Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jun 24, 1875
DEAD TO SIN
By Joseph H. Waggoner
THE LAW OF GOD.—NO. 15.
BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.
DEAD TO SIN.
“The wages of sin is death.” This declaration is not new in the gospel. It has always been true; for death was threatened for transgression as soon as man was created. And the sentence is just, for God gave to man his life for a specified purpose; and if he does not fulfill that purpose, the Creator has a perfect right to withdraw that which should have been used to his glory, but has been used to dishonor and reproach the giver. God’s will is perfect—is infinitely just; and he who willfully and persistently disregards it is unworthy of the bounties of his Maker. Moreover, as God’s law is just and right it ought to be maintained; and if God should refuse or neglect to inflict its penalties, he would prove himself regardless of justice, of his own authority, and of the peace and happiness of the subjects of his government. God cannot compromise his justice without disparaging his own character, and opening the way to overthrow his own government.
As the guilty cannot be justly suffered to escape, the infinity of God’s justice is a full assurance that none who has incurred guilt or sinned can be saved, unless his guilt shall be removed, and thus he be enabled to stand before God free from the defilement of sin. God, whose mercy is according to his power, devised a plan whereby this may be accomplished. “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16. In the carrying out of this plan we have another statement added to that which we first above quoted: “The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom. 6:23.
The views of men greatly differ as to how the plan of salvation through Christ effects this change of the sinner’s relation to God. The death of Christ is generally represented as the payment of our debt, by the payment of which we are of course set free. But this is an error, and if used as an illustration is liable to abuse, and should always be properly qualified. For by one class it is declared that as Christ died for all, or paid the debt of all, all must be saved. Another class, seeing that the Scriptures teach that all will not be saved, are driven to the conclusion that he did not die for all. Here the parties are in conflict, with no hope of reconciliation unless they will discard their premises. That their starting point is erroneous may easily be proved.
1. It must be admitted that when a debt is paid, whether by the debtor or another party, the creditor has no further demand or claim, and the debtor is free without further condition. To require another payment would be an attempt to defraud.
2. A debt which is paid cannot be forgiven. It is an abuse of language and of fact, as it would be an insult to the debtor, to talk of forgiving a debt when the amount had been paid in full. Therefore, it is plain to see that the view which represents the death of Christ as the payment of debt denies justice in the future punishment of the sinner, and shuts out grace in the forgiveness of the penitent.
3. Crime is not debt, and debt is not necessarily criminal. The death of Christ is not a commercial, but a moral, transaction. Though matters of commerce and morals both have regard to justice, their bearings are so different that they should never be confounded. The nature of this distinction is shown in the following:
4. While the payment of a debt leaves the debtor free, the suffering of another does not relieve us from guilt. If I commit a crime worthy of death and another volunteers to suffer for me, I am yet guilty of the crime, and as worthy of punishment as if he had not suffered. And if it appears that I remain of the same disposition and evil intent, the government has not only the right, but it is its duty, to take whatever steps justice may dictate to vindicate its authority, and to preserve the rights of its subjects from my influence or my acts. And yet more, if love prompts another to suffer for me to open a way of escape from the consequences of my crimes, and I refuse to turn, but remain rebellious, and despise the offering made for me, and refuse the grace provided, I make myself more guilty still, and prove myself utterly unworthy of favor.
5. On grounds of justice we should then conclude that the death of Christ saves nobody, but it opens the way whereby all may be saved if they will. And thus the Scriptures speak: “For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” Rom. 5:10. As reconciliation precedes salvation, of course if we refuse to be reconciled, we cannot be saved, though the means provided are abundant if we will only avail ourselves of them.
6. Though the bare fact that Christ died for us will not save us, his death is none the less necessary; for pardon could not justly be granted without it. It must be admitted that an indiscriminate, unconditional pardon is dangerous to the government and subversive of justice. The death of Christ is an offering to vindicate the integrity of the law and of God, and thus to enable God to dispense mercy and pardon without impairing the integrity of his government. And to this agrees the scripture: “Whom [Jesus] God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, ... that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.” Rom. 3:25, 26.
7. And therefore they who make the death of Christ to be a mere illustration of love, and his sacrifice similar to that of the martyrs who died for the truth they held, deny, not only the words of Paul above quoted, but the whole doctrine of the atonement. For in that view, the death of Christ can in no wise be related to the justice of God in granting pardon to the penitent believer. If his death is not an offering to, and a vindication of, the law which the sinner has transgressed, then it has no bearing on the justice of God in granting pardon to the transgressor.
