Old Theology Quarterly

No. 83—An Open Letter to a Seventh-Day Adventist

number u         OLD THEOLOGY QUARTERLY.

. PRIMARY STUDIES IN TH* SCRIPTURES

BROOKLYN, N. Y.

BRANCHES: LONDON, N.W., 24 F.VERSHOLT ST.; MELBOURNE, EQUITABLE BLDG., COLLINS ST. BARMEX-ELBERFELD, COPENHAGEN, OREBKO, YVERDON-SUISSE.

An ©pnt Setter, tn a^enentlj-Bag Aihtenitat

Dear Sir and Brother:—

Even though differing from you in my views of the Law, I,feel constrained to express admiration for the zeal with which you and your, co-workers have endeavored to promulgate what you believe to be the truth of God. If we believe anything to be right we must act upon it until the Lord grants us to see otherwise. I had far rather be wrong and consistent than right and inconsistent, though it is best of all to be both right and consistent.

1 feel justified in addressing you as a Brother in Christ because of the many points upon which we can hold . harmonious fellowship. We look to the same Father in heaven. We trust in the merit of the same great, sacrifice for sin. We are seeking light from the same inspired Scripture. We are both striving to live in the way that will be to the glory of God. We see eye to eye upon the nature of the soul, the penalty for sin, earth’s restitution to Edcnic conditions, the Babylonian state of so-called Christendom, and the impending time of trouble along financial, political and social lines. Then last, but not least, we each see the necessity of suffering with Christ if we would be glorified with him, and have already suffered a little of the scorn and derision which the world hurls at the soldier

The o¹"⁵timer?tion r* ?.H the«e on which we are agreed will enable you to realize that what I am about to say respecting our differences is not meant in a spirit of wrangling, but solely for the purpose of sharing with you the blessedness and joy which has dawned in our hearts with this comforting light; and with almost every sentence, I breathe a prayer that the dear Lord will bless and condescend to use this feeble ministry to his glory.

Our differences seem to hinge largely upon the Sabbath question, so I will come immediately to its consideration.

We agree with our Adventist friends that God never authorized anyone to change the Sabbath of the Decalogue from the seventh day of the week to the first, but we do believe that just as truly as the Christian has a greater High Priest, and a greater sacrifice, and a greater tabernacle, than Israel had, so, too, the follower of Christ has a much greater Sabbath than the follower of Moses. Everything under the Jewish dispensation was typical of “good things to come.” (Heb. 10:1.) The Atonement Day, the passover, the sabbatic years, the jubilees, etc., were all figures of more important things, so why should it seem strange that the seventh or Sabbath day was typical any more than the seventh or sabbatic year? But in order that you may see this to be the Scriptural thought hear Paul in Col. 2:16, 17: “Let no man therefore judge you, in meat or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: Which ar&a shadow of good things to come; but the body is of Christ.” The seventh-day keepers will argue that the Sabbath here refers to some of those yearly occasions, which were also called Sabbaths, because part of their observance required rest from ordinary labor; for instance, the Day of Atonement. But this cannot be the meaning of Paul’s language, for he had already included all these yearly sabbaths under the words, “an holy day.” In harmony with his usual systematic forms of expression Paul first spoke of the yearly holy days, then came the monthly festivals, the new moons, and next the weekly rest days. The Christian has a sabbath too, but, as we shall see, his sabbath is as much greater than the Jewish sabbath as the substance of a thing is greater than its shadow.

You may ask: Did not the Lord in Ex. 31 :i6 speak of the seventh day Sabbath as being given for “a perpetual covenant”? I answer to this that the very identical language which the Lord used here of the Sabbath he uses elsewhere of the harvest offering (Lev. 23:14), the Pentecostal sacrifice (Lev. 23:21), the Day of Atonement (Lev. 23:31, 32) and the feast of tabernacles. (Lev. 23:41.) The same Piebrew word “olam,” which is translated “perpetual” in the seventhday reference, is the word translated “forever” in the other passages. See Young’s Analytical Concordance. So if the Advent view is correct we should still be keeping the feast of tabernacles as "veil as the Sabbath, but as some of your own brethren have shown, when dealing with the punishment of the wicked, the word “olam,” like the*Greek “aion,” really means “agelasting,” or “lasting to a consummation.” It is sometimes used in the sense of eternal but not necessarily. Thus in Ex. 29 we read of the priestly office being given to Aaron and his descendants “for a perpetual Statute,” the same wnrd “olam” Beino- i.iced But that ii does not properly mean “perpetual” in this passage is evident, for Aaron’s family lost the priesthood 1800 years ago. Note Heb. 7:11-14.

We find, then, that Jehovah used the very same language in speaking of the .weekly. Sabbath which he used respecting other Jewish institutions which passed away when that of which they were typical came, so similarly may not the Jewish Sabbath have passed away, being supplanted by a greater sabbath? Notice our Lord’s words in Matt. 5:17, 18, “Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy but to fulfil; for verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass one jot' or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law till all be, fulfilled.” Our Saviour did not say the Law should not pass away, but that it should not pass away until it was fulfilled. But he tells us first that he came to fulfil it, so if it was fulfilled in him it has passed away. There is a vast difference betweep a thing being destroyed and passing away as a result of fulfilment. The law of cicumcision was never destroyed, but it passed away and was abolished when that to which it pointed, circumcision of the heart, w'hs set forth, and it is this higher circumcision we must observe. (Rom. 2:28, 29.) Likewise Christ did not destroy the Law, or set it at naught, but his perfect life fulfilled its every requirement, as we imperfect creatures could not, and thus he became the great inheritor of all the promises of the Law, with the right to distribute what he inherited under the Law to all who would become his. Additionally the Law led to Christ and pointed him out as the holj One of whom Moses had said, “Hear ye him.” (Acts 7:37; Gal. 3:24, 25.) Therefore to consider the Law given through Moses as binding upon the Christian is to doubt whether Christ has accomplished what he came for; “to fulfil” the Law. Of course the Christian must study that Law, and he finds jewels of inspired wisdom in it, but he studies it as a shadow of better things, as typical of the blessings promised un-

