"Doc Notes" Part 31 being a servant

Gentle Readers,

The law of Moses had three grand divisions: the moral the civil, and the ceremonial. The first is to be found in the Ten Commandments; the second (mainly) in Exodus 21-23; the third (principally) in the book of Leviticus. The first defined God’s claims upon Israel as human creatures; the second was for the social regulation of the Hebrew commonwealth; the third respected Israel’s religious life. In the first we may see the governmental authority of God the Father; in the second, the sphere and activities of God the Holy Spirit—maintaining order among God’s people: in the third, we have a series of types concerning God the Son.

"Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them. If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master has given him a wife, and she have borne him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children. I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him forever" (Ex. 21:1-6). This passage begins the series of "judgments" or statutes which God gave unto Israel for the regulation of their social and civil life. Its chief value for us today lies in its spiritual application to the Lord Jesus Christ. We have here a most beautiful and blessed foreshadowment of His person and work: Psalm 40:6 compared with Exodus 21:6 proves this conclusively. In that great Messianic Psalm the Lord Jesus, speaking in the spirit of prophecy, said, "Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not desire; Mine ears hast Thou digged." The passage before us pertained to the servant or slave. It brings out, in type, the Perfect Servant. Messianic prophecy frequently viewed Him in this character: "Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold" (Isa. 42:1). "Behold, I will bring forth My Servant, the Branch" (Zech. 3:8). "Behold, My Servant shall deal prudently. He shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high" (Isa. 52:13). "By His knowledge shall My righteous Servant justify many for He shall bear their iniquities" (Isa. 53:11).

In Philippians 2 we are exhorted, "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus" (v. 5). This is enforced as follows: "Who, being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a Servant, and was made in the likeness of man: And being found in fashion as a man He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Marvelous stoop was this: from the place of highest authority, to that of utmost dependency; from honor and glory, to suffering and shame. The Maker of heaven and earth entering the place of subjection. The One before whom the seraphim veiled their faces being made lower than the angels. May we never lose our sense of wonderment at such amazing condescension; rather may we delight in reverently contemplating it with ever-deepening awe and adoration. One whole book in the New Testament is devoted exclusively to setting before us the service of the perfect Servant. The design of Mark’s Gospel is to show us how He served: the spirit which actuated Him, the motives and principles which regulated Him, the excellency of all that He did. (This has been treated of in our book, "Why Four Gospels".)

"Lo, I come, to do Thy will, O God" (Heb. 10:9), was His utterance when He took the Servant form. "Wist ye not that I must be about My Father’s business" (Luke 2:49) are His first recorded words after He came here. "I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me" (John 6:38) summed up the whole of His perfect life while He tabernacled among men. As the perfect Servant. He was dependent upon the pleasure of His Master. He "pleased not Himself" (Rom. 15:3). "I am among you as He that serveth" (Luke 22:27) were His words to the apostles.

The servanthood of Christ was perfectly voluntary. The passages cited above prove that. And herein we behold the uniqueness of it. Who naturally chooses to be a servant? How different from the first Adam! He was given the place of a servant, but he forsook it. He was required to be in subjection to his Maker, but he revolted. And what was it that lured him from the place of submission? "Ye shall be as God" was the appealing lie which caused his downfall. With the Lord Jesus it was the very reverse. He was "as God." yea. He was God; yet did He make Himself of "No reputation." He voluntarily laid aside His eternal glory, divested Himself of all the insignia of Divine majesty, and took the servant form. And when the Tempter approached Him and sought to induce Him to repudiate His dependency on God, "make these stones bread," He announced His unfaltering purple to live in subjection to the Father of spirits. Never for a moment did He deviate from the path of complete submission to the Father’s will.

"If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve" (v. 2). The first thing to be noted here is the service of the servant. His master had a certain definitely defined claim upon him: "six years he shall serve him." Six is the number of man (Rev. 13:18), therefore what is in view here is the measure of human responsibility what man owes to his lawful Owner. The Owner of man is God, what, then, does man owe to his Maker? We answer, unqualified submission, complete subjection, implicit obedience to His known will. Now the will of God for man is expressed in the Law, conformity to which is all summed up in the words "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart . . . and thy neighbor as thyself." This every descendent of fallen Adam has failed to do. The Law has brought in all the world guilty before God. (Rom. 3:19).