By these considerations it is made plain that the death of Christ is far from releasing us from the claims of the law—not even from its condemnation—except through our reconciliation to God. And if the law holds us under condemnation before conversion, it is certainly of obligation still; for there can be no condemnation in the absence of obligation.
Now as we are held under the claims of the law notwithstanding the death of Christ, and as there can be no salvation without reconciliation, it follows that if we are not reconciled to God we shall yet die for our sins, as certainly as if Christ had never died for us. It will remain true that “the wages of sin is death.” And so death has a claim on every unregenerate soul. In order to escape this penalty an entire change must take place in us. We must die—not as we shall if we remain impenitent, but—to sin. The body of sin must be destroyed. The old man must be crucified. In no other way can the claims of the holy law of God be honored in the event of our pardon.
In what this death to sin consists we may learn from Rom. 6:2, in this question, “How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” It is the cessation of a life of sin, or transgression of the law. Life and death are opposites. A man cannot be both dead and alive at the same time. We would commend this question of the apostle to the consideration of those who have so much to say on the subject of “Life and Death,” and ask them to solve the query how a man can be “dead to sin” while living in the transgression of the law by which is the knowledge of sin—which proves its violator a sinner. No stronger proof can be required of the perpetuity and justice of the holy law of God than is found in the scripture which shows that after the Saviour died to meet the demands of the law for us we must reckon ourselves dead with Christ, and are yet held under the condemnation of the law until we die with him. If Christ had abolished the law at his death, or if we could make it void through faith in Christ, then we might be freed from its power to condemn without dying to it. But such is not the case.
A sacrifice has respect to the claims of the law; and something is necessary on our part to appropriate the sacrifice of Christ to make it ours. His death honors the law, but if we continue to dishonor the law we are not in union with him, and have no part in him. Only by dying to sin can we have our sins removed from us through our sacrifice. They who do not die to sin, who do not thus obtain a personal interest in the sacrifice of Christ, will be found with their sins upon them in the Judgment as surely as if Christ had never died. Hence to plead the death of Christ as evidence of freedom from the precept of the law is only evidence of a strong delusion, as the object of the gospel is that “the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Rom. 8:4. And this is confirmed by the words of Paul that we are
BAPTIZED INTO DEATH.
Baptism is truly a burial. Where this is lost sight of, the ordinance loses its significance. “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death.” Here we must not lose sight of the connection. Not only did Christ die for sin, but we must die to sin. Our burial has respect, not to Christ’s death alone, but to our own death, as is shown by the frequent mention, thus: How shall we that are dead?—our old man is crucified; —if we be dead with Christ;—reckon ye also yourselves to be dead. And this is only reasonable, for if we are buried then we are the dead. Some endeavor to turn the apostle’s argument to a different purpose, to prove that the law died, and not themselves. But why, then, are they buried? Why not bury (or baptize) the law? Surely that which dies should be buried, not that which remains alive. However much they may be deceived in their real condition, the fact that they seek this burial, and that they do not offer burial to the law, proves that their action is not in harmony with their theory.
We say that that which dies should be buried, and this brings us to consider the order everywhere presented in the Scriptures when speaking of this ordinance. “For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.” We are buried in the likeness of his death if we preserve the same order that was observed in his burial. This is shown in 1 Cor. 15:3, 4: “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.”
Now we have the order in full. If we are transgressing the law or living in sin, we are not dead to sin. But we must be dead to sin before we are buried, for we must be buried in the likeness of Christ’s death, who first died, then was buried, and then rose from the dead. Only in this order can we be baptized into his death. And only in this order can we fulfill verses 4, 6, 11. “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” No one can be buried or baptized into death who has not died; and no one can arise to walk in newness of life, or in a new life, who has not laid down the old life. If we have not died to sin, we yet live in sin, and if buried in that condition we rise living the same life, the old life of sin. But this does not meet the requirements of either the law or the gospel. To honor the claims of the law we must die; for we are sinners, and the wages of sin is death; we must die to sin; cease to live in transgression. To honor the gospel we must live a new life. “Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.” If we sin we are the servants of sin; sin has dominion over us; we are still under condemnation, and not under grace. Not a single sentence of the apostle’s argument can be turned against the perpetuity and the continued obligation of the law unless by a manifest perversion.
