PAUL's relation of his own conversion, in Rom. 7, is highly instructive on this point. He says: "I had not known sin, but by the law." "For I was alive without the law once." His conscience was at ease while he was in the way of sin. So little was he aware of the true nature of his own actions that he thought he was doing God service in persecuting the church of Christ. "But when the commandment came, sin revived." In the absence of the law, or of his understanding or receiving the law, sin did not appear. "I had not known sin, but by the law." And when sin revived, or he knew sin, then, says he, "I died." It will be noticed that he speaks of the life and death of sin, and the life and death of himself, but never of the life and death of the law. The contrary has been inferred from verse 6, which says, in the text, "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held." But the margin gives the correct reading: "Being dead to that wherein we were held." This is certain, for, 1. It agrees with all the context; see verse 4, and others. 2. Every other version, and all authorities, give this construction. 3. The original for "being dead" (apothanontes) is plural, and therefore cannot refer to the law, which is singular, but must refer to the brethren.
Turning back to chap. 6:1-8, he speaks of our being both dead and buried. Dead with Christ; dead to sin, or transgression; dead to the law as far as it has a claim on our lives on account of sin, for "the wages of sin is death." It was because Paul was a sinner that he found the law to be death unto him. It was "ordained unto life." This is confirmed by many scriptures. The Lord repeatedly said of his commandments that they who did them should live. Lev. 18:5; Neh. 9:29; Eze. 20:11; Gal. 3:12. Life and death were set before them in the commandments. Deut. 30:15-20; Matt. 19:17, 18, etc.
Some have become confused over the expressions, "dead to sin," "dead to the law," thinking, perhaps, there was identity in the two; but Paul directly contradicts that idea, in verse 7: "Is the law sin? God forbid." The law is against sin and the sinner. By the commandment sin becomes exceeding sinful. Verse 13. The conclusion to which the apostle comes is the point of great interest to us. Did conversion to Christ turn him away from the law, and lead him to speak of it in terms of disrespect? By no means. After the commandment, convincing him of sin, and thereby leading him to Christ, he said: "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." And again: "For we know that the law is spiritual." And of his own feelings—the feelings of a divinely renewed man—toward the law, he said: "For I delight in the law of God after the inward man." And of the relation of mankind in general to the law, he said: "The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Conversion to Christ takes away the carnal mind, and removes the insubordination to, or rebellion against, the law of God.
If it be yet claimed that the law of God is abolished, we would say, there can be but two reasons urged why it should be abolished. 1. Because it was faulty in itself, and not worthy of being perpetuated. But this is a grave reflection on the wisdom of the Lawgiver; for if that law were not perfect, then he gave only a faulty law, not worthy of the respect of his creatures. This is, in effect, the position which some take. But we wonder they are not shocked at their own irreverence. And this reason also contradicts all the scriptures which have been quoted which speak of the law as holy, just, good, perfect, spiritual, and containing the whole duty of man. 2. It may be urged that the circumstances of the transgressors made it necessary. On this we refer to the remarks before made on the conditions of pardon. It is certainly not consistent with good government, with justice, to abolish a perfect, holy law because rebellious men have violated it. Nor can even that necessity be urged, since a system of pardon has been instituted which is sufficient to fully meet the wants of the transgressor. But in harmony with every principle of justice and right, it avails only for those who penitently turn away from their transgressions.
As this law is holy, just, good, and perfect, it must be so in all its parts. No one part of a holy law can be impure, or, of a perfect law be imperfect. But the man of sin, the papal power, despite its professions, has sought to corrupt and pervert or change the holy covenant. Dan. 7:25. To establish the worship of images, it has decided that the second commandment is ceremonial, and therefore not proper to be associated with moral laws. To introduce a festival day, the Roman Sun-day it has decided that the fourth commandment is ceremonial, so far as it relates to the observance of a particular day, notwithstanding God blessed and sanctified the particular day on which he rested, to wit: the seventh day.