bath to keep. But not only does his sabbath differ from the typical sabbath, the nature of his rest also differs. It does not merely mean a cessation from mai'.ual labor, but a rest from laboring for self in order to work and live for God. It means to rest as God ■rested after he had completed the work of creation, as the Word expresses it: “To enter into’bis rest.” God’s rest does not mean idleness, “He sends his rain and ; cause his sun to shine” on the seventh just as much as on any other day. Then how did he rest? He ceased working for himself in order to work for man through his Son. And how do we rest like him? By ceasing to work for self in order to work for him through Christ. Hear Lieb. 4:10, “For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own ■works, as God did from his.” And thfin Paul contin-trses in verse 11, “let us labor therefore,” not let us cease from labor, but labor to put down those selfish propensites which would lead us, contrary to God’s will, to live for self, instead of permitting us “to enter into that rest.” This rest of which the seventh day was a type will not end with this life, but it will continue an eternal rest, begun here and consummated in eternity.

Let me digress here to say that God’s rest day was not a period of 24 hours, but, like the six days of creation, was a long period of time. In our own language this is a very common use of the word “day,” and it is equally frequent in Bible language. (2 Pet. 3:8; Ps. 95:7-10). While the day of salvation of 2 Cor. 6:2 is already over 1800 years long, so it was with the great days of creation; they were long periods of time, and likewise the seventh day, in which God rested, is a long period; it is not over yet. However, time will hardly permit me to give you the Scriptural proofs here on this point, but if you wish I may take it up later.

But to return to the subject of this letter. In Isa. 58: 13 we have a description by the inspired Prophet of what constitutes Christian sabbath keeping. We must refrain from doing our own ways, and from finding our own pleasures, and from speaking our own words. That is sabbath keeping. But the Christian must do that every day, therefore every day must be a sabbath to him. For fear you may not apply the latter part of the verse to the sabbath let me refer you to the Revised Version, which reads: “And shalt honor it, not doing thine own ways,” etc. Every day we are to “speak as the oracles of God.” (1 Pet. 4:11.) Every day God is to work in us “to do of his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13). Every day “the steps of a good man are ordered of the Lord.” (Ps. 37:23.) So again I say, every day is a. sabbath to him who liveth “not unto himself.” Is not this a glorious magnifying of the Law?

We can now see how “Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” (Rom. 10:4.) We can understand why Paul could say in Gal. 3:19, “The Law was added * * till the Seed should come,” and then in verses 23 to 25 he boldly compares-the Law to a severe pedagogue to whom they were committed for a season, “but after that faith is come we are no longer under a pedagogue.” And we can comprehend why Paul mourns because “ye observe, days” (Gal. 4:10, 11), and intimates that the brother is weak who “esteems one day above another” (Rom. 14:5—read verses 1 to 7), failing to realize that they are all to be counted as days in which his glory is tobe sought. fl

I know how the seventh-day Adventists divide the Law into two parts, calling the Decalogue “the law of God,” and the remainder “the law of Moses,” and then claiming that Christ did away with the Law of Moses, but not with the law of God. This is an awful mistake; it was all the Law of God, because it came from him, and it as all the law of Moses in that it came through him. (Lev. 26:46; Deut. 5:5.) Thus our Saviour,, in Mark 7:10, quotes one of the ten commandments (Ex. 20:12; Deut. 5:16), and then in the same verse

a law which was not in the Decalogue (Ex. 21:i7; Lev. 20:9), and yet attributes them both to Moses. He was not the author of either, but he was the agent through whom God delivered both commands. Furthermore, ^he fact that the Law, which was until John (Luke 16:16; Matt. 11 :13), included the Decalogue as well as the ceremonial features of the Law, is proved by Rom. 7 :6, 7; for Paul, after saying, “we are delivered from the law,” leaves no doubt as to what law is meant by quoting from the tenth commandment. And as his words show we are no longer under the letter (it was the letter which was on the stones'), but under the spirit, the • antitype, that which was shadowed forth in the words on stone, the greater law of love. (James 1:26; 2:8.) When we read, therefore, in the books from Acts to Revelation about the redeemed keeping “the commandments of God,” we do not think of the letters in stone given through Moses, but of the magnified law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 8:2.) Notice another passage, viz., 2 Cor. 3:3-11. The expression, “written and engraven in stones,” and the reference to Moses’ face shining at the time is evidence that Paul is speaking of the Decalogue. In verse 7 he tells us how the Law was accompanied with such glory that it even caused Moses’ face to shine. Then in verse 8 he refers to something which would be accompanied with more glory, and following this up shows that when “the glory that excelleth” (v. 10) should come then that which was given with glory—i. e., the Law written and engraven on stones—was to be “done away.” (v. 11). Note the remarkable similarity between the Revised Version rendering of verse 11 and Matt. 5:18. Then in verses 12 to 18 Paul shows that while Israel had Moses cover his face so they could not see the glorious results of the giving of that glorious Law, yet we should refrain from covering our hearts with the veil of prejudice, etc., as we wish to see the more glorious results of this more glorious law upon the hearts and lives of our brethren, especially as it was reflected in our great Elder Brother, the Lord Jesus.—2 Cor. 3:18.             _           .