The same is further shown in Rom. 7. “The law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth.” All understand that this scripture is treating of man as a sinner, not as he would have stood related to the law if he had not sinned. As the wages of sin is death, and all have sinned, of course all are under condemnation unto death, and so they must stand until death changes their relation to the law. In chap. 6, this death is followed by burial and resurrection to a new life. In chap. 7, by marriage to another. The woman is bound to her husband until death releases her from her husband. When death takes place, she may then be married to another. Even so they who are held by a violated law cannot be united to Christ until the claim of the law is honored by their death; until the body of sin is destroyed—the old man is crucified. It seems strange indeed that anybody should attempt to draw any other conclusion from the plain words of this chapter. But some have feelings of such determined opposition to the law that they try to read the death of the law in Rom. 7. The apostle draws his conclusion in harmony with all his declarations in chap. 6. “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead.” If all would be satisfied with this application of the illustration of verses 1–3, there would be no trouble.202
The same is found in verse 6: “But now we are delivered from the law, being dead to that wherein we were held.” This is the correct reading, because the original from which the words “being dead” are translated, is plural, and must refer to the brethren, and cannot refer to the law. See the margin. And this is in harmony with all the context.
The wages of sin is death, but the wages of obedience is not death. As Christ would not have died if there had been no sin, even so we would not be required to die if we were not sinners; for without sin there would be no condemnation. From this, it is easy to see that it is not the obligation, but the condemnation, which causes death; we die to sin, but not to duty.
But notice further the application of the illustration. As the woman cannot be lawfully married to another until death changes her relation to the law, so we must die to the law, that is, the body of sin must be destroyed, “that ye should be married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead.” We are said to die to the law, because the law retains its condemning power over the old man, or body of sin, which must be crucified. Until this death takes place we cannot legally be joined to Christ; for there could be no union between Christ and the body of sin! We have seen that there is no gospel baptism, or burial, before death, a death to sin. They who are living in sin should not be buried. And so in chap. 7. The union with Christ is likened to a marriage, in which we take the name of Christ upon us. “As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” Gal. 3:27. In this illustration baptism answers to the marriage ceremony, and when the rite is performed where impediments exist, the parties suffer the shame of an illegal union, and the administrator is guilty before the law. This is the case where baptism is administered without death to sin, or where the parties are living in transgression of the law.
But some excuse themselves because they were ignorant of the claims of the law while they were professed followers of Christ, and they discharged their duties according to the light they then had. In order to understand their duty it is necessary to know how God regards sins of ignorance. “And if any soul sin through ignorance, then he shall bring a she goat of the first year for a sin offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for the soul that sinneth ignorantly, when he sinneth by ignorance before the Lord, to make an atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him.” Num. 15:27, 28. Lev. 4:28 says, “If his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge, then he shall bring his offering,” and it shall be forgiven him. Sins of presumption are worthy of death. Sins of ignorance will be forgiven, when they come to our knowledge, only on condition of repentance and bringing our offering, which in this dispensation is the sacrifice of Christ. Through him we obtain forgiveness if we confess and forsake our sins.
Paul gives his own experience in several places. He says he obtained mercy because he sinned ignorantly in unbelief. 1 Tim. 1:13. The law of God pointed out his sinful condition. Rom. 7:7. Said he, “I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.” Verse 9. He even did wrong conscientiously. Acts 26:9–11. But “by the law is the knowledge of sin.” It was the law which deeply impressed the wrong upon his heart. When he says we are dead to sin, he speaks of his own experience as well as of theirs. It was because the commandment came, convincing him of sin, that he died, and because he died he was buried by baptism into death. Had he been buried before the commandment came—before he died to sin, his experience could not have been that which he has here delineated.
And is it not so also with us? Our experience ought to conform to his. After we die to sin, after the body of sin is crucified, then we should be buried. Before that, a burial could not be in the likeness of Christ’s death, nor would our rising from such a burial be in the likeness of his resurrection. “Death hath no more dominion over him.” Even so sin, which brings death, should have no more dominion over us.