None can deny that the Sabbath was instituted or made at creation; for then God rested on the seventh day. This day was not, therefore, a Jewish Sabbath, as it is so much claimed, but the Sabbath (rest) of the Lord, as the Bible always represents it to be. Space will not here admit of an argument on this point of the law, but we will notice two prominent objections urged against it, namely, that its observance was not required from the date of its institution; and that it is not moral as the other parts of the decalogue. In regard to the first, the Saviour says it "was made for man;" and we well know in what period of man's history it was made. The following remarks seem decisive on this point:—
"The Hebrew verb kadash, here rendered sanctified, and in the fourth commandment rendered hallowed, is defined by Gesenius, 'to pronounce holy, to sanctify; to institute an holy thing, to appoint.' It is repeatedly used in the Old Testament for a public appointment or proclamation. Thus when the cities of refuge were set apart in Israel, it is written: 'They appointed [margin, Heb. sanctified] Kadesh in Galilee in Mount Naphtali, and Shechem in Mount Ephraim,' &c. This sanctification or appointment of the cities of refuge, was by a public announcement to Israel that these cities were set apart for that purpose. This verb is also used for the appointment of a public fast, and for the gathering of a solemn assembly. Thus it is written: 'Sanctify [i. e., appoint] ye a fast, call a solemn assembly, gather the elders and all the inhabitants of the land into the house of the Lord your God.' 'Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, sanctify [i. e., appoint] a fast, call a solemn assembly.' And Jehu said, Proclaim [margin, Heb. sanctify] a solemn assembly for Baal.' Josh. 20:7; Joel 1:14; 2:15; 2 Kings 10:20, 21; Zeph. 1:7, margin. This appointment for Baal was so public that all the worshipers of Baal in all Israel were gathered together. These fasts and solemn assemblies were sanctified or set apart by a public appointment or proclamation of the fact. When, therefore, God set apart the seventh day to a holy use, it was necessary he should state that fact to those who had the days of the week to use. Without such announcement, the day could not be set apart from the others.
"But the most striking illustration of the meaning of this word may be found in the record of the sanctification of Mount Sinai. Ex. 19:12, 23. When God was about to speak the ten commandments in the hearing of all Israel, he sent Moses down from the top of Mount Sinai to restrain the people from touching the mount. 'And Moses said unto the Lord, The people cannot come up to Mount Sinai; for thou chargedst us, saying, Set bounds about the mount and sanctify it.' Turning back to the verse where God gave this charge to Moses, we read: 'And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves that ye go not up into the mount or touch the border of it.' Hence, to sanctify the mount was to command the people not to touch even the border of it, for God was about to descend in majesty upon it. In other words, to sanctify or set apart to a holy use Mount Sinai, was to tell the people that God would have them treat the mountain as sacred to himself; and thus also to sanctify the rest-day of the Lord was to tell Adam that he should treat the day as holy to the Lord.
"The declaration, 'God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it,' is not indeed a commandment for the observance of that day; but it is the record that such a precept was given to Adam. For how could the Creator 'set apart to a holy use' the day of his rest, when those who were to use the day knew nothing of his will in the case? Let those answer who are able."—J. N. Andrews' History of the Sabbath, pp. 16–18.
In regard to the morality of this commandment, we may compare it with any of the others, assured that it will be sustained by any argument that will prove their morality. Take the eighth for example. No one can be proved guilty by merely proving that he took and used a certain piece of property; beyond this it must be proved that the property was another's, to which he had no right. Thus this commandment rests upon the right of property; and if this were not recognized, it would be a nullity. But surely no one can prove a clearer right, or put forth a more positive claim to any property, than has the Lord to the seventh day. Many times in his immutable word has he told us it is his; that he has hallowed it; and he warns us against desecrating it, or appropriating it to our own use. If it be an immorality to take without license what our neighbor claims as his, how much more so to take against God's positive prohibition what he claims as his own.