. Dear brother, much more might be written, but I must refrain from more than one or two brief statements. Paul’s preaching upon the seventh day, etc., is no endorsement of seventh-day Adventism. That was a day when the cessation from labor brought the Jews together in their synagogues and gave Paul an opportunity he gladly used. Wherever and whenever he found ears to hear he was ready to preach. There were crowds in the synagogues on the seventh day. so Paul went there, and there were numbers at the market every day, so Paul preached there on other days. (Acts 17:17.) So just as Paul esteemed those oppor-ajicities, so we esteem the opportunities afforded us on _Jn& first day, not because there is a divine command • to consider that day a sabbath abo-ce other days, although we consider it a very appropriate day for meetings of the people of God, being our Lord's resurrection day. However, refraining'from actual labor on the first day is not an endorsement of the wrong ideas many have held about it, any more than a belief in the Bible would mean an endorsement of the many wrong views which have been entertained of its teaching.

I fear the seventh-day keepers have been putting the new wane into the old bottles; let us rather use the new bottles provided through our Saviour. (Matt. 9:17.) “Prove all things,” including these things, and if found: in harmony with the Word of God may you have grace-to act upon this fuller light, of which Sinai’s light was but a type, and to rest in this better sense. It has been a great comfort to me to find that salvation did not hang upon such a slender cord as the keeping of a. weekly rest day.

_ There are other features of the Sabbath, for instance its foreshadowing of the Millennium, which I have not touched upon at all. Pastor Chas. T.Russell, of Allegheny,. Pa., has treated that phase of the subject most beautifully. Have you ever read his book, “The Divine Plan of the Ages”? It is a book of 386 pages, cloth bound, for 25 cents. The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 612 Arch street, Allegheny, Pa., supplies them. It puts the Scriptures upon the Millennium in a new light by helping to lay aside that “veil” we have already referred to.

Trusting you will be willing to receive this in the same spirit in which it -was written, and asking onr heavenly Father’s blessing upon its mission, I subscribe myself,

Your Brother in the service of the King of kings, B. H. Barton.

SABBATH QUESTIONS ANSWERED

Question 1.—Were two laws given to Israel, a ceremonial and a moral law; and was it the former only that was done away by Christ, while the moral law remains?

Answer.—There is no Scriptural authority for such a division. On the contrary, there was. but one Law, its ceremonial features providing typically for the cleansing away of sins resulting from the violation of its moral precepts. If it could be seen as the Covenant mediated by Moses, it would be evident that all of its parts must stand or fall together. But after comparing Exodus 34:28; Dent. 4:13, 14, and Heb. 8:6-8, there should be no question on the part of any one that the Ten Commandments were a part^of the Law Covenant which is to be supplanted by the New Covenant sealed with the blood [death] of Christ, its Mediator—Jesus the Head and the Church his Body.

When the apostles wrote to the new Gentile converts respecting the Law—determined not to put upon them the yoke of the Law which they as Jews had been unable to keep—and contradicting certain teachers who had said that they “must be circumcised and keep the Law," James remarked incidentally that the Law of Moses to which they referred was that “read in the synagogue every Sabbath day.”—Acts 15:9-11, 24, 28, 29, 19-21.                .

Question 2.—We Seventh-day keepers claim that God's commands are, that we labor six days and rest on the seventh; and many of us have gone to prison because of our conviction that it is our duty to labor on the first day and on all days except the seventh. And we believe that the time is coming when the keeping of Sunday will be a yet more severe test, and bring further suffering upon us.

Answer.—We have nothing to do with the making of the social laws which prohibit labor on the first day of the week; but we obey them as civil laws, as commanded in the Scriptures (Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:13); and we find it to be to our profit as well as to our pleasure. We sincerely sympathize with the poor people who are deluded by such an argument, and suffer therefor; and we admire their willingness to suffer for what they consider to be the truth. But they are mistaken. The laws of this land do not compel any man to violate his conscience by working on the seventh day or any other day.

And it is not sound reasoning to claim that a man must labor during the other six days. If so, are those days of twenty-four hours, or of how many hours? In such a case, for a man to be sick, or to go on a journey or on a visit, would be to violate the Law, and fall under its curse. What nonsense! False reasoning has

4

surely blinded whoever cannot see that the Fourth Commandment of Moses’ Law means, "[Within] six days shaft thou labor and do all thy work!”

As for future persecution on these lines, it is probable ; not because of anj' opposition to Seventh-day-keeping, but because, according to the Scriptures, there will ere long be a federation or union of religious systems which, gaining increased prestige and honor, will make the demands of popular religionists more arrogant—supposedly in the interest of peace and the cause of Christ, i Question 3.—We Seventh-Day Adventists claim that as the Mosaic Covenant had a tabernacle, with a holy place in which the high priest offered for the sins of the people during the entire year, and a most holy in which he finished that work on the last day of the year, so there is a Holy and Most Holy in heaven; and that Christ has officiated for the sins of his people in the Holy during the Gospel Age, and will for a short time before its close officiate in the Most Holy. This we understand to be the “cleansing of the Sanctuary.” We consequently used to teach that all probation ended about 1845, when Christ (we believe) went from the Holy into the Most Holy. We hold, therefore, that the judgment is all over, and that naught remains except for Christ to come forth and receive us Seventh-Day Adventists, and to destroy all the remainder of mankind.

We hold, too, that we Seventh-Day Adventists are fulfilling the “Third Angel’s Message” of Rev. 14:9-12. In the expression, “Fear God and keep his commandments,” we place the stress upon the Fourth Commandment.

Answer.—You err respecting the antitypes of the Jewish Atonement Day and Tabernacle. The antitypical Holy and Most Holy are “heavenly,” in the sense of be-, ing higher (such is the meaning of the word heavenly). In Israel’s typical service these were places: in the antitype they are conditions. All of the antitypical or “royal priesthood” have access to the Holy condition as soon as they consecrate themselves or present their bodies living sacrifices to God’s service. (Heb. 9:6-) They at once have access to the antitypical “shewbread” (Lev. 24:9), “meat to eat that the world knoweth not of.” They at once have the light of divine revelation, represented by the “golden candlestick,” which the natural man perceiveth not. (1 Cor. 2:5, 7, 9-12.) They at once have access to the Incense Altar, and their prayers and services are acceptable to God through Christ as sweet incense. Thus the first apartment of the Tabernacle represents the present condition of the Church while still in the flesh; and thus we are now blest with Christ Jesus “in heavenly places [higher conditions].”—-Eph. 113.

