious, and above all the reverent reader, is awe-struck with the majesty of the events passing before his view. The style is so simple that a child is interested in the recital; yet it seems as if eternity were needed to so unfold our powers that we may be able to comprehend the facts set forth.
The world was made to be inhabited; Isa. 45: 18; and to man was given the dominion of the earth. He was formed in the image of his Maker; he was designed to be the crowning glory of the glorious work. And in considering this, man has almost exhausted the vocabulary to describe his own dignity and importance.
But the word of God, whether in brief or particular, is always truthful. With all his powers for good, for high and noble purposes, man soon fell from his state of innocence and happiness. The record of his creation is very soon followed by the record of his sin. Turning his back on his privileges, his happy home, and his Creator and Benefactor, he suffered himself to be led by his worst enemy. He refused the favor of Heaven, the society of angels, and sacrificed life itself, without any assurance of any benefit. A sigh of regret escapes us at the thought. But the story is repeated every day, and even, to some extent, in our own lives. Here we leave the history of events to examine the principles involved in man's rebellion, and to consider how we stand related to those principles.
Though the record in Genesis is very brief, giving us but little idea of man's knowledge of the will of God, or of God's revelation to man at that time, there are certain declarations elsewhere made which are confessedly, of universal application, whenever, and wherever obligation and responsibility exist. These apply to a man in his first state as certainly as they apply to us at this time. Thus an inspired writer has said, "Sin is the transgression of the law." Therefore, where sin existed, law existed; and in harmony with this necessary conclusion another inspired one has said: "Where no law is there is no transgression, and sin is not imputed when there is no law."
Some have contended that the law was not necessary for man in his unfallen condition, but was first made known after he became a sinner. But, according to the texts quoted from John and Paul, that cannot be true. Had the law not existed, man could not have been a transgressor; and whatever his actions might have been there could have been no imputation of sin had there been no law. So far as the existence of law is concerned, man, at his creation, sustained the same relation to the government of God which we do now. Men, and among them some who are reputed to be wise, have speculated over the supposed ignorance of man in his primeval state, before he had the sad experience of sin. That he was ignorant they conclude solely from the fact that he was without life's experience. But experience is not always necessary to knowledge; nor is it the best means of knowledge in matters of wrong, where guilt must attend the experience. A revelation from God concerning the nature and result of sin is far better than experience; and this revelation man received. Unfortunately, for the race he was not content with this, but ventured on a forbidden path, and to his sorrow proved what he could not trust, that the word of God is truth.
As there can be no transgression where there is no law, even so also in the absence of law there can be no obedience. Hence, had not God revealed his law to man he could not have developed a character, either good or bad.
The silence of the first chapter of Genesis in regard to God's making known the several precepts of his law to man, has been taken as evidence that they were not then made known. But this conclusion is altogether unreasonable. That God held converse with man is a revealed truth; though in the very brief record of Genesis we have but little said concerning that truth. But in revelations afterward given we learn all that is necessary to instruct us on the subject. Cain exhibited a consciousness of guilt, and God dealt with him as with a guilty person. This is all in harmony with the application of Paul's declarations concerning sin and the law, in his letter to the Romans; but not in harmony with the idea that the law which forbids murder had not then been revealed. Abel presented an offering to the Lord which looked to redemption in the plan of the gospel. But, assuming that the gospel plan had not then been revealed to man, his offering is only a mystery.
We find the offerings to the Lord were common in the early history of mankind. Only one, that of Abraham as recorded in Gen. 15, was by divine direction given in the history. But we have an account of his building an altar to the Lord several years before this.
God is no respecter of persons. It is true that he had respect to Abel and to his offering rather than to Cain and to his offering; but it was because Abel offered his by faith. Heb. 11: 4. Cain was also told that he should be accepted if he did well; and if not sin was at his door. It is true that of that generation Enoch only was translated; but he walked with God as the others did not. True, that to Noah was revealed the coming of the flood and the means of escape; but the reason is found in the declaration of the Lord that only Noah was "found righteous in this generation." Abraham, also, was called to an eminent place, as the father of the faithful; but he was "the friend of God;" and God said he knew him, that he could commend his works. So it was and so it ever will be. "In every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."

KNOWLEDGE OF GOD'S LAW.