A little reflection or examination will be sufficient to convince every one that the position here taken in reference to the maintenance and perpetuity of the law of God is in strict harmony with the immutable principles of justice and good government. While every argument presented in favor of its abolition, is contrary to those principles, and subversive of government. No one who has regard for the honor of God and for the integrity of his Government, should hesitate for a moment to decide where the truth lies on this important subject.
Time Once Lost
TIME once lost is lost forever.
Is God Particular?
By Dr. Parker
"THEN Elisha said, Go borrow thee vessels abroad of all thy neighbors, empty vessels; not a few. And when thou art come in, thou shalt shut the door upon thee and thy sons, and shalt pour out into all the vessels, and thou shalt set aside that which is full." 2 Kings 4:3, 4.
Some one will say, "Why all this bother about shutting the door, and gathering vessels, and pouring out oil; could he not have helped the woman without all this detail?" But so it was; and if she had failed in aught she would have lost the blessing.
I remind you of Israel’s first king. Saul was told to go and slay the Amalekites; and he returned saying he had fulfilled God’s command. "What mean the bleating of those sheep and the lowing of those oxen in mine ears?" "Oh!" said Saul, "I forgot for the moment; yes, to be sure, I did spare a few sheep and oxen, but it was for the purpose of sacrificing to the Lord." This was an obliviousness with a consequence; he lost the kingdom through it.
Just so, my friend, when you begin to question what God commands,—"What is the use of this appointment?" "Where is the good of that injunction?"—you are lost.—Dr. Parker.
"I'll Turn over a New Leaf."
It is all very well for you to say that you will "turn over a new leaf." But let me ask, what about the past black leaves of guilt? The school boy, after spilling the ink on the page of his copy book, turns over a new leaf, resolving that in the future he will be more careful; but "turning over a new leaf" does not remove the blotted one, and soon the teacher's eye detects the blot; and punishes him for his carelessness.
It may be, dear reader, at one time you were addicted to drinking or swearing or other bad habits; but of late you have "turned over a new leaf," and are becoming what the world calls a "reformed" person. This is right and proper, but don't forget that future good conduct can never blot out past disobedience.
A merchant finds that he is in difficulties. He takes his cash-book, and begins a "new leaf," forgetting that there is a "carried over" and a "brought forward" column. New figures on the "new leaf" won't pay the old debts. Every page of our life account is headed with a "brought forward."
Reader "turning over a new leaf" won't do for you. You must become a new creature in Christ Jesus.—The Watchman.
The Sabbath-School.
Lesson for Pacific Coast.—October 27.
1 THESS. CHAPTERS 4, 5.
LESSON NOTES.
"WE beseech you, brethren, . . . . to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you," &c. The Thessalonians had imbibed the idea that the Lord was coming in their day, and therefore some of them at least deemed it unnecessary to labor, and were leading dilatory and negligent lives. The apostle cautions them against this gross error, and gives as a reason "that ye may walk honestly toward them that are without, and that ye may have lack of nothing." This advice is specially applicable to believers in the Lord's soon coming at the present time. The time has now indeed come for us to look for him in this generation; but instead of slacking our diligence in business or our efforts for the truth, the reasons for greater energy are apparent. Presumptive acts to show faith in the near advent of the Lord only show a fanaticism which is readily detected by the world. We want now to show our faith by our works, and not by our indolence. We have not yet passed the time of needing food and clothing, and we have need to work with our own hands for this purpose, besides supplying the urgent demand for means to send the last message of warning to the world. We have not only a duty to "walk honestly toward them that are without," but an honest conversion will lead to an earnest regard for the welfare of our fellow-beings. This was the example of our Lord and his followers.
"THE day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night" (chap. 5 : 2), is a text much abused by the opponents of the advent doctrine. They overlook the fact that this manner of coming is only upon a certain class—those who shall be suddenly destroyed, and for whom there will be no escape. Were the same attention paid to verse 4—"But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief"—all would be plain; and there would be a more general application of verse 6—"Therefore, let us not sleep, as do others, but let us watch and be sober." In Amos 3 : 7 we find this comforting assurance: "Surely the Lord God will do nothing but he revealeth his secret to his servants the prophets.