But the vail (death) still separates between us and the perfect spiritual condition—the divine nature into which Christ has entered, and into which he has promised to conduct all his faithful joint-sacrificers and jointheirs at the close of the Antitypical Day of Atonement.

You err also in supposing that Israel’s typical Day of Atonement was at the end of the year, to atone for past sins. It was, on the contrary, for the nation, and at the beginning, of their year, to make atonement for the whole nation and to bring the whole nation into God’s favor for the year following it. And the thank-offerings, peace-offerings, and trespass-offerings, offered by individuals during the year following, were acceptable

upon the basis of that Atonement Day offering. At the close of the year, for which the Atonement Day sacrifices applied, the people were again as defiled as the residue of Adam’s race, and required a new Day of Atonement as a basis for another year’s acceptance with God ■ as a typically justified nation.

, You err also in supposing that the coming out of the Great High priest at the close of the Day of Atonement will be for the blessing of seventhday keepers. He comes out to bless, first, the “royal priesthood,”—they that have made a covenant with him by sacrifice. (Psa. 50:5.) “They shall be mine, saith the Lord, in that day when I make up my jewels.” (Mal. 3:17.) But, as tn the type, not priests only were blessed, but “all the people,” so in the antitype all the families of the earth shall be blessed at the revelation of Christ Jesus, when he shall come to be “glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe in that [Millennial] day.” (2 Thess. 1:10.) The sacrifices and offerings subsequent to the typical Day of Atonement will find their antitypes in the Millennial Age, when all those who desire fellowship with God will come to him through the Royal Priesthood, who will offer their sacrifices for them. •                                  .

You are in serious error also respecting the Cleansing of the Sanctuary; but for our view of this subject we must refer you to Dawn-Studies, Vol. HL, Chap. 4.

As to the Third Angel’s message: Suppose we were to admit your claim, that you are fulfilling Rev. 14:9-12. That would prove nothing as to the truth or untruth of your message. The Book of Revelation is a symbolic prophecy, a history written in advance. What is occurring and what will occur are faithfully related, often without comment, just as the Old Testament prophecies relate evil things as well as good things, and often without comment. For instance, Daniel 7:8 tells about the Papal horn “speaking great things,” but does not say whether they are great truths or great untruths. So, too, in Revelation, Papacy is described and its language quoted without adverse criticism.

Question 4.—Christ- said that he came not to destroy the Law and the prophets, but to fulfil them.—Matt. 5:i7.                      ‘

Answer.—Yes, that is just what we hold: Fie fulfilled the Law Covenant, met all of its requirements, and obtained its reward, Life. That fulfilled it, for that was the end for which it was intended and given. _s .

Question 5.—Christ said, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:27.) We understand this to mean that the Sabbath was made for all mankind.

Answer.—Your inference is not reasonable. If the Sabbath were meant for all mankind, the fact should and would have been clearly stated to all mankind. But the facts are that it was commanded only of one nation, and that Christ and the apostles did not so command. In this text our Lord is showing to the Jews, to whom the command was given, that they were putting an extreme construction upon the command when they refused to do good on that day—to a fellow creature, as well as to an ox and an ass. The Sabbath was intended for the blessing of the men who were commanded to keep it: they were not created nor called as a nation simply to serve the day.

A FLOOD OF LIGHT ON MANY SCRIPTURAL QUESTIONS .

"What Sky the Scriptures About Hell" is a pamphlet which examines every text of the Bible containing the word hell and assists the Bible students in rightly dividing the Word of Truth. Sample copy Free to those too poor to purchase, who will ask for it. This should be followed by a studious reading of "The Divine Plan of the Ages," a veritable "Bible Key," opening to the consecrated children of God "hidden treasures” of divine grace, now meat in due season for such as are hungering and thirsting after righteousness. 380 pages, cloth bound, only 25 cents; paper edition, 5 cents. Free to the Lord's poor.

THE JEWISH LAW AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY

JnC ANY Christians do not realize the conditions f IIA which existed in the Church in the begin-•X is*/ ning of the Gospel Age. The Jews as a nation had been typically justified by typical sacrifices, from the Adamic curse, or condemnation, and put under the Law given at Sinai, af a Covenant under which, if obedient, they were to have life. But the Law proved valueless to them so far as giving them the hoped-for life was concerned, though it taught them some good lessons. All the other nations, known as Gentiles (heathen) were still under ■the original condemnation of Eden. Consequently when our Lord came, both Jews and Gentiles were under condemnation to death, the Jew by the Law from which he had expected so much, but with which'he was unable to comply, because of depravity, and the Gentile by the original sentence upon father Adam, from which he had in no sense escaped, not even typically as the Jew had. But the Redeemer whom God provided was sufficient for both; for in the one sacrifice of himself he accomplished the redemption of both, and reconciled both unto God in one body by the cross.—Eph. 2:16.

■The Jewish converts (and they composed the majority of the early Church) could scarcely realize the greatness of the change from the Law Covenant to the new arrangement in Christ, and were continually adding Christ’s teachings and his law of love to their Mosaic Law, thus adding to their already heavy burden, instead of accepting the sacrificial death of Christ as the atonement for their sins under the Law, and as the end of the condemnation of that Law Covenant. (Rom. 10:4; 3: 20,28.) It is not surprising when we remember their early prejudices in favor of the Law, that the spirit of truth was able to guide them but slowly into the full truth on the subject. Even the apostles were slow to learn, and we find St. Peter so slow to follow the lead of the spirit, that he had to be taught by a special vision that Gentiles needed no longer to become Jews and to conform to the Law of Moses before they could share divine favor, but that they had access to God through Christ regardless of the Law Covenant.