Now the Lord Jesus came down to this world to honor God in the very place where He had been universally dishonored. He came here to "magnify the Law and make it honorable." Therefore was He "made under the Law" (Gal. 4:4). Therefore did He formally announce, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill" (Matthew 5:17). God’s Law was within His heart (Ps. 40:8). In it He meditated day and night (Ps. 1:2). Prom beginning to end, in thought, word, and deed, He kept the Law. Every demand of God upon man was fully met by the Perfect Man: every claim of God completely upheld. Christ is the only man who ever fully discharged human responsibility Godwards and manwards.

"And in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing" (v. 2). After the Hebrew servant had served for six years, his master had no further claim upon him. When the seventh year arrived (which tells of service completed) he was at liberty to go out, and serve no more. This was also true of the lord Jesus, the anti-type. The time came in His life when, as Man, He had fulfilled every jot and tittle of human responsibility, and when the Law had, therefore no further claim upon Him. We believe that this point was reached when He stood upon the "holy mount," when in the presence of His disciples He was transfigured, and when there came a voice from the excellent glory proclaiming Him to be the One in whom the Father delighted This, we believe, was the Father bearing witness to the fact that Christ was the faithful "Hebrew Servant." Right then He could (so far as the Law was concerned) have stepped from that mount to the Throne of Glory, He had perfectly fulfilled every righteous claim that God had upon man: He had loved the Lord with all His heart and His neighbor as Himself.

"If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master has given him a wife. and she have borne him sons and daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s and he shall go out by himself" (vv. 3, 4). We shall confine our remarks on these verses to the anti-type. The lord Jesus had no wife when He entered upon "His service." for Israel had been divorced (Isa. 50:1). Now although He was entitled by the Law to "go out free," the same Law required that He should go out alone—"by himself." This points us to something about which there has been much confusion. There was no union possible with the Lord Jesus in the perfections of His human life: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn a wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone" (John 12:24). Nothing could be plainer than this. The very perfections of the Servant of God only served to emphasize the more the distinction between Him and sinful man. It is only on resurrection-ground that union with Christ is possible, and for that death must intervene. It was on the resurrection-morning that He, for the first time, called His disciples "brethren." Does, then, our type fail us here? No, indeed. These typical pictures were drawn by the Divine Artist, and like Him. they are perfect. The next two verses bring this out beautifully.

"And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children, I will not go free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door posts; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever" (vv. 5, 6). Most blessed is this. It was love which impelled him to forego the freedom to which He was fully entitled by the Law—a threefold love: for His Master, his wife, and his children. But mark it well: "if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master," etc. When was it that the perfect Servant said this? Clearly it must have been just after the Transfiguration, for as we have seen, it was then that He had fulfilled every requirement of the Law, and so could have gone out free. Equally plain is it that we must turn to the fourth Gospel for the avowal of His love for it is there, as nowhere else, His love is told forth by the apostle of love. Now in John’s Gospel there is no account of the Transfiguration, but there is that which closely corresponds to it: John 12 gives us the parallel and the sequel to Matthew 17. It is here that we find Him saying, "The hour is come that the Son of Man should be glorified. Verily, verily: I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone" (John 12:23, 24), and then He added "But if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." Mark carefully what follows: "Now is My soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father save Me from this hour?" Ah, He answered His own question: "But for this cause came I unto this hour: Father, glorify Thy name" (vv. 27, 28). "What led Him to say that? Love! Love that thinks not of self at all; love that places itself entirely at the disposal of the loved ones. No matter what that terrible ‘hour’ contained, and He knew it all, He would go through it in His love to His Father and to us" (J. T. Mawson). Love led Him to undertake a service that the Law did not lay upon Him, a service that involved suffering (as the "bored" ear intimates) a service which was to last forever.