"REJOICE alway." If more heed were given to this injunction, much long-faced Christianity might be dispensed with. Emphasis is laid upon this idea in Phil. 4 : 4: "Rejoice in the Lord alway; and again I say, rejoice." When the Christian has come to the point where he can, after cruel scourging and imprisonment, rejoice in being counted worthy to suffer shame for the name of Christ, he will find little to murmur or complain about, and causes for rejoicing will be ever rising before him. Acts 5 : 41. Paul not only rejoiced "in hope of the glory of God," but he says, in Rom. 5 : 3, "we glory in tribulations also, knowing that tribulation worketh patience." Brethren, how is it with you? Do your trials work patience, or do they beget murmurings.
DESPISE not prophesyings. This is an inspired warning that applies to us as well as to the Thessalonians. But prophesyings are despised in the church to-day. And why? Because it is alleged that we are liable to be imposed upon by false prophets. But there have been false prophets ever since there were true ones, but this was never a reason for despising prophesyings. The duty to "prove all things, hold fast that which is good," did not originate, nor end with Paul's letter to the Thessalonian church. It was always a duty, and there was always the means of testing whether the teaching was of God. Every judgment, as well as all the darkness that has ever befallen the human race, has resulted from the despising of prophesyings or teachings of God's servants. If we "quench not the spirit," there will be little danger of our despising prophesyings.
W. N G..
THE brethren were evidently looking for the coming of Christ, and their own translation, but did not understand the hope for those who had fallen asleep. Paul would remove their ignorance, and give them the true ground of hope. "Which have no hope." Not that others were not hopeful of something, but, as he wrote to the Ephesians, "There is one hope," and they who have not that hope have no hope at all. Verse 13.
"Them that sleep in Jesus will God bring with him." Not bring them with him from Heaven when he comes. There are no saints sleeping in Heaven. But as he rose from the dead; they will be brought with him from the dead. The expression, "with him," denotes manner, not time. In Rom. 6 we are said to be "buried with Christ," not at the time when he was buried, but "in the likeness" of his death and burial. There are two resurrections. They who are brought from the dead (cf. Heb. 13 : 20) "with him," are raised "in the likeness of his resurrection."
WHAT he taught concerning the hope for the sleeping saints, and their salvation at the second advent, he said "by the word of the Lord." This is not a matter of conjecture or mere inference. Other theories of meeting the Lord and being with him may be more pleasing to those who live by theories and personal sympathy, but they who love the truth, and wish to abide by the word of the Lord, will accept this saying of Paul, who also said to the Colossians, "when Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory." Col. 3 : 4.
"SHALL not prevent." Shall not precede, or go before. We which are alive at Christ's coming shall have no precedence over those who are then sleeping. At the sounding of the last trump they will be raised incorruptible, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. First: that is, before we are translated; this has no reference to the first of the two resurrections. And as we shall not go before them, neither shall they precede us. Of the ancient faithful ones Paul wrote: "And all, having received a good report through faith, received not the promise; God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. Heb. 11 : 39, 40. We shall not go before them, and they will not receive the promise or be perfected before us. All the faithful shall be glorified together when "our life shall appear." So, in this manner, shall we ever be with the Lord. The Scriptures give no other time or manner of being glorified, perfected, or being with the Lord. These are words of comfort, because they are truth; they are the word of the Lord. They shut out all doubt; remove ignorance, and give the true ground of hope.
Cautions for Sabbath-Schools.
By Editor
Our efforts have been unceasing to impress upon the officers and teachers of Sabbath-schools, that the object of the school is not the acquisition of a certain amount of Bible knowledge, but the receiving of spiritual benefit. The school ought to be, what it is often called, "the nursery of the church." But a wail is coming up all over the land that the Sunday-schools are not the nursery of the church, but the rival of the church; that as the interest in the Sunday-school increases, the interest in the church and in its worship decreases. We have seen the same tendency, sometimes, in some of our Sabbath-schools.