THE JEWISH LAW COVENANT NOT OURS

Some complained to the other apostles and brethren about St. Paul’s recognition of Gentiles, and this brought the question before them all, and led to an investigation of God’s dealings in the matter. “When they heard these things they held their peace and glorified God, saying, then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.”—Acts 11:18.

St. Paul, most easily led of the spirit, got clear views on the subject earliest, and had to oppose others among the apostles less strong and less spiritually clearsighted. (Gal. 2:11.) Jerusalem was long considered the center of the Christian religion, the largest number and oldest believers and apostles living there; and as St. Paul’s views of the changed condition of things became clearer and clearer, and he did not hesitate to preach boldly what he saw to be dispensational truth, some prejudiced ones desired to know whether the brethren at Jerusalem would concur in the advanced views, and St. Paul and Barnabas and others went up to Jerusalem to lay the matter before them and to bring back a report.                                                       .

A great debate and examination of the question on all sides followed. St. Peter and St. James, finally agreeing with St. Paul, influenced the entire council. St. Peter, reminded them of God’s wonderful dealing with Cornelius, who was justified and made acceptable to God through faith *in Christ, and not through keeping the Law, and urged. “Now, therefore, why tempt ye God, to put a yoke [Moses’ Law] upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to'-bear?” St. James said, “My sentence is that we trouble not them which from among the Gentiles are turned to God.” Then the Council so decided, and sent a written message to the confused Gentile believers, saying:— “We have heard that certain ones who went out from us [here] have troubled you with words subverting your souls [destroying your faith], saying, ‘Be circumcised and keep the Law’—to whom we gave no such commandment. ... It seemed good to the holy Spirit 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.” (Acts 15:9-29.) And even these suggestions were given as advice, and not as so much of the Mosaic Law, with penalties attached.

THE LAW COVENANT A MINISTRATION • OF DEATH

The Apostle Paul’s epistle to the Galatians (who had been Gentiles) was written expressly to counteract the influence of the Judaizing teachers who mingled with the believers of Galatia and endeavored to subvert the true faith in Christ by pointing them away from the cross of Christ to a hope of acceptance with God by keeping the Law of Moses in connection with faith in Christ: thus making Christianity merely an addition to the Law Covenant and not instead of it. This he calls “another gospel,” yet really not another, for there can be but one; hence it was a perversion of the real Gospel. (Gal. I 7-9.) And here St. Paul indicates that he knew that the apostles at Jerusalem had at first only a mixed Gospel, and that he went up to see them on the occasion mentioned in Acts 15:4, by revelation, to communicate to them that fuller, purer, unmixed Gospel which he already had been able to receive, and which he had been teaching; and, he says, he communicated it to them privately, lest their reputation should hinder them from receiving the truth—and even then some false brethren, spies, sought to compel Titus (a Greek) to be circumcised.—Gal 2:2-g.

It is further along in this same epistle that St. Paul tells of St. Peter’s vacillation on the question of the Law (chap. 2:11-16) and his words of reproof to Peter —We who are Jews by nature, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but on account of faith in Christ, even we have believed in Christ that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by obedience to the Law. Why, then, should we attempt to fetter others, or longer bind ourselves, by that which has served its purpose, in bringing us to Christ and the New Covenant?                              41

O foolish Galatians! who has deluded you ? As many as are trusting to obedience to the Law are under its condemnation or curse. “Christ hath redeemed us [Israelites] from the curse of the Law, that the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, and that we [Israelites] might receive the promise of the spirit through faith.” And surely God’s Covenant with Abraham, made four hundred and thirty years before the Law was given, cannot be annulled by that Law.—Gal. 3:1, 10, 13, 17.

Next, the apostle answers a supposed inquiry as to what was the object of the Law, and why it was given, if not necessary to the attainment of the Abrahamic promises. He says the Law was added because of sin, to manifest sin in its true light—that sin might be seen to be a great and deep-seated malady. The Law was a pedagogue, or servant, to bring to Christ all Israelites who desired to learn the true way of life.—Gal. 3:24; Matt. 11:28-30.                             §

As children are under nursery laws and subject to teachers until an appointed time, so were we (Israelites) under the Law, and treated as servants rather than as sons. We were kept under restraints, though we were the heirs through whom, according to the promise, ofhers were to be blessed. But in the fulness of time Qod sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law that ar (Israelites), being liberated, might receive the adoption of sons. And so also “because ye [who were not . under the Law, but were Gentiles or heathen] are [also now] sons, [therefore] God hath, sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts.” We were sons under tutelage, and you were aliens, foreigners and strangers, but now you and we, who are accepted of God in Christ, are fully received into sonship and heirship, and neither of us is subject to the Law.—Gal. 4:1-7.

Tell me, you that desire to be under the Law Covenant, Do you not understand what it is? It is a bondage, as allegorically shown in Abraham’s two sons. Abraham, here, is a figure of God; and Sarah, the real wife, is a figure of the real Covenant of Blessing, out of which the Christ should come as heir of all, to bless the world. For a long time Sarah was barren; so, too, for a long time the original Covenant of God, made with Abraham—“in thy Seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed”-—brought forth no fruit, until Christ Jesus. Hagar, the servant of Sarah, in the meantime was treated as Sarah’s representative, and her son as the representative of Sarah’s son. Hagar represented the Law Covenant, and fleshly Israel was represented by her child, Ishmael. For the time they represented the true Covenant and the true seed of blessing, though they were always really servants—child, as well as mother. When the true son of the real wife, the heir, was born, it was manifest that the son of the bondwoman was not the heir of promise. And to show typically that the Law Covenant was not to have any rule over the spiritual sons of God, Hagar was not allowed to become the governess of Isaac, but in his interest was dismissed entirely.—Gal.'4:21-31; Gen. 21:10.