A law to be of force, or to be enforced on just grounds, must be given by proper authority, and the author, and his right to govern, must be known to the individuals amenable thereto. The fact that men, in the patriarchal age, were treated as sinners, is sufficient evidence that they had a knowledge of God as Law-giver and Governor, and that they so far understood the claims of his law as to incur guilt in its violation. But the main point of inquiry is this: Was the law of God known by the patriarchs the same that was afterward proclaimed to Israel? This we answer in the affirmative, and shall endeavor to maintain the affirmation by Scripture evidences.
That the law of ten commandments have ever been considered the moral law, and preeminently the law of God, is by no means accidental. It alone was spoken by the voice of God in the hearing of all the people. It alone was written by the finger of God on the tables of stone. It alone was placed in the ark beneath the mercy-seat, upon which the priest sprinkled the blood of the sin offering, thus showing that their sins were violations of that law, and that their violations of that law must be blotted out in order that they might be accepted with God. The objection that the present wording of the ten commandments is not suited to the condition of an unfallen or sinless race does not present any real difficulty, as it is not the present wording on which we insist. But we do insist that the ten commandments contain substantially all moral obligation, covering, as they certainly do, all moral relations. And we claim that all of these, substantially, were known to the patriarchs and to those living in that age. Though we have no direct declaration that they were given to the people in that age, we have direct evidence of their knowledge of them, and of their being held responsible as sinners for their violation of them. We will briefly notice them in order.
1. When God spake from Sinai, he first commanded, "thou shalt have no other Gods before me." This commandment not only forbids the holding of gods in preference to him, but also having them before him or in his presence: this would exclude the worship of false gods from all parts of the universe, all parts being present, or "naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do." In considering this commandment, we can appreciate the remark of the psalmist, "Thy commandment is exceedingly broad." Ps. 119: 96. As every individual is continually a transgressor who does not love God with all his heart, and has not chosen him as his chief good, every object of his pursuit is an idol preferred to God, whom he has rejected.
When Abraham's servant came to the house of Laban, he said, Come in, thou blessed of the Lord. Gen. 24: 31. Afterwards, when Jacob had served his appointed time for his wives, and desired to return to his own country, Laban requested him to remain because he had learned by experience that the Lord had blessed him for Jacob's sake. Chap. 30: 27. Notwithstanding this acknowledgment of the true God, and that blessings proceeded from him, we find that he transgressed the first of God's commandments, and had other gods. When Jacob fled from Laban, he pursued him, but God appeared to Laban, and warned him not to touch Jacob; yet immediately after God had thus manifested himself to him, he accused Jacob of having stolen his gods. Jacob denied the charge, and said, with whomsoever thou findest thy gods let him not live. Chap. 31: 24, 26, 30, 32. When the two sons of Jacob had slain the Shechemites, Jacob was told to go to Bethel and build an altar unto God, who appeared unto him. And Jacob said to his household, and to all that were with him, "Put away the strange gods that are among you and be clean... and I will make an altar unto God who answered me in the day of my distress." Chap. 35: 1-4. Here it is not only evident that the first commandment was broken, but they understood that they were unclean in the sight of God, and not fit to approach the altar of God, while the strange gods were among them.
2. Idolatry is manifested in various ways, and the gods anciently worshiped were of various kinds; while some worshiped the sun and the hosts of heaven (Deut. 4: 19; 17: 3), others made to themselves images "fashioned with a graving tool." Ex. 32: 4; Isa. 40: 19, 20. Against this latter practice the second commandment was given: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image... thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them." The gods that Laban had were of this kind: "And Laban went to shear his sheep, and Rachel had stolen the images that were her father's." Gen. 31: 19, 34, 35. The gods also that Jacob required his household to put away, were "among them, and in their hands." Chap. 35: 1-5.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. No mention is made of this commandment or its transgression in the book of Genesis. We will further notice this in connection with the fourth commandment, which we pass for the present.
5. Honor thy father and thy mother. There is no express mention of this precept in the book of Genesis. Ham was cursed for dishonoring his father. Gen. 9: 21-25. Here we may properly apply the rule, quoted from Paul, found in Rom. 5: 13.
6. Thou shalt not kill. Whatever excuses may have been framed for others on the ground of ignorance, Cain has been universally considered a murderer. God dealt with him as a transgressor of a known law; and an inspired writer has declared that he was "of the wicked one, and his works were evil." 1 John 3: 12. Lamech transgressed the same commandment, and judged himself more guilty than Cain. Gen. 4: 8-11, 23, 24. God made known to Noah his disapprobation of this sin. Chap. 9: 5, 6. Beyond this it might be urged that the principle of self-preservation would lead to human enactments, as safeguards for human life, and that mere regard for such laws, deterred from the commission of this crime; but this reasoning will not hold good in the case of the Hebrew midwives, recorded in Ex. 1: 16, 17. Here the command was to kill all the male children; but the midwives would not obey this human law; for they feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them." Then they must have known that the law of man was contrary to the law of God. Though we have no formal giving of the law recorded in the history of Genesis, we have, as above, the most positive evidence that it was given and well known before it was spoken on Sinai.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Numerous passages in the book of Genesis show that this was known to be sinful by mankind in general. When Abraham denied his wife, and she was taken by the king of Gerar, the Lord suffered him not to touch her, and Abimelech said he had taken her in the integrity of his heart and innocency of his hands; and plead that Abraham had told him she was his sister; showing that he knew before that it would have been sinful to have taken another man's wife; and he said to Abraham, "thou hast brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin." Gen. 20: 5-9; 12: 12, 13, 18, 19; 26: 6-10. When Judah was made acquainted with the trespass of Tamar in this respect, he said, "Bring her forth and let her be burnt." Chap. 38: 24. In the absence of any revelation on this subject, it truly might be regarded as a singular fact that Judah had the same idea of the desert of this crime that the Lord revealed to Moses more then two centuries afterwards. See Lev. 21: 9. Abimelech, king of Gerar, also took the wife of Isaac, supposing her to be his sister, and afterward said to Isaac, "One of the people might lightly have lain with thy wife, and thou shouldest have brought guiltiness upon us." Chap. 26: 9, 10. Positive testimony is afforded on this point by the case of Joseph. Refusing to comply with the immodest request of his mistress, he said, "How, then, can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?" Chap. 39: 7-9.
8. Thou shalt not steal. By reference to Gen. 30: 33, it will be seen that Jacob and Laban understood the matter of this commandment. Laban reproved Jacob for stealing his gods. Chap. 31: 19, 30. Now Jacob knew not that Rachel had stolen them, and gave sentence that whosoever the gods were found with should not live. Verse 32; see also, verse 39. When Joseph's messenger accused his brethren of having stolen his silver cup, they declared their honesty in that they had brought again the money which they had found in their sacks' mouths, and said, "How then should we steal out of our lord's house silver or gold?" They made the same decision in this case that their father had made before them, namely: "With whomsoever of thy servants it be found, both let him die and we also will be my lord's bondmen." Chap. 44: 4-9.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Nothing positive can be found in the book of Genesis relative to this particular commandment, but Joseph was wickedly imprisoned because his mistress bore false witness against him. Gen. 39: 7-20.
10. Thou shalt not covet. The transgression of this commandment is also rather implied than plainly brought to view; but the fact that the transgression of the tenth must precede the violation of the eighth, and that the eighth was known and its violation considered worthy of death, is sufficient evidence on this point for the present, as we intend to offer proof that the whole ten were known and observed before the days of Moses. (To be Continued.)