We find an article in the S. F. Chronicle on "The Sunday-school System," from which we gather some interesting facts.
The Churchman, commenting on Dr. Huntington's attack on the evils of the Sunday-school system, says: "There is no nobler work than the religious education of children. There are no greater evils than those which have grown up in connection with that education in Sunday-schools."
The Christian Intelligencer complains of the Sunday-school as the successful rival of public worship, saying: "The pews are not filled, so as to show that church-going is made a family matter and a Medo-Persian law of the home. The children, like the angels, are few and far between. They go to Sunday-school!"
In a recent convention address, a bishop declared: "There is a great deal to cause anxiety in the condition of many of our Sunday-schools, or, rather, in the wholly inadequate provision made in them for the only task that warrants their existence—the religious training of children."
Commenting on the late discussion of Sunday-schools by the Central Council of the Diocesan Conference in England, the Church Standard says: "We hope that it will be long before the Church in England sets aside, ignores altogether, and attempts to supersede the responsibility which rests upon parents, guardians, sponsors, or other suitable persons to train those whom God has placed in their charge. No Sunday-school system, no matter how admirably devised and how thoroughly carried out, can undertake this duty and relieve those to whom God has committed a trust."
At this Conference Canon Elwyn related some amusing incidents to show that, while the classes were instructed in a routine work, they were essentially lacking in correct ideas of the object of the Sunday-school and of worship.
The Guardian gives much space to a review of a recent pamphlet entitled, "Sunday-Schools, Measured by Acknowledged Christian Principles and Proved Unwarranted and Destructive." The letters on Sunday-schools, the author says, were "accepted by the Episcopal Register and printed as far as Letter No. 3, when the Sunday-school Association of Philadelphia interfered with the publisher of the Register against printing any further letters, and the fourth and last letter, though in type, was suppressed." The Guardian says of them: "We are glad to see this pamphlet, for we know of no subject which better deserves the attention of churchmen to-day;" and though it is of opinion that the writer has stated the case too strongly, it thinks "there are evils in connection with Sunday-schools as conducted in some places which demand to be corrected, and which well deserve his strong language of rebuke."
The Christian Advocate has published a series of articles under the title, "The Church or the Sunday-School, which?" The conference of the Second Moravian District of Pennsylvania declared itself pressed by the question, and among the conclusions reached and formulated; this seemed to be the most largely accepted, viz.: "The Sunday-schools must be revolutionized from the very bottom if it is hoped to make the children Christians." At a quarterly meeting of the Presbytery of Philadelphia Central, a Committee on Sunday-schools reported: "Cases are before us in which the Sessions are represented as having no influence whatever in the schools, so that a continual friction, if not an irrepressible conflict, is engendered between the Sessions and the schools."
And the unavoidable tendency of such a state of things is to make the Sunday-school scholar look with contempt upon the church; to lose all reverence, and all regard for worship. It is not a wonder that the question is asked, "The church or the Sunday-school, which?"
We once saw a school of a Seventh-day Adventist Church close, when the superintendent, a number of the teachers, and most of the scholars, deliberately took their books and marched to their homes, leaving the minister, who was to conduct the services, with half a congregation, smarting under the indignity offered to the worship of which he had to take charge. Fortunately, he so forcibly denounced the unseemly proceeding that the school was turned into a different channel, and its influence for evil immediately checked. This was an extreme case, but it shows the necessity for watchfulness, lest the object of the school be lost sight of, and it prove a stumbling-block to those who ought to be only benefited by it.
We append a few rules which we consider essential to the efficiency of Sabbath-schools.
1. The parents must take an interest in the school, and assist their children to learn and understand their lessons. And this should be a subject of prayer with them. The children should not be sent to school to learn their lessons.
2. The teacher should strive above all else to make, what our fathers used to call, an "improvement" of the lesson. The great central ideas of the Scriptures are obedience to God, and a Saviour from sin. A personal Saviour should be the ever-present thought with the teacher. Every lesson should be made to tend to that point.