Every detail in this truly wondrous type calls for separate consideration. "If the servant shall plainly say, I love my master." This, be it noted, comes before the avowal of his love for his wife and children. This, of itself, is sufficient to establish the fact that what we have here must be of more than local application, for when and where was there ever a servant who put the love of his "master" before that of his wife and children? Clearly we are obliged to look for someone who is "Fairer than the children of men." And how perfectly the type answers to the anti-type! There is no difficulty here when we see that the Holy Spirit had the Lord Jesus in view. Love to His Father, His "Master;" was ever the controlling motive in the life of the perfect Servant. His first recorded utterance demonstrated this. Subject to Mary and Joseph He was as a child, yet even then the claims of His Father’s "business" were paramount. So too, in John 11, where we read of the sisters of Lazarus (whom He loved) sending Him a message that their brother was sick. Instead of hastening at once to their side, He "abode two days still in the same place where He was!" And why, "For the glory of God" (v. 4). It was not the affection of His human heart, but the will of His Father that moved Him. So, once more, in John 12, when He contemplated that awful ‘hour’ which troubled His soul. He said, "Father, glorify Thy name." The Father’s glory was His first concern. At once, the answer came, "I have both glorified (Thee) and will glorify (Thee) again" (v. 28). What is meant by the "again"? The Father’s name had already been glorified through the perfect fulfillment of His Law in the life of the Lord Jesus, as well as in that which was infinitely greater—the revelation of Himself to men. But He would also glorify Himself in the death and resurrection of His Son, and in the fruits thereof.

"I love . . . my wife." In the type this was said prospectively. The Lord Jesus is to have a Bride. The "wife" is here carefully distinguished from His "children." The "wife," we believe, is redeemed millennial Israel Both the "wife" and the "children" are the fruit of His death. The two are carefully distinguished again in John 11: "But being high priest that year, he (Caiaphas) prophesied that Jesus should die for (1) that nation; and not for that nation only, but that (2) also He should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad" (vv. 51:52). Looking forward to the time when Christ shall see of the travail of His soul and be satisfied, the Holy Spirit says to Israel, "Fear not, for thou shalt not be ashamed: neither be thou confounded; for thou shalt not be put to shame: for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more. For thy Maker is thine Husband: the Lord of hosts is His name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; the God of the whole earth shall He be called. For the Lord hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God. For a small moment, have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee. In a little wrath I hid My face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the Lord, thy Redeemer" (Isa. 54:4-8).

"I love . . . My children." Christ’s love was not limited to Israel, even though here. as ever, it is the Jew first. No; not only was He to die for "that Nation" not "this Nation." the then present nation of Israel, but "that" future Nation. which shall be born "at once," (Isa. 66:8), but also He should "gather together in one (family) the children of God that were scattered abroad." "Children of God" is never applied in Scripture to Israel. These "children" were to be the fruit of His dying travail. Blessed is it to hear Him say, "Behold I and the children which God hath given Me"
(Heb. 2:13).

"Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post, and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl" (v. 6). The boring of the ear marked the entire devotedness of the servant to do His Master’s wilt. "The door-post was the sign of personal limits: by it the family entered, and none else had the right. It was not therefore a thing that might pertain to a stranger, but pre-eminently that which belonged to that household. This too was the reason why it was on the door-post that the blood of the paschal lamb was sprinkled; it was staving the hand of God. so far as that house was concerned, on the first-born there, but on no one else. So here" (Mr. W Kelly). Important truth is this. Christ died not for the human race why should He when half of it was already in Hell! He died for the Household of God, His "wife" and "children," and for none (else: John 11:51. 52 proves that cf., also Matthew 1:21: John 10:11; Hebrews 2: 17, 9:28, etc. Significant too is this: when his master took his servant and bored his ear. So long as he lived that servant carried about in his body the mark of his servitude. So, too, the Lord Jesus wears forever in His body the marks of the Cross! After He had risen from the dead, He said to doubting Thomas. "Reach hither thy finger, and behold My hands; and reach hither thy hand and thrust it into My side" (John 20:27). So, too, in Revelation 5 the Lamb is seen, "as it had been slain" (v. 6).

"And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall serve him forever" (v. 6). Very wonderful is this in its application to the Antitype. The service of the Lord Jesus did not terminate when He left this earth. Though He has ascended on high, He is still ministering to His own. A beautiful picture of this is found in John 13, though we cannot now discuss it at any length. What is there in view is a parabolic sample of His work for His people since He returned to the Father. The opening verse of that chapter supplies the key to what follows: "When Jesus knew that His hour was come that He should depart out of this world unto the Father." So, too, in the fourth verse: "He riseth from supper (which spoke of His death) and laid aside His garments," which is literally what He did when He left the sepulcher. In John 13, then, from v. 4 onwards, we are on this side of the resurrection. The washing of the disciples feet tells of Christ’s present work of maintaining the walk of His own as they pass through this defiling scene. The towel and the basin speak of the love of the Servant—Savior in ministering to the needs of His own. Even now that lie has returned to the glory He is still serving us.