The Night Cometh.

TIME’S sun is fast setting, Its twilight is nigh, Its evening is falling In cloud o’er the sky; Its shadows are stretching In ominous gloom; Its midnight approaches, The midnight of gloom. Then haste, sinner haste, there is mercy for thee, And wrath is preparing—flee, lingerer, flee.
The vision is nearing The Judge and the throne! The voice of the angel Proclaims, “It is done.” On the whirl of the tempest Its Ruler shall come, And the blaze of his glory Flash out from its gloom. Then haste, sinner haste! there is mercy for thee, And wrath is preparing—flee, lingerer, flee.
With clouds He is coming! His people shall sing; With gladness they hail him Redeemer and King. The iron rod wielding, The rod of his ire, He cometh to kindle Earth’s last fatal fire. Then haste, sinner, haste! there is mercy for thee, And wrath is preparing, flee, lingerer, flee. —Sel.

Repentance and Baptism by Immersion.

By Aaron A. Thayer

BY, AARON A. THAYER.
THE private life of Jesus was very commonplace. The biography of his youth, as recorded in the Bible, is almost bare of events. Excepting the public excitement created by the Persian sorcerers, improperly called "wise men" by our translators, there is nothing especially notorious in the life of our Lord until he was nigh about thirty years of age. Public attention was first called to his claims to the Messiahship by John the Baptist. John came as a whirlwind of reform. Stormy, impetuous, denunciatory, a Jew, pouring out wrath upon the Jews, he blew a trumpet and called the nation to repentance. He had the fiery eloquence of Elijah. He rebuked with the spirit and power of Elijah. He did not commend Moses. He 'scouted the idea of salvation through Abraham. He scorned the doors of temple and synagogue. Like a religious free-booter, he betook himself to the open country. He had neither parchment nor phylacteries, nor brazen utensils. His only ceremonies were to pray and to preach and to baptize his converts in water.

