2173.—New and Old Testament.
By Editor
Is not the New Testament ahead of the Old? No, in nowise. Both are the Scriptures. The Scriptures to which the New Testament writers constantly refer are the Old Testament Scriptures. They knew no other Scriptures. Our Lord Jesus Christ met all the mighty power of the great adversary's temptations by quoting three passages from the Old Testament, each one of them from the Book of Deuteronomy. See Matthew 4. The New Testament is enclosed in the Old Testament. The Old Testament is disclosed in the New. Of course there are many things in the Old Testament which have been either fulfilled and are history, or which were but shadows pointing to Jesus Christ. These are done away, but not one single moral truth of God taught in the Old Testament is abolished, or can be abolished. And this is the teaching of Jesus Christ. See Matt. 5:17-20; Luke 16:17; Rom. 3:31; James 2:8-12. The text itself is very clear, "For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink, because ye are Christ's, verily I say unto you, he shall in nowise lose his reward." The thought is identification with Christ and His cause. The very smallest act is taken to show how fully the Lord identifies Himself with every soul who takes a step toward Him. That man who would give in the name of Christ, the smallest thing to one of Christ's disciples, because he was one of Christ's disciples, who would count himself nothing and Christ everything, would in that very thing identify himself with the Lord and place himself in the channel of God's blessing. As to whether that reward should be in this life or in the life to come would depend on the faith and trust of the individual who does yield himself to the Lord. 2175.—Meats Clean and Unclean.
In the first scripture there was no question between Jesus and the Jews as to what meats were clean and unclean. All agreed as to that. The law which made the distinction between beasts was given by the Son of God, the eternal Word. John 1:1-3. What He said was to reprove them for their own superstitious ceremonies and observances which they had added to God's laws. They were among the plants that God had not planted. Matt. 15:13. Then, too, no outward ceremony can cleanse the heart or make the deeds right. The text in Timothy does not apply to flesh food, but all food. The word "meat" means all kinds of food, as we speak of the meat of nuts. The word "creature" means anything created. The word "sanctified" means "separated," or "set apart." Now God's word has separated, sanctified, set apart, certain foods not fit to eat. See Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14. God did not distinguish between clean and unclean beasts arbitrarily, but because of the very nature of these animals. They were in their very nature unfit for food. Since that time, they have not changed; they are unclean, unwholesome, still. Why should God's children eat those things which are not good, because a perverted appetite calls for them? Yet there is no salvation in eating or not eating. We are not saved by our teeth or our stomach or our bill of fare. "The kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." Rom. 14:17. But he who knows God's righteousness should have the desire to continue therein. He should seek to glorify God in his body, to make the temple clean and effective. Therefore in his eating and drinking, and in all conduct, he will seek to glorify God, and not consult a perverted appetite. But can it glorify God to put into that which He has cleansed that which He has pronounced "unclean" and an "abomination"? Swine's flesh would keep a strong man alive for a while, but it is not good, and there are so many better foods. Why should a Christian want to eat it? 2176.—Attacking Catholics.
Why does the SIGNS OF THE TIMES follow the policy of attacking the Roman Catholic Church, directly and by inferential statements? Against Roman Catholics the SIGNS OF THE TIMES has absolutely nothing but the kindliest feelings. That is true, so far as we know, of all connected with it. They are men and women, human beings the same as all others. They are entitled to the same rights as we, the right to believe or to disbelieve, the right to teach their belief or not to teach. Our controversy is not with them as individuals at all. We do not, however, believe in their teaching. We believe that in the very nature of it, it is inherently bad; it exalts man in the place of God; it perverts the simplicity of the Gospel, placing between the great, kind Father and His Son Jesus Christ, cordons and circles of humanity and creature intermediaries. It teaches the union of religion and the State, that which has been a curse to the world in all ages. On these very principles it is riding to power and exaltation, and our protest is against the principles. We war with principles, not with men. Roman Catholics have the same right to differ with their opponents as have we, and they use it; and our legal friend who asks us the above question has certainly read in a very limited way not to know this. We could quote by columns what is said by teachers in the Roman Catholic Church in regard to Protestants and the positions which they hold, and they are working hard and earnestly to confederate all they can, and that is their right and privilege. And so with all kindness toward Roman Catholics, among whom are many devoted souls who are Christians despite the errors they hold, we are laboring, and shall still labor, to convert them from the error of their ways. But we have never abused them for practising their religion, nor consciously in any way spoken evil of that people. 2177.—Defending Sunday Laws.