"But "he shall serve him forever." Will this be true of the Lord Jesus? It certainly will. There is a remarkable passage in Luke 12 which brings this out: "Blessed are those servants, whom the Lord when He cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you that He shall gird Himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them" (v. 37). Even in the Kingdom He will still serve us. But how can that be? Our feet will not require washing; we shall no longer have any need to be met. True, gloriously true. But, if there is no need on our part. there is love on His. and love ever delights to minister unto its beloved. Surpassingly wonderful is this: "He will come forth and serve them." How great the condescension! In the kingdom He will be seated upon the Throne of His Glory, holding the reigns of government: acknowledged as the King of kings and Lord of lords; and yet He will delight to minister unto our enjoyment. And too, He will serve "forever": it will be the eternal activity of Divine love delighting to minister to others.

Thus in this wondrous type we have shown forth the love of God’s, faithful Servant ministering to His Master. His wife, and His children, in His life. His death, His resurrection, and in His kingdom, The character of His service was perfect, denoted by the six years and seventh "go out free." The spring of His service was love, seen in His declining to go out free. The duration of His service, is "for ever"! The Lord enable us to heed that searching and needful word, "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 2:5).

"Doc notes" The Decalogue Part 30

Gentle Readers,

The Ten Commandments expressed the obligations of man in his original state, while enjoying free and open communion with God. But the state of innocence was quickly departed from, and as the offspring of fallen Adam, the children of Israel were sinners, unable to comply with the righteous requirements of God. Fear and shame therefore made God’s approach terrible, as He appeared in His holiness, as a consuming fire. The effects upon Israel of the manifestation of Jehovah’s majesty at Sinai are next given "And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off. And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die" (20:18, 19).

Here was a plain acknowledgment from Israel that they were unable to deal with God directly on the ground of the Decalogue. They felt at once that some provision needed to he made for them. A mediator was necessary: Moses must treat with God on their behalf. This was alright so far as it went, but it failed to meet fully the requirements of the situation. It met the need from their side, but not from God’s. The Lawgiver was holy, and His righteous requirements must be met. The transgressor of Hits Law could not be dealt with simply through a mediator as such. Satisfaction must be made: sin must be expiated: only thus could the inexorable demands of Divine justice be met. Accordingly this is what is brought before us in the sequel. The very next thing which is here mentioned in Exodus 20 is an ALTAR!

The "altar" at once tells of the provision of Divine grace, a provision which fully met the requirements of God’s governmental claims, and which made it possible for sinners to approach Him without shame, fear, or death; a provision which secured an agreement of peace. On such a basis was the Siniatic covenant ratified. Not that this rendered null and void what Jehovah had said in Exodus 19:5, "Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people." The Siniatic covenant was an agreement wherein God proposed to deal with Israel in blessing on the ground of their obedience. Governmentally this was never set aside. But provision was made for their failure, and this, right from the beginning! Israel’s failure to appropriate God’s gracious provision only rendered the more inexcusable their subsequent wickedness.

We read of no "altar" in Eden. Man in his innocence, created in the image and likeness of God, needed none. He had no sin to be expiated upon an altar: he had no sense of shame, and no fear of God in coming into his Maker’s presence and communing with Him directly. It was man’s sin which made necessary an "altar," and it was Divine grace which provided one. There are two things to bear in mind here in Exodus 20: Jehovah was not dealing with Israel on the alone ground of His righteousness, but also according to His rich mercy!

It is vitally important to see the relation between the two great subjects of our chapter: God giving the Law and God furnishing instructions concerning the altar. If it was impossible for Israel to enter directly into the Siniatic covenant (a mediator being necessary), and if they (as sinners) were unable to keep the Decalogue, why propose the one and give the other? Three answers may be returned: First, to show to Israel (and the race) that man is a sinner. A fixed standard which definitely defined man’s fundamental relations both with God and his fellows, a standard holy and just and good in all its parts, revealed to man his want of conformity to God’s Law". I had not known sin (its inner workings as lust) but by the Law... that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful" (Rom. 7:7, 13). Second: to bring to light man’s moral inability. The Law with its purity and its penalty, disclosed the fact that on the one hand, man was unable (because of his corrupted nature) to keep the Law; and on the other hand, unable to atone for his transgressions of it—"Sin taking occasion by the commandment wrought in me all manner of concupiscence... For I was alive without the Law once; but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death" (Rom. 7:8, 10). Third: to show man his need of the Savior. "Wherefore then serveth the Law? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made... But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the Law was our schoolmaster unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith" (Gal. 3:19, 23 24).