REPENTANCE.

But the baptism of John was the baptism of repentance. And what did he mean by repentance? And is there any fresh light on this trite subject? If one enters upon a religious revival and says he is sorry for his sins, and becomes excited and freely weeps, and goes home and weeps, and goes to bed and weeps, is that repentance? Yes, just as much as digging a cellar is building a house, and no more. Sorrow for sin is a preparation for repentance, but one may be sorry every day and not repent in all his life. An intemperate man is sorry every morning after a night's debauch, but he may never repent for all that. St. Paul affirms that "Godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of" (2 Cor. 7: 10). Surely then sorrow is not repentance, but the forerunner and an instrumentality of repentance.
St. Luke has given us a commentary on John's doctrine of repentance: "And the people asked John saying, what shall we do then? He answered and saith unto them, He that hath two coats let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat let him do likewise. Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said to him, Master, what shall we do? And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you. And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages." (Luke 3: 10-14.) Repentance with John was a moral reformation. It did not begin and end in religious excitement and praise and prayer. It required practical benevolence, honorable financial dealings, and an orderly life, and obedience to contracts. And Jesus himself made the decalogue the doorway into his kingdom. An affectionate, and honorable, truthful, and dutiful everyday life, is the basis of all religious regeneration and justification. Judaism, John the Baptist, and Christianity, all agree in this. If one is not sorry enough for his sin to do right, his repentance is like bubbles of foam on a river, one moment here then gone forever.

BAPTISM.

Consider now the matter of baptism. Baptism by water was not then a new religious ordinance. Why, therefore, was this John surnamed the Baptist? Was it not because he laid so much stress upon the ordinance? because he made it the only ordinance? and because he baptized every class of people, whether or not they participated in other ceremonies then accounted orthodox and fundamental? The publicans and soldiers, and probably many of the people, who came to his baptism, were not Jews. But John did not demand circumcision and the blood of the temple, and the ritual of the synagogue. As if he had said, "Don't mind the blood of the bulls and goats—don't mind the washing of hands and the tithes of mint and cummin—don't mind the hollow and longdrawn ceremonies of the Scribes and Pharisees—repent and be baptized only." And so they called him John the Baptist, because he laid so much force upon this ordinance. The same philosophy originates names in our day. The modern names of Baptist, Universalist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopalian, etc., are applied to different bodies of religious people by reason of the prominence which they give to some one doctrine, ceremony or form of government.

BAPTISM AND THE LORD'S SUPPER.

And now let it be observed that among all the religious ceremonies of antiquity, Jesus seems to have endorsed two only, viz.: baptism by water and the eating of bread and wine. The one was in memory of him as a reformer and Saviour; the other marks the date of our own reformation and salvation as his followers. As to the special mode of administering or accepting these ordinances the New Testament gives no specific directions. We are not told to partake of the bread and wine while kneeling or standing or sitting. We are not told to accept them from the hand of a priest, nor by proxy, as the priests shall eat and drink in our stead. The example is in favor of supper in the evening, in an upper and lighted room, and with the guests reclining at the table. The Master was the central figure, and no servant in attendance. So, likewise, whatever we learn about baptism, we must gather from the strength of ancient language and from the customs of the people. Reasoning from this basis I am obliged to confess that the people who are called immersionists and Baptists have the argument. And as this is an unexpected admission on my part, I proceed to give the Biblical reasons for my belief.

NO SPRINKLING NOR POURING.