3. The teacher should make personal appeals to the scholars, and, by kind inquiry, know the state of their feelings in regard to salvation.
4. The teachers must pray for their classes. Let them know that you do pray for them.
5. Make the scholars feel at home with you. Give each a kind greeting at the opening of the exercises. Cultivate familiarity, but not irreverence.
“Yom Hakkippurim.”
THIS is the Hebrew form used in Lev. 23:27 for “day of atonement.” It is the plural of yom kippur, from the verbal root kah-phar, to cover. Why the plural is used we are not able to say, unless it be taken to represent the aggregate, the sum of the work for all the people. This year the day fell on Thursday, Oct. 11, it being always on the tenth day of the seventh month in the Hebrew calendar.
This is the great day of Judaism. It is, as a Rabbi once said to us, the day of Judgment. We have no doubt that this is the correct Scriptural idea of the day, it being a type of the period of the closing work of the priest, the antitype of Melchisedek, being the actual work of the Judgment for the people of God, for their full acquittal and final justification, preparatory to their translation.
We find an interesting article on this subject in the Jewish Times, of San Francisco, of Oct. 5, which we feel strongly inclined to reproduce in our columns. But our present object is to call attention to one idea contained therein, presented in the following words:—
“No one will deny that among the various festivals and holidays consecrated to religious worship among men, none are found comparable with our Day of Atonement. The idea that individual transgressions should be expiated and removed by contrition, abstention from food, and sincere penance, has never taken root outside of Israel.”
On this day the business houses of the Jews, of which there are many on Broadway in Oakland, are scrupulously closed, and that people entirely abstain from food during the whole day.
The Jews are not the only people who believe in fasting, but the Times is doubtless correct in its statement that they alone believe in remission of sin through this means. And with them the idea is comparatively modern. They never derived it from their Scriptures. It cannot be drawn from the writings of Moses and the prophets. It has grown up among them under their peculiar circumstances. Since the destruction of their temple in Jerusalem, by Titus, they have had no kodesh or sanctuary in which to present an offering before the Lord.
The Scriptures are always reasonable, whatever infidels may say to the contrary. When the Lord gave his commandments to Israel, he suspended the issue of life and death upon their obedience. “See, I have set before thee this day life and good, death and evil; in that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments.” Deut. 30:15, 16. “Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments; which if a man do, he shall live in them.” Lev. 18:5. And so it was said through the prophet, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” Eze. 18:4. God is the author of life, and man is his creature; the right both to order and to dispose of life rests with him alone. The penalty for the violation of the law of God is the death penalty. “The wages of sin is death.”
What, then, would reason teach us is necessary to save the sinner from death, without impairing the integrity of the law and the Government? The idea presented in the law of Moses is that of sacrifice. And the idea underlying the sacrifice is that of substitution. “If any man of you bring an offering unto the Lord, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, of the herd, and of the flock. . . . And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord; and the priests, Aaron’s sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar,” &c. Lev. 1:2, 4, 5. And upon yom kippur, the day of atonement for all the people, the high priest was to take a goat for a sin offering, as follows: “Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy-seat, and before the mercy-seat; and he shall make atonement for the sanctuary [hak-ko-desh], because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel,” &c. Lev. 16:15, 16.
In these instances, as also in all others, the atonement was made with blood. And the reason of this is given in the same book. We have noticed that it was appointed unto the sinner to die. By sinning man forfeits his life. How was this forfeiture to be met? The Lord revealed by Moses as follows: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul.” Lev. 17:11. Life is the forfeit, and the life being in the blood, the blood represents the life, the forfeit. It is literally life for life. As is said in Lev. 1:4; the offering is accepted for the sinner; its blood (or life) for his life.
The word atonement is used in a limited sense, in the Old Testament, in one or two instances, as the word forgiveness or pardon is used in a limited sense in the New Testament. Matt. 18. But this does not at all militate against the truth stated in the Old Testament, that “it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul,” or the statement of the same truth in the New, as follows: “Without shedding of blood is no remission.” Heb. 9:22.
