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 beast was henceforth to be abolished. And that there is therefore nothing which it is not in 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:-SITI July 12, 1883, page 305.1

“In the Old Testament God made a distinction between clean and unclean animals. See Leviticus 11:2-27; Deuteronomy 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 not to pass away... It was also true that the ceremonial law is of the Jews in regard to clean and unclean beasts was to pass away, though this was not directly taught in the vision.”SITI July 12, 1883, page 305.2

This matter may be settled very easily, by finding out what idea of 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.”SITI July 12, 1883, page 305.3

The above statement is clear enough, but some 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 beast. 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 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 anyone to be especially 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.SITI July 12, 1883, page 305.4

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 to believe that men are at full liberty to read everything, to show that this means that God had cleansed all unclean animals, so that they were free from all that would defiled.SITI July 12, 1883, page 305.5

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 of the air.” It must have contained toads, lizards, owls, bats, vultures, and many offensive animals. Who believes that these are fit for food? But if the distinction between clean and unclean beast was done way, they must be.SITI July 12, 1883, page 305.6

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 everyone 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.SITI July 12, 1883, page 305.7

“God is no respecter of persons.” That is what Peter had learned by the vision which had been given to him. In was a great step in advance for Peter. Brought up to look upon all but the Jewish nation as outcasts who God despised, and with whom it was a disgrace to associate, he learn 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.SITI July 12, 1883, page 305.8

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, Romans 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.” Ecclesiastes 8:11. If men harden their hearts in this probation, a second probation would make them still more obdurate.SITI July 12, 1883, page 305.9

But there are those in heathen lands who do not give themselves up to sin. The law written on the heart may be in their cases very much abbreviated, 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, if God will not suffer any believing soul to perish for lack of knowledge. The Judge of all the earth will do right.SITI July 12, 1883, page 305.10

“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:-SITI July 12, 1883, page 305.11

“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 particular sense the vicar of Christ upon earth. If it 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.SITI July 12, 1883, page 305.12

“Shunning Responsibility” The Signs of the Times, 9, 26.

E. J. Waggoner

What would be thought of the pastor of a church who would occasionally be absent from service on Sabbath morning without sending any excuse, or even letting the congregation know that he intended to be absent? Or, if a minister should make an appointment to preach on a certain evening, and then should stay away without informing anyone of his intended absence, how would he be regarded? The reply is at once that a man who would do such a thing, and repeat the offense, could not expect to retain the confidence of the people. They would justly feel that he had no appreciation for the responsibility resting upon him. His course would show that he was not a true minister-a servant of the church-but a server of self.SITI July 12, 1883, page 305.13

But how much worse would that be than for a Sabbath school teacher to absent himself from his class, without any real excuse, or without notifying anybody of his intended absence? The cases are exactly parallel. When the teacher consents to take charge of the class, he virtually pledges himself to be present every Sabbath and do his duty by it. He has no more right to be absent from the Sabbath-school than the pastor has to be away from church. The teacher who does so shows his unfitness for the work in which he is engaged, and should he not reform, ought not to be retained in his position.SITI July 12, 1883, page 305.14

Some teacher of this sort may say: “Well, I am willing to give up my class; let them fill my place with some one who can do better.” What an admission! Willing to give up all responsibility, because it interferes with your convenience. Willing to do nothing, when you ought to, and by the practice of a little self-denial could, do a great deal. How much better it would be to say, “I am willing to do all I can; if I fail, it shall not be on account of lack of effort.” You who are so humble that you don’t want to occupy any position of responsibility; who are willing to let others do all the work, do imagine that you will take things so calmly when you see another coming forward to take your crown? Think of this. It is well to consider consequences. E. J. W.SITI July 12, 1883, page 305.15

“A Strange Thing” The Signs of the Times, 9, 26.

E. J. Waggoner

In the S. S. Times, in an article on the raising of Dorcas by Peter, Rev. Charles S. Robinson, D.D., says:SITI July 12, 1883, page 307.1

“Imagine Dorcas’ surprise when she first opened her eyes. Here she was back in the world again. How stranger it is to discover that no one of those persons who were raised from the dead ever attempted to tell the story of what they saw or heard.”SITI July 12, 1883, page 307.2

We wonder that more people do not look at it in this light. The grave is spoken of as that “undiscovered country, from whose bourn no traveler returns,” but as a matter of fact many have returned, yet none have ever opened their lips to relate what they heard or saw while dead. But if the dead are conscious, this is passing strange. If it be true that death is simply the separation of the soul from the body which has acted as a clog to it, restricting its free exercise, why is it that in those instances where the soul has been returned to its lodgment, no note is made of the wonderful things learned while it was permitted to expand unrestrained?SITI July 12, 1883, page 307.3

We say that it is indeed a wonderful that no revelations have been made of what is beyond, if, as the poet says, death is only transition, and the soul is more acutely conscious in death than it ever was during life; but we do not bring forward the fact that no such revelation has been made, as proof that the dead are not conscious. We have proof of a more satisfactory nature, which clears the subject of all doubt, and explains why those who have been raised from the dead were silent as to what transpired during that absence from among the living. The testimony is abundant, but we have space here for only the following:-SITI July 12, 1883, page 307.4

Those who are dead are asleep: “Consider and hear me, O Lord my God; lighten my eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death.” Psalm 13:3. “It is vain for you to rise up early, to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrows; for so he giveth his beloved sleep.” Psalm 127:2. “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” Daniel 12:2. “In their heat I will make their feasts, and I will make them drunken, that they may rejoice, and sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake, saith the Lord.” Jeremiah 51:39. “For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.” 1 Corinthians 15:16-18. “But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep.” “For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.” 1 Thessalonians 4:13, 14.SITI July 12, 1883, page 307.5

People who are in a sound sleep are entirely unconscious of what is going on, and the Bible says that the dead are unconscious: “For the living know that they shall die; but the dead know not anything.” “Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor the device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.” Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10. “But man dieth, and wasteth away: yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he? As the waters fail from the sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up; so man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.” “His sons come to honour, and he knoweth it not; and they are brought low, but he perceiveth it not of them.” Job 14:10-12, 21. “The dead praise not the Lord, neither indeed that go down into silence.” Psalm 115:17. “Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.” Psalm 146:3, 4.SITI July 12, 1883, page 307.6

Many more texts might be added but these are sufficient for our purpose. They are direct statements of fact and need no explanation. There only two things that can be done with them: Either accept them as literally true, or reject them all together. But if we accept the Bible as the infallible word of God, we are not left to wonder why those who have been raised from the dead never told the story of what they saw or heard. They had none to tell. They were unconsciously sleeping, and were unable to take note of passing events. Then it is not a strange thing after all.SITI July 12, 1883, page 307.7

But there is one strange thing about this matter, and that is how, in the face of all these Bible texts, a Doctor of Divinity could write such a paragraph is that quoted at the beginning of this article. E. J. W.SITI July 12, 1883, page 307.8

June 28, 1883

July 19, 1883