1. Negatively: The common word for sprinkling (rheonizo) was never, in a single instance, used by any New Testament writer in connection with this ordinance. And when we consider the very frequent mention of sprinkling in the Bible, both of blood and of water, it seems unaccountable that we should not find the simple statement of the sprinkling of some person in the New Testament, if sprinkling had been an ordinary form of administering this ordinance. And if the sprinkling were exceptional, much more would the given cases have been mentioned. We also read much about pouring, and pouring out, etc. But no writer in the New Testament has applied any one of the six words rendered to pour, in a single instance, to this ordinance. I also find seven different words and compounds of words in the Greek Testament which are applied to washing. But in no single instance is any one of these words applied to this ordinance. But if pouring or washing were sometimes practiced in this ordinance, the omission of the ordinary words for washing and pouring is unaccountable and absurd.
2. Affirmatively: I find only one word used by the New Testament writers to express what we understand by baptism. [By the one word I include also its derivatives.] I find, moreover, that if there be any word in the Greek language which means to dip, to plunge, to immerse, this is the word, viz: the word used in baptizing. When Jesus pointed out the Judas who should betray him and said, "He it is to whom I shall give a sop when I have dipped it," (John 13: 26), he used this particular word. And in the variation of his phraseology by each writer, all the evangelists have used this same word: Matthew worded it, "He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me." (26: 23.) Mark's wording was, "It is one of the twelve that dippeth with me in the dish." (14: 20.) But each evangelist used a form of the word to baptize. Moreover, when the rich man in hades cried out to Father Abraham, "Have mercy on me and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue," (Luke 16: 24), I find the same word again. And when the revelator described the transfigured Messiah as riding upon a white horse, and upon his head a multitude of crowns, and from his eyes came flames of fire, he said that "he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood." (Rev. 19: 13.) Here is the same word again. It was the common word for dip or plunge. Homer in the Odyssey uses the figure of a smith plunging the hot steel of the hatchet and ax into cold water to set the edge. And this is the word he uses—the word rendered baptize a hundred times in the New Testament.
Moreover: the ancient meaning of the word was so sharply drawn that the persons who dipped the cloth in the tubs and vats of dyeing establishments were called baptoi, i. e., baptists. And hence the word became so intimately associated with the art of dyeing, that an ancient order of Thracian priests were called Baptæ, because they stained and dyed their faces so as to look like women.

BAPTISM AND ANCIENT BATHING.

I find also that the ancient Greeks associated this word with their baths, bathing establishments, and bathing places. The variations of the word would be somewhat as follows: Bapto, to dip baptees, one who dips or dyes; baptisma, that which is dipped or dyed; baptiso, to dip repeatedly, to dip under and to bathe; baptisteerion, a bathing place or swimming bath, etc., etc. And these are not ecclesiastical interpretations of the word. They apply to its common usage long before Jesus was born, and to the reading of all the Greek classics both before and after his birth. Now whatever John the Baptist and Jesus and his apostles meant by the ordinance of baptism, its mode of administration is described by every sacred writer by the ordinary terms for bathing and dyeing, and by no other terms. And I now declare unto you, without equivocation or mental reservation, that we might just as wisely affirm that immersion does not mean to plunge or submerge, as to say that baptize does not, i. e., in the common meaning of the term in olden times.

NATURE'S BAPTIZING PLACES.

Consider, furthermore, that not only John the Baptist, but Christ and the Evangelists, labored in the open streets and country. Prejudice and bigotry shut them out of the synagogues and established places of worship, and they preached in the groves and mountains, and beside the seas, and lakes, and rivers, and pools of water. The form of the language, which describes this ordinance, indicates a going down into the water, and coming up out of the water. I think that Jesus went down into the Jordan; and if any word in the Greek language could express the idea that he was bodily immersed and went under the water, as a cloth in dyeing, and as a person in bathing, then that idea is expressed by the Greek and English language in the chapter before us. It is clearly expressed and I see no ambiguity nor doubtfulness in the record.
And I think the form of baptism which was used by John the Baptist was accepted by Jesus and practiced by his apostles. Yes, this mode of baptism was so engrafted and rooted in the church that in the third century there was a most fierce ecclesiastical opposition to baptizing even the sick and the dying in any other way than by a full bath in the water. The historians tell us plainly that baptism by affusion or sprinkling, did not become universal until the fourteenth century.
Our next inquiry is, If these things be so, what ought Christians to do about it? If we find that our customs and doctrines are in conflict with the requirements of the Bible, then abandon them and go back to first principles. Biblical plans and divine ordinances can hardly be improved. But is the ordinance of baptism a requirement of the Bible? Without doubt it was a custom. It was the mortar in laying the corner-stone of Christianity. Every inspired man builded with this ordinance, while, he wrought upon that temple of God which is the church of Christ. But was baptism more than a custom? Was it a requirement? Was it an injunction and a part of the apostolic commission? I should say that the apostles were commanded to preach and to baptize in one commission, and an obedient servant was as much commanded to do the one as the other. And I suppose the command to be equally binding upon the ministers of the gospel everywhere and in all ages. We are to preach and baptize in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.—Scranton Free Press.

Examination of Acts 15.