A very important part of Paul’s experience is that which relates to his feelings toward the law after his conversion. He said that the law is spiritual; that it is holy, and just, and good, and that he delighted in it. Why did Paul take delight in the law, seeing that it condemned his life and proved him a sinner? It was because he took no delight in sin. He had had a view of the glory of God, and of the love manifested in the sufferings of the Saviour. He realized that God is just, and that he will maintain justice. He revered that justice; his heart was touched with that love; and he longed for that glory. He knew that holiness was necessary to stand in the presence of Him who is of infinite purity. He knew that the law contained the whole duty of man, and that it condemned everything that is offensive to God. The love of God includes the love of everything that is holy, spiritual, and pure, and especially that which pertains to purity of character, because it is that which fits us to enjoy his presence and his glory. With Paul’s deep experience of the things of God; with his love of God, and his earnest longings for a fitness to inherit his kingdom, it was impossible that he should speak one word disparaging the law of God—the revelation of his holy will. He confessed that he was carnal; that his life was sinful, and that he was justly condemned. All that was wrong, that was sinful and rebellious, he saw in himself. All that was pure, and good, and spiritual he saw in the law of God. The more he abhorred sin and death, the more he loved the law which opposed sin and enjoined holiness. As the patriarch of old, he would leave his complaint upon himself, and vindicate the righteousness of the government of God, the purity of his commandments.
In striking contrast with this is the action of many professed Christians of this age. They loudly affirm that they are spiritual, and that the law is carnal. They acknowledge that there is a conflict between the law and themselves, but declare that the fault is in the law, and not in themselves. They know that their life is contrary to the law, and that the law condemns them, but they think it is because the law fails to come up to their elevated standard of spirituality. Professing great faith in Jesus, they have not learned that boasting is excluded by faith. If we seek for their experience in the Scriptures, we shall find it in the life and sayings of the Pharisee, rather than in the prayer of the publican. While they are ever ready to vaunt their own holiness, ever presenting their own sanctification to our notice, we should be as greatly surprised to hear them speak a word in favor of the law of God, as we should be to find that Paul had ever spoken a word against it. The contrast between their experience and that of Paul is so great that nothing but strong delusion and spiritual blindness can prevent their seeing it. Their position is well characterized by the words of Andrew Fuller who, in speaking of this class of antinomian or anti-law theorists, says: “Such views of the atonement excite an irreverent familiarity with God, and, in some cases, a daring boldness in approaching him; yet such is the strength of the antinomian delusion, that it passes for intimate communion with him.”
Had Mr. Fuller lived in this day, and described the profession and life of those who profess all holiness in themselves and who find nothing in the law of God in which to delight, just as they now appear, he could not have drawn the line more accurately.
THE END OF THE LAW.
Rom. 10:4 reads, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” This text is often quoted, but seldom commented upon, by those who claim the abolition of the law. Satisfied, apparently, with the sound, they do not inquire into the sense of the terms used. Three points of inquiry should be noted in this text; and these will guide us to the meaning of this scripture. Had not the sense been obscured by false theories, not a word of comment would be needed to bring the true meaning of the passage to any mind.
1. In what sense is Christ “the end of the law.” End is defined by Webster to mean, “Extreme point; ultimate object; design; cessation; death.” He is not the end of the law in the sense of its cessation or death, for Jesus said he did not come to destroy it, and Paul said it is not made void. It still exists to point out sin, and will eventually require the death of the transgressor. But he is the end in the sense of fulfilling its object or design. In this sense the word is used by James: “Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy.” James 5:11. That is, we have seen the object or design of the Lord in suffering Job to be afflicted.
Now the object or design of the law was the perfection of character, and thereby to insure life to the obedient. Of his statutes the Lord said, “Which if a man do, he shall live in them.” Lev. 18:5. And so the Son of God said that he who does and teaches the commandments shall be great in the kingdom of Heaven; Matt. 5:19. And again, “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” Matt. 19:17. In harmony with these words of both the Father and the Son, the apostle Paul says that the law was ordained unto life. Rom. 7:10. Perfection of character, and thereby life, was the object or design of the law. But the wages of sin is death, and all have sinned; therefore none can now obtain life by the law. But Jesus, the Son of God, by the sacrifice of his own life, has obtained the right of forgiveness of sin, and we may obtain life through him. Thus the object or design of the law is now fulfilled in Christ, through whom we receive pardon of past sin, and who takes away the carnal mind, the insubordination to the law, and restores us to obedience to, and to the favor of, his Father.