Why are you so zealous to defend those who violate the Sunday law, claiming it as a union of Church and State? The thought is, we suppose, that Sunday is a union of Church and State, which it is; or, in other words, it is following a dogma of the church by civil statute, against all American principle and right principle in jurisprudence. "The powers that be are ordained of God," but they have their limit. Upon this we refer our inquirer to an article entitled, "The Powers That Be," in the SIGNS OF THE TIMES of July 17. We think this will fully answer his question. No civil government has the right to do other than conserve and defend the equal right of those who are subject to it, or live within its jurisdiction. When it usurps the place of God or seeks to bind or control human conscience, it has stepped out of its sphere, and it ought to be the duty of every Christian and every other one to protest against it. Thank God, there are many who do, and who utterly repudiate all State aid and State interference. It is in fact a denial of faith in the Gospel for man to turn from Jesus Christ, who has given all power and authority to His church, to ask the aid of civil power to protect a "Christian" institution. The government has no right to enforce any institution of any part of its people, whether that part be the smallest minority or the greatest majority. It has no right to make class distinction by laws between men who are otherwise entitled to equal rights. It has no right to tax one man 16⅔ per cent. of his time in paying deference to the belief of another. These propositions seem so self-evident to us that we can not conceive how people can look upon them otherwise. There would be no trouble whatever in seeing it if the shoe were upon the other foot; if the Congress of the United States should enact laws enforcing quiet upon the seventh day of the week, compelling all Sunday-keepers to rest upon that day, they would have no question whatever as to its injustice. And it would be unjust; and every true seventh-day Christian in the United States would rise up with all his might and protest against it. Let the State keep to its own work. The union of Church and State spells ruin to both. In your answer to question No. 2071, entitled "Mention of the Sabbath," you say, referring to Col. 2:14-16, it is the yearly sabbaths which are referred to. Allow me to ask you how you know it means the yearly sabbaths. How many yearly sabbaths were there? In the scripture referred to, the word is in the plural and without any qualifying word. Is it not logical then to believe that it means the whole list of sabbaths? Leviticus 23 gives us quite a complete list of the holy days which were kept by Israel, or as the American Revised Version calls it, "set feasts," beginning with the fourth verse, in connection with the Passover, Pentecostal, and other feasts of the year. You will see by reading that several of them were kept as sabbaths when no manner of servile work must be done. In the 38th verse we read again that these are the "set feasts" of Jehovah, set apart as feast-days and sacrifices, besides the Sabbath of Jehovah. The Sabbaths of Jehovah were the regular weekly Sabbaths, of which it is said in Ex. 20:10, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of Jehovah your God." Now the text in Col. 2:14 does have qualifying terms which very clearly indicate the sabbaths referred to. All shadows, symbols, and types came in in consequence of sin, and after sin entered into the world. The seventh day, or weekly Sabbath, originated before sin entered into the world. Gen. 2:2, 3. It is therefore not a type or a shadow of things to come; but all the yearly sabbaths connected with the great feasts are types, or shadows, of better things to come. They center in Christ Jesus our Lord. And so the apostle tells us that the feast-days and new moons and sabbath days are shadows, but the body is Christ's. That, it seems to us, clearly designates the sabbaths referred to by the apostle. Is it possible for a grown man or woman to be brought forth, or be born, a second time in this life? Does born or birth mean the production of an entity or an organism? Does begotten by God mean a birth? 1 John 3:9. There is great danger sometimes of quibbling over technical terms. The great thought of the words of Jesus in John 3:3 is, "Except one be born anew, he can not see the kingdom of God." See margin, "born from above." The great truth which Jesus designed to teach Nicodemus was that his nature must be changed, the carnal heart must be taken away, a new, spiritual life must enter the soul. That change is by the "renewing of your mind." Rom. 12:2. That is, the carnal mind must be taken away and the spiritual mind of God must be begotten in the heart. Rom. 8:6-9. And therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature. There is literally a new creation. In another sense he is begotten again, and the great new birth will be complete when our Lord Jesus Christ comes the second time; but as regards the moral nature, there must be a complete change in the man, just as complete as would take place by a rebirth. When Christ comes He will not change our characters, but our bodies.