By D. M. Canright

Acts 15 is always appealed to as teaching the abolition of the ten commandments, so we will examine it: "And certain men which came down from Judea, taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When, therefore, Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem, unto the apostles and elders about this question." Verses 1, 2. It is plainly stated what the question was, viz.: circumcision. Notice that Paul and Barnabas go up to this council on purpose to have this question settled. In his letter to the Galatians he refers to this. Chap. 2: 1-23. "But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses." Verse 5. Is this the decalogue? No, indeed. It is expressly said to be the law of Moses relating to circumcision. A great council of all the apostles and leading brethren was called at Jerusalem to consider this question. Verses 1-6. After much discussion Peter arose and said, "Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" Verse 10. The ceremonial law with its innumerable rites, its washings, its distinctions of clean and unclean, and its sacrifices, was indeed a difficult law to observe. It might well be termed "a yoke." Of it the Lord had said, "I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live." Eze. 20: 25. To this law Peter refers.
Are the ten commandments a yoke grievous to be borne? Look at them. 1. Have no gods but the Lord. Is this a yoke of bondage? Who, dare affirm it? 2. Do not worship an image. Did the disciples find it grievous to obey this? Did they want liberty to disobey it? 3. Do not profane God's name. Was this a yoke hard to bear? Skip the Sabbath. 5. Honor your parents. Is this the galling yoke? 6. Don't kill. 7. Nor commit adultery. 8. Nor steal. 9. Nor lie. 10. Nor covet. Where do we find a hard yoke, in any of these, which ought to be thrown off? No, it is not there. Then it must be the Sabbath, if in the decalogue at all. But is it a hard thing to rest upon God's sacred day and give him one day out of seven? But that was not the subject about which they were troubled. It was circumcision, concerning which there is not one word in the whole decalogue.
After thoroughly discussing this question, the apostles wrote to the Gentiles thus: "Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law; to whom we gave no such commandment. * It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well." Acts 15: 24-29. There, says one, the apostles have enumerated and brought over into the gospel all that it was necessary to keep of the old law. But they do not mention the Sabbath; therefore it is not binding. Profound conclusion! Look again. They do not say a word about swearing, lying, stealing, murdering, or coveting. Therefore these are not to be obeyed any longer! Indeed, not one of the ten commandments is mentioned at all. Every item enumerated is found in either the ceremonial or the civil law. The meats offered to idols was food set before an idol and then removed, to be eaten by men. Blood, and things, strangled were forbidden by the Levitical, law. Lev. 17: 13-16. Fornication was, no doubt, one of the minor branches embraced in the seventh commandment; but there was a civil law directly mentioning and prohibiting it. Lev. 19: 29; Deut. 23: 17. Notice that this was not done away, but retained because it had a bearing upon the moral law.
Notice this important fact: The great question before the apostles was whether or not a certain law was still to be kept by Christians. Verses 5-24. They decide that it is not, with the exception of four points which they enumerate. So much of that law, which they here select out should still be observed. All the rest is to be disregarded. If, therefore, the ten commandments and the moral precepts of the Old Testament are included in "the law" here under discussion, then Christians can lie, steal, covet, &c. Yea, and the commands to love God and your neighbor are also abolished with all the moral precepts of the Old Testament! This conclusion cannot be evaded, for the apostles distinctly say that excepting the four items mentioned, no part of "the law" under consideration is to be observed by Christians. If, therefore, there was only one law in the Old Testament, if "the law" covers all the precepts of the Old Testament, then the great commandments to love God with all your heart, Deut. 6: 5, and the second, to love your neighbor as yourself, Lev. 19-18, are abolished! What a blasphemous conclusion! What do our opponents do with this dilemma? What do they say about it? Just nothing at all. They are speechless. And yet they will doggedly cling to their position and bring it up again and again with all these absurdities staring them in the face.
But all is plain and consistent when we understand that the reference is, not to the moral law and its innumerable precepts and explanations throughout all the Old Testament, but to the ceremonial and civil law given through Moses and peculiar only to the Jews. This is further evident from the fact that the decree of the apostles related only to the Gentiles. Says James, My sentence is, that we trouble not them which from among the Gentiles are turned to God." Verse 19. This law has no bearing upon them, hence they need not keep it. But none can deny that the Gentiles were under as much obligation to keep the moral law as were the Jews, which shows that the decalogue was not the law under consideration.
D. M. CANRIGHT.

Gossip About Others’ Faults

What a world of gossip would be prevented if it were only remembered that a person who tells you of the faults of others, intends to tell others of your faults.
Continue reading: Remarks on the Prophecy of Joel