A short time ago we answered a question concerning the use of swine as food, promising to consider Peter’s vision of the net full of beasts if, as we expected, somebody should offer that as Bible authority for pork-eating. It was but a few days before we received a request for an explanation of that vision, with which we cheerfully comply. We will first state the circumstances under which the vision was given; the entire narrative may be found in the tenth chapter of Acts.SITI July 15, 1886, page 422.1

A Roman by the name of Cornelius, a centurion, was stationed at Cæsarea. This man, although a Gentile, was very devout and benevolent, serving God to the best of his knowledge. To him an angel of God came one day, telling him that his prayers and all had gone up for a memorial before God, and directing him to send men to Joppa to call for Simon Peter, who would tell him what further he ought to do. Accordingly Cornelius sent two of his household servants and a devout soldier to Joppa, with instructions to bring Simon Peter back with them. But Peter was a Jew, with all the natural Jewish prejudices against associating with Gentiles, and therefore he would have refused to follow the Heaven-directed messengers if the Lord had knocked prepared him for their visit. This was done by means of a vision, which we quote:-SITI July 15, 1886, page 422.2

“On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour; and he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, and saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth; wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.” Acts 10:9-16.SITI July 15, 1886, page 422.3

Was taught by this? Pork-lovers claim that the Lord meant by this vision to teach that Peter might eat pork, and that everybody else may do likewise. Indeed, many people seem to think that the vision teaches that we ought to eat pork. But why stop at the hog. That sheet contained “all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.” Then besides the hog, there must the be in it dogs, cats, rats, hyenas, jackals, monkeys, porcupines, weasels, buzzards, vultures, crows, bats, lizards, snails, centipedes, scorpions, toads, etc. Now if that vision meant that we should eat the hog, it meant that we should also eat all other scavengers and reptiles. We say this: If the vision has the slightest thing to do with the hog, which we deny, it teaches: (1) That it is a Christian duty for us to eat him; and (2) That it is equally our duty to eat every beast, fowl, or creeping thing, however filthy it may be. No one can dissent from this; and certainly swine-lovers should not shudder at the thought of eating anything filthy. There is nothing in creation more filthy then the hog; and we cannot see why it should be preferred to crow, bat, buzzard, vulture, hyena, jackal, or any other scavenger.SITI July 15, 1886, page 422.4

But now to show what the vision does mean. When the three men that were sent by Cornelius reached Peter’s lodging-place, while he was wondering what the vision could mean, the Spirit said to him: “Behold, three men seek thee. Arise therefore, and give thee down and go with them, doubting nothing; for I have sent them.” Verses 19, 20. Notice that Peter did not understand the vision to teach that he might eat hogs, hyenas, buzzards, etc.: he knew that God meant by it to convey to him some important truth. What that truth was he learned before he reached the house of Cornelius the next day, for when he entered and found a company of Gentiles assembled, he said to them: “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.” Verse 28. Still later he stated more particularly what learned: “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” Verses 34, 35.SITI July 15, 1886, page 422.5

That this is what the vision was designed to teach, no one who reads the chapter can deny. And if it teaches this it cannot teach something else entirely different. It was designed to show that God’s love to man is not confined to one race, and that, partaking of the divine love, we should as readily preach the gospel or give other aid to the meanest specimen of the most despised heathen race as to the most refined citizens of an enlightened land. By this vision Peter was taught what Paul teaches in Ephesians 2:11-21, and what David teaches in Psalm 68:13, “Though ye have lien among the pots, yet shall ye be as the wings of a dove covered with silver, and her feathers with yellow gold.” The gospel brings all men to the same level, whatever their position or condition in this life. And it seems to us one of the clearest evidences of the perverseness of human nature, that so many can see in this illustration of the divine love to man, nothing more than a divine permission to eat pork. It certainly is a magnificent display of the divine mercy and pity that he forbids the regarding of even such persons as unclean. W.SITI July 15, 1886, page 422.6

“Something To Be Followed” The Signs of the Times, 12, 27.

E. J. Waggoner

In reply to some queries an exchange has a column of replies, among which is the following categorical answer: “We should not follow Christ’s example in washing one another’s feet.” And this not withstanding Christ’s emphatic statement: “If I then, [your] Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.” John 13:14, 15. An “example” is something “which is to followed or imitated;” and Christ said that he designed that his disciples should follow his example. He wished them to do as he had done to them. More than this, “ought” implies duty; it is the old form of the past tense of the word “owe” and therefore indicates obligation. If we say a person ought to do a certain thing, we indicate that to do that thing is a debt that he owes. So when Christ says, “Ye ought to wash one another’s feet,” he means that to do so is a duty; it is a debt that Christians owe.SITI July 15, 1886, page 422.7

Again Christ says: “If ye know these things, happy are ye are if ye do them.” John 13:17. “Happy” is equivalent to “blessed.” A blessing is pronounced on those who do according to Christ’s example in this respect. And what if, knowing these things, we do not do them? Certainly the blessings will be withheld.SITI July 15, 1886, page 422.8