In Lev. 16:31, the Lord said of the tenth day of the seventh month: “It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute forever.” And, of the same in Lev. 23:32, “It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls.” This was necessary in order that the work of the high priest in the sanctuary might avail for them. But the affliction of soul, fasting and prayer, did not make the atonement. It did not remove any past guilt. That was the work of the priest; and the efficacy of his work depended solely on the blood which was sprinkled upon and before the mercy-seat. It was the blood which made atonement for the soul; it was the blood which cleansed and hallowed the sanctuary from the uncleanness, the sins of the children of Israel. It was through the work of the priest that Israel was accepted of the Lord; and it was solely by virtue of the blood of the sin offering that the priest was accepted as the representative of the people.
The same truth was taught in the festival of the passover. A number of things were enjoined upon the children of Israel in their preparations for leaving Egypt, one of which was that they should put the blood of the lamb of the pa-sach upon the lintel and posts of the door. “For the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians, and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and upon the two side-posts, the Lord will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.” Ex. 12:23. Though everything else were done as it was ordered, if the blood had not been seen upon the lintel and posts of the door, the angel of destruction would have visited them as he did the Egyptians.
The idea of atonement by blood, because it is the life, and of substitution to vindicate the honor of the broken law in the sinner’s behalf, is as reasonable as it is apparent in the Mosaic law. But it only reaches its logical or reasonable conclusion in the Christian system. This speaks as follows: “It is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.” Heb. 10:4. This is according to the just principle that, though the greater may be accepted for the less, the less cannot reasonably be accepted for the greater. On yom kippur the high priest offered the blood of a bull for himself and for his house, and the blood of a goat for the whole house of Israel. This was an offering to the Lord for the sins of all the people. By sin all the people had forfeited their lives, as it was said by the prophet, “The soul that sinneth it shall die.” But a goat is not as valuable as a man. Its blood or life is not as precious as the blood or life of a man. How much less could a goat answer as the true and just equivalent of a whole nation. So reasonable is the declaration that the blood of a goat cannot take away sins, that a man who was condemned to death would feel that he was dishonored if the Government should offer to accept the life of a goat in his stead. “Am I,” he might inquire, “of so little worth that I can be ransomed by a goat?” But he would feel highly honored if a “prince of the blood” should offer to die in his stead. This would humble him, and cause him to feel the great demerit of his sin. He would by this be led to turn away from sin, which was so offensive to the Government, and required so great a sacrifice.
But it may be asked, “Is not this a reflection on the revelation which God made to Israel?” It is not; as we before said, it is the logical result of that system, and is the true teaching of the law and the prophets. The insufficiency of those sacrifices was clearly taught in such scriptures as Psalm 50, and the first chapter of Isaiah. It is only as types that they were useful and instructive. It was plainly revealed that a priest should arise after the order of Melchisedek; and as clearly revealed that the anointed—the Mashiah—should “be cut off (but not for himself),” Dan. 9:24-26. The prophecy of Isaiah, especially chapters 52 and 53, clearly sets forth all that the Christians claim on this subject. The “servant” of the Lord who was to be exalted very high, before whom kings should shut their mouths, was prophesied of as one “wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities.” His soul was made an offering for sin. How impressive are the words of the prophet: “Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he has poured out his soul unto death; and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”
We admire, we reverence, and we love Judaism and the Hebrew Scriptures. They are the only foundation of the Christian system. But Israel has nearly lost the spirit of “the law and the prophets.” The Scriptures have not changed, but the people have changed. They have been so long without a sanctuary and a priest and an offering that they do not deem these things essential to the system of Judaism. But in truth they are the heart and life of Judaism. And the glory which has departed from the sons of Abraham would return if they would fully accept the teachings of their own prophets concerning the Lord’s Anointed, the Messiah, and of the true nature and use of sacrifice for sin. We make our plea before Israel to-day as Paul made his defense before Agrippa, “Saying none other things than the prophets and Moses did say should come: that the Anointed should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and to the nations.” Acts 26:22, 23.