2. He answers this design or object “for righteousness.” Unrighteousness is sin, and sin is the transgression of the law. 1 John 5:17; 3:4. Therefore righteousness is the equivalent of obedience to the law. And with this agree many texts of Scripture heretofore noticed. Christ is not the minister of sin, but of righteousness. He came to bring back rebellious man to allegiance to the Father, according to the object of the gospel as spoken in Luke 1:17, to turn “the disobedient to the wisdom of the just.” The same idea is expressed in Rom. 5:19: “By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous,” or obedient. Inasmuch as transgression of the law is unrighteousness, if Christ had released man from obligation to do the law he would not have accomplished the object or design of the law, but he would have wrought for unrighteousness—he would have been the minister of sin. This expression—for righteousness—should not be overlooked when we inquire into the work of Christ, and the object of his mission.
3. This is “to every one that believeth,” but not to any one that believeth not. This is sufficient of itself to prove that “the end of the law” here referred to is not its abolition, for it were absurd to speak of a law as being abolished to one class and not abolished to another class! Moreover there is a point in the life of every believer where he passes over from a state of unbelief. Therefore, if the abolition of the law is meant in the text, there is a time when every believer passes from where the law is not abolished to where it is abolished! For absurdity, this view is surely unequalled.
But accepting the Scripture declarations that the law was ordained unto life, because it points out the way of holiness, and that Jesus alone has the power to give life, and that it will be given to the penitent believer, to all who, by patient continuance in well doing, seek for it, this text is freed from all difficulty. But the object of the law is never carried out in the lives of the unbelieving and disobedient. Therefore they who exalt themselves and abase the law of God; who boast of their own sanctity and reproach the law as being unworthy of their regard, have no interest in this text, or in the blessings to which it refers.
Reader, what is your experience? Are you indeed dead to sin? or are you living in transgression? Are you a professor of religion—one who has been baptized? And was the old man crucified, the body of sin destroyed? or did you endeavor to unite the body of sin to the pure and sinless Head of the church of God? Look again at this question, and all its adjuncts: “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein?”
RUTH AND NAOMI.
'Twas a fair scene. The vintage and the grain
Were brightening over Moab's fertile plain.
A faint wind all the feathery palm-tops stirred,
And the acanthus and acacia bent,
Till o'er them crept a low, delicious quiver,
While softly came the voice of Arnon's river,
On its slow journeyings to the Dead Sea going,
Bearing the sunlight thither on its flowing.
But oh! what mournful group are they who stand
Gazing with tearful eyes o'er this fair land?
Their peaceful camels 'mid the near shrubs straying,
While they a long and last farewell are saying?
Two fresh as yet in girlhood's sunrise bloom,
And one o'er whom the years have cast their gloom,
The widowed wife and mother. Desolation
Reigns in Joy's habitation.
“Return, my daughters,” cried the mother brave,
“Peace dwelleth not for me this side the grave,
To mine own land of Judah hence I go,
But shall I take thee with me? No, ah no!
Hence to your peaceful homes, and be forgot
The care and sorrow that hath been our lot.”
Still those white arms round her neck were creeping,
“We go with thee,” they said, amid their weeping.
Again Naomi answered, “Nay, my daughters,
My bark must anchor soon in Death's cold waters.”
And then she pressed them softly to her breast,
Saying, “May the Almighty give thee rest.”
Then Orpah kissed the lips that had been kind,—
And turned in silence to the path of home,
Back to her people, as a freed young bird,
Seeketh its native herd wherein to roam.
But Ruth yet lingered, and her voice was low
And steadfast as she said, “With thee, I go.
Entreat me not to leave thee, thine are mine,
Together will we worship at one shrine,
I will dwell with thee, die where thou dost die,
And in one narrow grave beside thee lie;
More may the God of Israel do to me
If aught but death shall sever me and thee.”
Thus went they forth together, fond and true,
And as the touching story we pursue,
We see the Highest had them in his sight,
And how he turned their darkness into light.
In kindness caring for the alien bird,
A pining exile from her olden nest,
O'er the deep waters of one true heart stirred,
She bore the olive to an ark of rest.
Oh! shall we doubt when all around is dim,
And life a vale of weariness appears?
The shadows turn to sunlight touched by Him
Who counteth all our tears.
Some Things Learned from God's Family Record.—No. 5.
By M. M. OSGOOD
The hight of the wall around the city was “an hundred and forty and four cubits.” These, reckoned at twenty-two inches each, make about two hundred and eighty feet. Rev. 21: 18–20: “And the building of the wall of it was of jasper; and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass. And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald; the fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst.”