The matter is as plain as words can make it. True, there is only one mention of it in the Bible; but if those who plead this fact as against the adoption of the ordinance, mean to imply that Christ never did and said the things recorded in the thirteenth chapter of John? We believe not, for we never heard any doubt expressed as to the truthfulness of the account. Then if it is a fact that Christ washed his disciples’ feet, and said “Ye also ought to wash one another’s feet; for I have given you an example,” isn’t it just as valid as though the account were repeated fifty times? It certainly is.SITI July 15, 1886, page 422.9

We are morally certain that if such evidence could be found in favor of Sunday-keeping, or of infant “baptism,” those who believe in these practices would not ask for any stronger testimony in their support. We also know that there are hundreds of men who would shout for exultation if they could fined as strong as argument for Sunday-keeping as the thirteenth of John contains for feet-washing. The trouble is, it is too humiliating an ordinance to be generally adopted; and a strong tendency nowadays is to reject all the Bible except Christ’s own words, and to reject all of his words that are unpalatable.SITI July 15, 1886, page 422.10

“Comments on Galatians 3. No. 2” The Signs of the Times, 12, 27.

E. J. Waggoner

The next verse that we come to the 13th, is another “stone of stumbling” to many, but with an understanding of the 10th verse, it is impossible to go wrong on this. We quote it with the 14th:-“For Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; for it is written, ‘Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree; that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”SITI July 15, 1886, page 422.11

What is the curse of the law? Is it obedience to the law? No; for it is written, “This is the love of God, that we keep his commandments; and his commandments are not grievous.” 1 John 5:3.SITI July 15, 1886, page 422.12

The psalmist also says: “Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the Lord.” Psalm 19:1. Now if the keeping of the law is a blessing, disobedience, with its consequences, must be the curse. And so Paul, after warning the Ephesians against whoredom, covetousness, and idolatry, says: “For because of these things the wrath of God... curse of God cometh upon the children of disobedience.” Ephesians 5:6. And “the wages of sin is death.” So “the curse of the law” is, in a word, death.SITI July 15, 1886, page 422.13

That death is the curse from which Christ has redeemed us, is evident from the latter part of the ninth verse. He redeemed us from the curse by being made a curse for us, and the curse which he suffered was his death,-being hanged on a tree, which was absolutely necessary that Christ should be made in all respects like those whom he would redeem. Hebrews 2:17. He came to save sinners, therefore he was counted as a sinner. Isaiah 53:12; 2 Corinthians 5:21. And being found in fashion as a man, he suffered the curse which hung over guilty man. He died that we might live. And because he was made a curse for us, we may all through faith share in the blessing of Abraham.SITI July 15, 1886, page 422.14

“Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promise made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ.” Galatians 3:15, 16.SITI July 15, 1886, page 422.15

Here the apostle introduces a new point, the conclusion of the argument being, as stated in verse 21. That the law is not against the promises of God. He makes the positive and unquestionable statement that if a covenant be once confirmed it cannot afterwards be altered. Now the covenant was confirmed to Abraham by “two immutable things [God’s promise and his oath] in which it was impossible for God to lie” (Hebrews 6:15-18); therefore, as is stated in verse 17, the law given from Sinai four hundred and thirty years after, cannot make the promise void, nor destroy the fact that the inheritance is solely by promise. Thus the main idea of the chapter, that God’s grace as manifested in Christ is man’s sole hope, is kept prominent.SITI July 15, 1886, page 422.16

But there is still another point which we should not fail to consider in connection with the fifteenth verse. 1. Although the law “was four hundred and thirty years after” the covenant with Abraham, it was nevertheless in existence at that time, and long before, and was the basis of that covenant. Said God to Abraham, before making the promise: “Walk before me, and be thou perfect.” Exodus 17:1. And in renewing to Isaac the promise made to Abraham, God said it was “because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” Exodus 26:5. Thus the law could not be against the promises of God, because the law was the foundation of the promise. 2. Although the covenant was confirmed in Christ to Abraham, it was only in anticipation. As the first covenant was confirmed by blood,-the blood of beasts,-so the second covenant was also ratified by blood,-the blood of Christ. Christ himself “confirmed the covenant with many for one week,” in the midst of which he shed his blood on the cross, thus affixing the final seal to the covenant of God’s grace. 3. As the commandments were the condition of the Abrahamic covenant, so they are of what is known as “the second covenant,” which is in every respect the same as that made with Abraham. See Jeremiah 31:33; Hebrews 8:10. None can deny that in his earthly ministry Christ taught the necessity of obedience to the law of God. See Matthew 5:17-19; 19:17; Luke 16:17, etc. Always, in the strongest terms, he proclaimed the enduring nature and obligation of God’s law. Now since the death of Christ was the final ratification of the covenant, and since, as Paul says, when a covenant is confirmed no man can disannul or add thereto, it follows that after the death of Christ, no change in the covenant was possible. And since the law was one of the terms of the covenant, we are assured that not one jot nor one tittle could pass from it. The fact that God’s law cannot be changed, we have learned before; but it is well to emphasize it in connection with the death of Christ. That which some suppose marked the abolition of the law, was that which emphasized its perpetuity. It is admitted, even by antinomians, that the law of God was in full force until the death of Christ, and therefore Galatians 3:15 should convince them that it is in full force now. Says Paul, “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law.” Romans 3:31.SITI July 15, 1886, page 423.1

