The Sabbath-School by Ellet Joseph Waggoner

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Jul 12, 1883

The Sabbath-School.

By Ellet Joseph Waggoner

Lesson for the Pacific Coast---July 21.

ACTS 10:24-48; 11:1-18.

NOTES ON THE LESSON.

There is, in the minds of many, a strange misapprehension of the meaning of the vision which was given to Peter, Acts 10:9-16. They imagine that it meant that the distinction between clean and unclean beasts was henceforth to be abolished, and that there is therefore nothing which it is not lawful to eat. Even so renowned a commentator as Dr. Barnes fell into this error, although he taught that this was only the secondary meaning. He says:---

"In the Old Testament God made a distinction between clean and unclean animals. See Lev. 11:2-27; Deut. 14:3-20. This law remained in the Scriptures, and Peter plead that he had never violated it, implying that he could not now violate it. . . . Between that law and the command which he now received in the vision, there was an apparent variation, and Peter naturally referred to the well-known and admitted written law. One design of the vision was to show him that that law was now to pass away. . . . It was also true that the ceremonial laws of the Jews in regard to clean and unclean beasts was to pass away, though this was not directly taught in the vision."

This matter may be settled very easily, by finding out what idea the vision conveyed to Peter. He undoubtedly had the full understanding of it, because he received his instruction from the Lord. Two days after the vision, when, in obedience to the divine command, Peter had gone to the house of Cornelius, he said to the company there assembled: "Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean."

The above statement is clear enough, but some may claim, as Barnes does, that it means this and more. It may not be amiss to enter into a brief argument to show that the vision had not the slightest reference to the distinction between clean and unclean beasts. In the first place, this distinction was not an arbitrary one, made at the time of the giving of the law, in order to separate between the Jews and the Gentiles. The distinction existed from the beginning, in the nature of the animals. We find that beasts and fowls, both clean and unclean, went into the ark with Noah. This was several hundred years before the Jews existed as a nation. God had not yet called out any one to be specially separate. There was nothing of a ceremonial nature in the distinction between clean and unclean animals. Afterward, when the children of Israel were brought out of Egypt, where every wrong practice prevailed, God told them what beasts and fowls were clean and what unclean, not as bringing about a new order of things, but as stating what already existed.

There is not the slightest evidence to show that God intended that this distinction should pass away. Indeed, it could not pass away unless a change were made in the nature of animals. Few would dare claim that this change has been effected. The voice said to Peter, "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." It remains for those who believe that men are at full liberty to eat everything, to show that this means that God had cleansed all unclean animals, so that they were free from all that would defile.

There is still one more thought which shows the absurdity of the idea that we are combating. In the vessel that appeared to Peter there were "all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air." Then it must have contained toads, lizards, owls, bats, vultures, ravens, and many offensive animals. Who believes that these are fit for food? But if the distinction between clean and unclean beasts was done away, they must be.

It is belittling the work of Christ to make such claims as that which we have been considering. The plan of salvation takes in only the human race. The blood of Christ cleanses every one who will accept it. There is no distinction of race or condition; all are invited to come. The grace of God extends to every human being, but not to the brute creation. Christ's sacrifice leaves them just where they were. But to mankind, the cry is, "Whosoever will, let him come." This truth was taught to Peter by the vision on the housetop. The matter was presented in the manner that it was because it would make the most vivid impression upon him in his famished condition.

"God is no respecter of persons." That is what Peter had learned by the vision which had been given to him. It was a great step in advance for Peter. Brought up to look upon all but the Jewish nation as outcasts whom God despised, and with whom it was a disgrace to associate, he now learns what Paul says, that "the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men." God does not think any more highly of a man that has great mental endowments, or abundant wealth, than he does of his more humble neighbor. Both are dependent on him for what they possess. Neither does God esteem or despise any man because of his race or color. He "hath made of one blood all nations of men;" they are all his creatures, the objects of his care and grace.

A question that is quite a favorite with a certain class of theologians at the present day is, "What will be done with the heathen, who have not had a fair chance in this life?" They think this can be answered only in one way, viz., "They will be granted a probation after death." But we do not believe that the question is a proper one to ask. It implies that God is so partial and unjust as to place some men on probation, and then not give them a probation. According to Paul, Rom. 2:18-32, there are none who have not a fair chance in this life. He says that the heathen who know not God are without excuse, because "the invisible things of him," i. e., "his eternal power and Godhead," are plainly manifest from the creation; that they may be learned from the things which he has made. And those who do not recognize their Creator, have become so because they "did not like to retain God in their knowledge," but chose to follow their own lewd desires. It is evident, then, that it would be a lowering of the dignity of God's government, a compromising with sin, if such persons were allowed a second probation. Neither is there any probability that they would profit by such leniency. "Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil." Eccl. 8:11. If men harden their hearts in this probation, a second probation would make them still more obdurate.

But there are those in heathen lands who do not give themselves up to sin. The law written in the heart may be in their cases very much mutilated, yet they conscientiously live up to its teachings. Like Cornelius, they are conscious that their lives are imperfect, and they long for more light. Then, according to the promise of Christ, John 7:17, they will receive the light. Every soul who has a heart to do right, will be given the opportunity to learn what is right. We may not be able to trace the providence of God, as in the case of Cornelius, yet God will not suffer any honest soul to perish for lack of knowledge. The Judge of all the earth will do right.

"And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them." "They of the circumcision" were Jewish converts to Christianity; these of course constituted the bulk of the Christian church at that time, since the gospel had not before been preached to the Gentiles. With this explanation we can appreciate the force of the following comment by Dr. Barnes:---

"This is one of the circumstances which show conclusively that the apostles and early Christians did not regard Peter as having any particular supremacy over the church, or as being in any peculiar sense the vicar of Christ upon earth. If he had been regarded as having the authority which the Roman Catholics claim for him, they would have submitted at once to what he had thought proper to do. But the primitive Christians had no such idea of his authority. This claim for Peter is not only opposed to this place, but to every part of the New Testament." E. J. W.