The Apostle’s argument, based on this allegory, is, that we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the Seed to whom the promise was .made; we are not children of the bondwoman, the Law Covenant, but children of the original Abrahamic Covenant (the Sarah Covenant) born free from the slavery and conditions of the Law Covenant. And not only so born, but the Law is entirely put away from us, and has nothing whatever to do with us—“Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage”—the Law Covenant. “If ye be led of the spirit, ye are not under the Law [Covenant].”—Gal. 5:1, 18. /

But Paul asks—“Shall we continue in sin [wilfully], because we are not under the Law [Covenant] ?” (Rom. 6:15.) Shall we take advantage of our liberty to break away into more sin—because we are sons and heirs, and no longer commanded as servants,—Thou shalt, and thou shalt not? No, no; as sons, begotten of the spirit, partakers of the spirit of holiness, the spirit of the truth, we delight to do our Father’s will; and the law of obedience to his will is deeply engraven upon our hearts. (Heb. 8:10; 10:15, 16.) We gladly sacrifice our all, even our lives, in opposing sin and error, and in forwarding righteousness and truth; hence we answer emphatically, “God forbid.” We will not take advantage of our liberty from the Jewish Law Covenant, to commit sin. But if any man should think to do so, let him remember that only those led by the spirit of God are the sons of God.—Rom. 8:14.

We are not under the Law Covenant, but under divine favor, and not only so, but being justified and reconciled to God in Christ, we have gone further and accepted the “high calling,” the “heavenly calling,” and consecrated our justified lives—“even unto death”—and been accepted as members of the Body of Christ and are thus heirs of the Abrahamic (Sarah) Covenant. (Gal. 3:29.) Hence, so-far from desiring to use our liberty to indulge in sin, we, having God’s spirit,, detest sin and love righteousness and delight ourselves in the “Law of Christ”—Love. Christ’s Word is our Law^:—not a law of bondage, but of Liberty. Whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty and continueth therein [free], being not a forgetful hearer, but one who exercises his liberty, this man shall be truly blessed thereby. Such fulfil the royal law, the law of love.—Jas. 1 ;25.

THE LAW OF LOVE

If we have proved that the Ten Commandments were given to Israel, and to Israel only, and that as the basis of a Covenant made only with that nation, and if we have shown that the other nations of the world have been left by God without any Law except such traces as yet remain of the original Law, written in the nature of the first perfect man, who was created in God’s image, and that to the Church our Lord gave the Law of Love, then we have proved that the Ten Commandments should not be recognized by the Gospel Church, except as they are in harmony with the law of Love.'

Our Lord has a standard for all who accept him, as Moses, the Mediator of the Law Covenant, had ten commands for a standard. The Master said, “A New Commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another, as I have loved you.” (John 13:34.) It is the same law that was expressed in the Ten Commandments, but a more refined and more comprehensive statement of that Law, designed for a more advanced class. The people put under the Law Covenant and baptized into Moses were a household of Servants, while the people of the Law of Love are a household of God’s sons. Thus we read, “Moses verily was faithful as a servant over all his House [of Servants], but Christ [was faithful] as a son over his own House [of sons], whose house are we, ♦ if . . . .’’—Heb. 3 :6.

The expression of the Divine Law given at Sinai was exactly suited to the House of Servants to whom it was given: it was a series of instructions—Thou shalt, and Thou shalt not. The expression of the Law of Love is very different, and implies much more liberty. It simply tells those who are God’s sons, and who therefore are begotten of his spirit, You may do or say anything in harmony with love. Pure love for God will lead not only to obedience to his will, but to the study of his will, in his Word. Pure love governing our conduct toward our fellow-men and the lower animals will seldom work to their injury. It will come more and more under the guidance of the Lord’s Word, and thus we shall be perfected in love. But from the first it is a safe Law: it is a “Law of Liberty,” in that it requires us merely to act out, according to our own judgments, that which we voluntarily consecrate ourselves to do, our own wishes as New Creatures.

Since this Royal Law of Love is made only witn those whose desires are changed, who no longer love sin but are seeking escape from it as well as from its penalty, who now love God and his righteousness, it would be manifestly improper to give these “sons of God” the statement of God’s Law or will in the same form that it was expressed to the House of “Servants.” The sons are granted a Law of Liberty, the servants a Law of Bondage. The servants were told what they might and might not do; because they were servants, not sons, not begotten of the Father’s spirit; hence they needed positive commands, restraints and penalties. This is forcibly expressed by the Apostle in his exposition of this very subject in Galatians 3.

How strange you would think it if we were to say, We feel it our duty to tell the readers of this journal jwho are saints, that they should not make or worship images, that they should not blaspheme God’s name, that they should not steal from their neighbors, that. they should not murder their neighbors, nor slander them, nor bear false witness against them. The intelligent and consecrated reader would feel offended, and that justly. He would say, The Editor has a very low opinion of his readers, or he would not so address them.

Just so it would be strange indeed if God or Christ had given the Ten Commandments to the Gospel. Church as the basis of the Law of Love. And the truly consecrated and spirit-of-love-begotten ones, would have been justified in questioning the wisdom and love of putting them under an expresion of. the Divine Law so far below their nature and wish and covenant as to be almost an insult. .