Verse 16 also shows that the promise is made only to Christ and to those who are his. In the verses following, 17-26, the apostle shows the relation of the law to the promise of God. “And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that is should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.” Verses 17, 18.SITI July 15, 1886, page 423.2

What covenant was it that “was confirmed before of God in Christ”? Manifestly it was the covenant with Abraham, quoted in verse 8 from Genesis 12:1-3; 13:14, 15; 17:7, 8, and 22:18. The promise was that Abraham should be “heir of the world” (Romans 4:11), and that in his seed all nations should be blessed. The condition was that he should walk before God and be perfect. Genesis 17:1-8. But this was not such a covenant as was made with the Israelites at Horeb. That one contained no reference to Christ, and no provision for the forgiveness of sins; the one with Abraham was confirmed “in Christ” (Galatians 3:17) and was made not on condition that he should be righteous by his own unaided efforts, but was made on condition of his having the righteousness of faith. Compare Romans 4:11 with 3:22-25. This of course involved the forgiveness of his sins; and so we see that the covenant with Abraham (which is the one referred to in this chapter) was exactly the same as “the second covenant,” which is made with us. The covenant made at Horeb, and called “the first covenant,” although it was after that made with Abraham, was, as we have before learned, only for the purpose of showing the people the need of the help promised in the Abrahamic or second covenant.SITI July 15, 1886, page 423.3

Now the apostle says that the law, which was formally announced from Sinai four hundred thirty years after the covenant with Abraham, cannot disannul that covenant, that it should make the promise of none effect. “For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.” That is, if the inheritance be given to those who depend upon their own deeds for justification, then it is not by promise. If it be bestowed because of works, then faith in Christ is ruled out. But this, he says, cannot be; for God gave the inheritance in Abraham by promise, contingent on his faith.SITI July 15, 1886, page 423.4

The reader can readily see the force of the apostle’s argument. He is trying to convince the Galatians, and with them all men, that out of Christ, there is no salvation. The man who hopes to gain an inheritance in the kingdom of God through his own works, no matter how high his aim may be, will fail. The promise is not for works, lest any man should boast; but it is through faith in Jesus Christ, that he may be “Lord of all.” “Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Acts 4:12. W.SITI July 15, 1886, page 423.5

Extracts

Galatians 3:21 That the law is not against the promises of God.SITI July 15, 1886, page 423.6

“...the covenant with Abraham, it was nevertheless in existence at that time, and long before, and was the basis of that covenant. Said God to Abraham, before making the promise: “Walk before me, and be thou perfect.” Exodus 17:1. And in renewing to Isaac the promise made to Abraham, God said it was “because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” Exodus 26:5. Thus the law could not be against the promises of God, because the law was the foundation of the promise.”SITI July 15, 1886, page 423.7

“...the commandments were the condition of the Abrahamic covenant, so they are of what is known as “the second covenant,” which is in every respect the same as that made with Abraham. See Jeremiah 31:33; Hebrews 8:10.”SITI July 15, 1886, page 423.8

Galatians 3:15 “... the death of Christ was the final ratification of the covenant, and since, as Paul says, when a covenant is confirmed no man can disannul or add thereto, it follows that after the death of Christ, no change in the covenant was possible. And since the law was one of the terms of the covenant, we are assured that not one jot nor one tittle could pass from it.”SITI July 15, 1886, page 423.9

“The promise was that Abraham should be “heir of the world” (Romans 4:11), and that in his seed all nations should be blessed. The condition was that he should walk before God and be perfect. Genesis 17:1-8. But this was not such a covenant as was made with the Israelites at Horeb. That one contained no reference to Christ, and no provision for the forgiveness of sins; the one with Abraham was confirmed “in Christ” (Galatians 3:17) and was made not on condition that he should be righteous by his own unaided efforts, but was made on condition of his having the righteousness of faith. Compare Romans 4:11 with 3:22-25. This of course involved the forgiveness of his sins; and so we see that the covenant with Abraham (which is the one referred to in this chapter) was exactly the same as “the second covenant,” which is made with us. The covenant made at Horeb, and called “the first covenant,” although it was after that made with Abraham, was, as we have before learned, only for the purpose of showing the people the need of the help promised in the Abrahamic or second covenant.”SITI July 15, 1886, page 423.10

“For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.” That is, if the inheritance be given to those who depend upon their own deeds for justification, then it is not by promise. If it be bestowed because of works, then faith in Christ is ruled out. But this, he says, cannot be; for God gave the inheritance in Abraham by promise, contingent on his faith.”SITI July 15, 1886, page 423.11

July 8, 1886

July 22, 1886