The following is a description of the different varieties of these precious stones as found in the American Tract Society Bible Dictionary:—
“JASPER, a precious stone of various colors, as green, purple, &c., often clouded with white, and beautifully striped with red or yellow.
“SAPPHIRE, a gem next in hardness and value to the diamond, and comprising as varieties all those precious stones known by the name of oriental gems; viz., the oriental ruby, the oriental topaz, and oriental emerald. . . . In general, the name of sapphire is given to the blue variety, which is either of a deep indigo blue or of various lighter tints, and sometimes gradually passes into perfectly white or colorless, which when cut may almost pass for a diamond.
“CHALCEDONY, a precious stone resembling the agate; of various colors, but often a light brown or blue. . . . Carnelian is said to be one of its varieties.
“EMERALD, a precious stone of a fine green color. . . . Josephus, however, and the Seventy, make it a gem like a burning coal,—the Indian ruby.
“SARDONYX, a species of gem exhibiting the reddish color of the carnelian and the white of the chalcedony intermingled.
“SARDIUS, a species of precious stone of a blood red, or sometimes of a flesh color—more commonly known by the name of carnelian.
“CHRYSOLITE, a transparent precious stone, having the color of gold, with a mixture of green, and a fine lustre.
“CHRYSOPRASUS, its color is green, inclining to gold.
“BERYL, a precious stone of a sea-green color.
“TOPAZ, a precious stone of wine yellow color, with occasional pale tinges of green or red.
“JACINTH, a gem of a yellowish red, nearly related to the amethyst. It loses its color when heated, becoming like the diamond.
“AMETHYST, a precious stone of violet blue, verging toward a bluish or reddish white—is generally clouded and spotted with zigzag stripes.
“The oriental ruby is a red variety of the sapphire. Its color is usually between a vivid cochineal and crimson. The true ruby is usually called the agate, or carbuncle. Agate, a precious stone, semi-transparent and often beautifully veined and clouded, presenting in miniature the picture of many natural objects. Carbuncle, a precious stone of a dark, deep red color, said to glitter even in the dark and to sparkle more than the ruby.”
Thus much for the adorning of the twelve foundations.
Rev. 21: 21: “And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; . . . and the street of the city was pure gold.” Verse 23: “And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it; for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.” Verse 25: “And there shall be no night there.”
M. M. OSGOOD.
His Mercy Endureth Forever.
By E. L. Graves
The tender mercies of the Lord are over his people, and he will never leave nor forsake them unless they first turn away from him, and, like ancient Israel, despise his counsel. And how ungrateful was the course of this people! God planted them in the land of Canaan, a land that was beautiful, which flowed with milk and honey and abounded with goodly fruits. He gave them the precious promise that if they would obey his voice and keep his commandments, they should be a peculiar treasure unto him above all people, a kingdom of priests, a holy nation, and that his watchcare should be over them; yet they turned away from him and united with the wicked nations around them. They participated in the idolatrous worship of these nations, and caused their children to pass through the fire to the gods of the heathen. What could have been more insulting to the God of Heaven?
But he did not forsake his people—those whom he had chosen for his inheritance. After they had rebelled against him, he still pleaded with them, and said, “Turn ye, turn ye; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?” What a merciful God! And he is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever. He has ever been merciful to his erring children. He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should turn to him and live. He said, that even when he was about to destroy a nation for its wickedness, if that nation would turn to him with all the heart, that instant he would repent of the evil that he thought to do unto them.
He is just as merciful to the remnant of his people—those upon whom the ends of the world are come—and does not leave them without a warning message to prepare them for the inheritance which is “incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away.” Shall we, like ancient Israel, wickedly depart from God, and set our affections upon the things of this world? Shall we desire to be like the ungodly around us, and in a little time perish with them?
We read that “Israel was to dwell alone, and not be reckoned among the nations.” Why was this? Because by uniting with these nations, they were led into idolatry. Are the nations becoming better at the present day? Let Paul answer: “This know also,203that in the last days perilous times shall come; for men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers,” &c. The Saviour said, “And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.” Then, the earth was filled with violence,” and “all flesh had corrupted his way before the Lord.”
Jesus says of those that come out from the world and are separate, “He that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations; and he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers; even as I received of my Father. And I will give him the morning star.” Again he says, “To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.”
Shall we be among the overcomers? We may be. The grace of God is sufficient. “For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him.”
“Beneath his watchful eye
His saints securely dwell;
That hand which bears all nature up
Shall guard his children well.”