But the Law of Love, while it is a Law of Liberty and an “easy .yoke” to such as have the Lord’s spirit, is nevertheless a most searching Law—discerning, scrutinizing, judging the very thoughts and intents of our hearts, as well as our actions and words. In that one word Love is expressed the very essence of the Divine Law. Love to God implies full obedience, full recognition of divine character—wisdom, love, justice and power—full harmony with and service of God, and the exercise of those qualities of character in all our thoughts, words and deeds.

THE "LAW OF THE SPIRIT OF LIFE IN CHRIST JESUS”

This Law of Love to God and our feilowmen, which we delight to obey to the extent of our ability, not of compulsion, but of a willing mind, as partakers of the spirit of Christ, is the only Law with which we have to do. While it entirely ignores the Mosaic Law, its “thou shalt.” and “thou shalt not,” it really accomplishes far more than the Mosaic Law; for, with his heart ruled by love for God and man, who would desire to dishonor God or to injure his fellowman?         .    .

But as of the Mosaic Law it was true that its utterances were only to those under it—Israelites—for “whatsoever the Law saith it saith to them who are under the Law” (Rom. 3:19), so it is true of the Law of Love; it speaks only to those who are under it, and these are only the consecrated believers in Christ. It is a law of liberty, in that all who are under it are under it from choice. They came under it voluntarily, and may leave it when they please. In this it differs greatly •from-the Law put upon fleshly Israel as a nation, in which they had no individual liberty or choice, being born under bondage to that Law.Covenant. Our Law is the Royal Law; because the “little flock,” developed under this Law of Liberty and love, is the royal family —the divine family, selected under their Lord and Head to be heirs of God, joint-heirs with Jesus Christ, partakers of the divine nature.—Rom. 8:17; 2 Pet. 114.

Those now being selected as members for the Bodj of Christ, are only such as delight to do God’s will, sons of God and “brethren of Christ,” having this likeness to Christ. And at the close of the Millennial Age, when the rod of iron shall have broken the proud hearts, and shall have caused the stiff knees to bend in obedience, and when the obstinate are cut off as incorrigible, wilful sinners, then the Law of Love and liberty will again be virtually in force over all God’s creatures. All who shall be permitted to enter upon that grand age of perfection following the Millennial reign of Christ will first have been tested, and will have given abundant proof that they delight to do God’s will and that his righteous law is continually their hearts’ desire.

ALIVE WITHOUT THE LAW ONCE

In his letter to the Romans (chapter 7), the Apostle reasons to Jewish converts to Christianity: “For,” he says, “I speak to them that know the Law.”

He then represents the Law Covenant as a husband, and Israelites bound by it as a wife to a husband. He shows that as it would be a sin for the woman to unite with another man while her husband lives, so it would be wrong for Israel to leave Moses and his Covenant of the Law, and to unite with Christ unless released by death;—either the death of the Law Covenant or their death to the Law Covenant.

It is a common mistake to suppose the Scriptures to teach that the Law Covenant died, or was destroyed by our Lord. It still lives; and all the children of Jacob are still bound by it, unless they have died to it. Only those who realize that they could not gain everlasting, life through their union with Moses (the Law Covenant) are ready to abandon all hope of saving their life by that union with Moses, to become dead to all such expectations, and to accept the death of Christ, the ransom for Adam and all his race, as the basis of a. new hope of a new life. Hence, only such Israelites as by faith reckoned themselves hopelessly dead under the Law Covenant, and as risen with Christ to a new life-secured by his sacrifice, and who in will are dead to sin, —only such could be united to Christ as the New Husband. Thus, according to the Apostle’s reasoning, the-thought of blending the two Covenants, and being united to both Moses and Christ, was wholly out of the question.—Compare Rom. 6 :2.

The text, “Christ is the end [or fulfilment] of the Law [Covenant] for righteousness to everyone [under if] that believeth” (Rom. 10:4), does not conflict with the above, because only believers are specified. (Compare Rom. 3 131; Gal. 2:19.) Eph. 2:15 should be read: “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity of the law of commandments contained in ordinances,” etc. Col. 2:I3„ 14 refers to “quickened” Jewish believers for whom the handwriting of ordinances is blotted out. Verse 20 refers to the Gentile converts who had to become dead to the “rudiments of the world,” before becoming members of Christ, the heir of the original Abrahamic Covenant typified by Sarah, even as the Jews must become dead to the rudiments of their Law Covenant, typified by Hagar.

THE LAW COVENANT NOT DEAD

That the Law Covenant with Israel is still binding upon that nation is further evident from the fact that upon their national rejection of Christ they were nationally blinded until the end of the Gospel Age (Rom. 11 :7, 25), and that God declares that he has “not cast away his people” of that Covenant, but that under that Covenant he will yet open their eyes to see Christ as the only door of hope, and that of a new life purchased with his own. (Rom. 11:2, 27, 29; compare Deut. 30:1-9.) Meanwhile, we have the evidence that their Covenant continues in force in the fact that, as a nation, they have •tor centuries been receiving the very “curses” specified under their Covenant.—See Deut. 28:15-67. Verses 4953 describe the Roman siege, etc.; verses 64-67 describe the condition of Israel since. (Isa. 59:21.) As heretofore shown*, the Lord in Leviticus (26:18-34-45) declared the symbolical “seven times,” 2520 years, of Israel’s subjection to the Gentiles; and their deliverance— A. D. 1914. Thus their present experience was foretold as a part of their Covenant.

Rom. 7:6 is not out of harmony with this explanation (that the Israelite who would unite with Christ must die to his nation’s Covenant, and that the Law Covenant is not yet dead) ; for, properly rendered,! it reads, “But now we are delivered from the Law [Covenant], being dead to that wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit [with our minds, our wills],’* and not [be required to serve] the very letter of the old, Law Covenant, which has' passed away.

*See Dawn-Studies, Vol. II., pages 88-93)         ‘

tSee marginal reading, Revised Version and DiaglotL

What was .defective in the old or Law Covenant? Was it sinful or bad? No. How came it then that under that Covenant we learned so much about sin?

Because, previous to receiving the Law, Israelites ■were like the remainder of the world—dead in trespasses and sins; and, being already under sentence of death, we were like the remainder, unrecognized of God, and without any special commands; and hence we could not disobey or increase our sin by disobedience, until the Law Covenant began to command us.

But, notwithstanding that death sentence under which we and all the world rested, we Israelites were "alive” before the Law Covenant came, because God had promised our father Abraham that somehow and at some time he would bless his Seed, and through it all the families of earth. Thus, in God’s promise to Abraham, a future life was assured to us all, before the Mosaic Covenant was made; but just as soon as that Law Covenant went into force, and required that we must obey its every com-niand, in order to secure life, that soon we found that we could not absolutely control our poor, fallen bodies, however much we willed to do so with our minds. And, ■as sin developed, we died—our hopes of life expired, because we could not keep that Law Covenant. I speak for, or as representing, our whole nation. Thus we found that the Law Covenant, promising life to the obedient, really sentenced us to death, because we could not obey its requirements. '

Thus we acknowledge that the Law and the Covenant were good in themselves, but not helpful to us, because we were fallen beings. But God intended that it should show us how imperfect we really are. (Verse 13.) For the Law is adapted to all who are in full harmony with God’s spirit—perfect beings—and this we Israelites were not; we were and are by nature carnal, depraved, even as others. And if our hearts be right, we can and will admit that we are unable to obey God’s perfect law and

that perfeetion is not to be found in our fallen flesh, even though in our mind we approve God’s Law and would gladly obey it.                               .

This is the wretched condition in which we find ourselves (verse 24), wanting to obey God’s Law, and to have his favor and the everlasting life promised to them that love and obey him, and yet unable to do so because of our dead bodies—fallen and sentenced through Adam’s transgression. Oh! How can we get release from this, our difficulty? We cannot obey God’s Law, and God cannot give us 411 imperfect Law to suit our fallen condition. Oh, wretched, hopeless condition!

But no, brethren, there is hope in Christ! Not a hope of our fulfilling the Law Covenant—no hope of doing those things commanded, and living as a result; nor any hope of saving anything out of the wreck of Adam’s fall and sentence. That must all be abandoned. We Israelites must die under the Law Covenant, as unsaved by it as we were before it was made, as unsaved as the Gentiles who never had a share in itt But as we realize ourselves dead under the terms of the Law Covenant, we see that Christ has died for Adam’s sin, paid his penalty and thus redeemed him and all—lost through his disobedience—Jew and Gentile, bond and free, male and female. And this relieves us Jews, because Christ was a Jew, “born under the Law” Covenant, that he might redeem those who were under it. (Gal. 4:4, 5.) In consequence, therefore, God can be just and accept all who serve his Law in their minds and wills, and whose only-hindrance from perfect obedience is the weakness of the fallen flesh.

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable g if t—Christ— through whom we become heirs of the chiefest of God's blessings on the divine plane and members of the Mediator of the New Covenant (typified in Keturah, Abraham’s third wife) by which many will be blest with Restitution during the Millennium.—Acts 3:19.

“1W, DI VW !>U\N OF TTB') AOJCS”

"SCRIPTURE STUDIES,” Series I.

In handsome cloth binding, 370 pages—sold at cost, 25 cents, postpaid. (Over two million copies now in circulation).                  ,

THE SECRET of reading the Bible”with delight” lies in being able to ” rightly divide the Word of truth,” * according to the purpose [plan] of the ages which God formed in Christ Jesus our Lord.”—2 Tim. 2:15; Eph. 3:11; Heb. 1:3, Revised Version^ margin.                          *

IT IS AN AID IN SCRIPTURE STUDY. It is a vindication of the divine character and government, showing, by a recognition and harmonizing of all the Scriptures, that God’s Plan, in the Permission of Evil, past and present, is educational, and preparatory to the ushering of mankind into the golden age, ”in which all the families of the earth shall be blessed” with a full knowledge of God, and a full opportunity for attaining everlasting life through the Redeemer, who then will be the great Restorer and Life-Giver.—Acts 3:19-21.

The Atlanta Constitution says of this book:—                                          .

”It is impossible to read this book without loving the writer and pondering his wonderful solution of the great mysteries that have troubled us all our lives. There is hardly a family to be found that has not lost some loved one who died outside the Church ■^—outside the plan of salvation, and if Calvinism be true, outside of all hope and inside of eternal torment and despair. We smother our feelings and turn away from the horrible picture. We dare not deny the faith of our fathers, and yet can it be possible that the good mother and her wandering child are forever separated ?—forever and forever ?                                           .

« I believe it is the rigidity of these teachings that makes atheists and infidels and skeptics—makes Christians unhappy and brings their gray hairs down in sorrow to the grave—a lost child, a lost soul I

« This wonderful book makes no assertions that are not well sustained by the Scriptures. It is built up stone by stone, and upon every stone is a text, and it becomes a pyramid of God’s love, and mercy and wisdom. There is nothing in the Bible that the author denies or doubts, but there are many texts upon which he throws a flood of light that seems to remove from them the dark and gloomy meaning. I she that editors of leading journals, and many orthodox ministers of different denominations have endorsed it and have confessed to this new and comforting light that has dawned upon the interpretation of God’s Book. Then let every man read and ponder and take comfort, for we are all prisoners of hope. This is an age of advanced thought, and more thinking is done than ever before—men dare think now. Light—more light is the watchword.”

WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY, 17 Hicks Street, BROOKLYN, N. Y^ U. S. A.

. »4 Eversholt St., London. N. W. Collins St., Melbourne Barmen-Elberfeld Copenhagen Orebro Yverdon-Suisse