It is therefore abundantly clear that the Ten Commandments were never given to men or to Israel as a means of salvation, i.e., being saved through obeying them. They were not given in statutory form till after man had become a sinner, and his nature so corrupted that he had neither ability nor desire to keep them. The Law was not a way of life, but a rule of conduct. The writing of the Ten Commandments on tables of stone long after man had become a fallen being, was to show that God’s claims upon His creatures had not been cancelled, any more than has the right of a creditor to collect though the debtor be unable to pay. Whether unfallen, or fallen, or saved, or glorified, it ever remains true that man ought to love God with all his heart and his neighbor as himself. While ever the distinction between right and wrong holds good, man is under obligation to keep God’s Law. This is what God was enforcing at Sinai—His righteous claims upon Israel, first as His creatures, then as His redeemed. It is true that Israel were unable to meet those claims, therefore did God in His marvelous grace, make provision both for their failure and the upholding of His claims. This we see in the "altar."

Before we examine the typical significance of the "altar" we would call attention to a most lovely thing not found here in Exodus 20, but given in a later scripture. As Israel beheld the fearful phenomena which manifested the presence of Jehovah upon the Holy Mount, they said unto Moses, "Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us lest we die" (20:19). Now it is exceedingly blessed to mark God’s response to this. But not to the careless reader is this discovered. It is only by prayerfully and diligently comparing scripture with scripture that its exquisite perfections are revealed, and only thus are we able to obtain a complete view of many a scene. In Deuteronomy 5:22, 27 Moses reviews the giving of the Law at Sinai and the effects which that had upon the people. Then he says, "And the Lord heard the voice of your words, when ye spake unto me, and the Lord said unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken unto thee: they have well said ALL that they have spoken." Now if we compare with this Deuteronomy 18:17, 18. we discover the full response which the Lord made to Israel’s request: "And the Lord said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put My words in His mouth; and He shall speak unto them all that I shall command Him." The desire of Israel for a mediator, for one of their own number to act as God’s mouthpiece unto them was to be realized, eventually, in the great Mediator, the chief Prophet or Spokesman of God. How blessedly does this reveal to us the thoughts of grace which Jehovah had unto Israel even at Sinai! How refreshing to turn away from the miserable perversions of many of the modern commentators and learn what the Scriptures have to say concerning that memorable day at Sinai!

"And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was" (v. 21). In the above paragraph we have sought to point out a part, at least, of the precious revelation which Jehovah made to Moses in the "thick darkness." Following this, Moses returned to the people with this message from the Lord: "Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven. Ye shall not make with Me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold" (vv. 22, 23). Idolatry was expressly forbidden. It was God, once more, insisting upon His unrivalled supremacy. And then immediately after this, instructions are given concerning the "altar."

"An altar of earth shall thou make unto Me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and they peace offerings, thy sheep and thine oxen" (v. 24). The Tabernacle had not yet been erected. Clearly then, what we have here were Divine instructions for Israel’s immediate compliance: an altar was to be built at the foot of Sinai! It was not the future which was in view, but the present. All doubt as to the correctness of this conclusion is forever removed by what we read of in Exodus 24:4—what intervenes being a connected account of what Jehovah made known unto Moses on the Mount to be communicated unto the people. Here we are told, "And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according W the twelve tribes of Israel." That there may be no possibility of failure to identify this "altar," it is immediately added. "And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord. Here then was the "altar" (of earth), and here were the "burnt offerings" and the "peace of offerings." And why has the Holy Spirit been so careful to record these details here in Exodus 24? Why, if not to show us the fulfillment of Jehovah’s word unto Pharaoh: "Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Let My people go, that they may hold a feast unto Me in the wilderness" (5:1)! The "peace-offering" is the one offering of all others specially connected with feasting: "And Solomon awoke; and, behold it was a dream. And he came to Jerusalem, and stood before the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and offered up burnt offerings and offered peace offerings, and made a feast to all his servants (1 Kings 3:15, cf. 8:64, 65, etc).

"In all places where I record My name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee" (v. 24). Plainly this begins a new sentence and is connected with what follows, as the first words of v. 25 clearly show, Jeremiah 7:12 affords an illustration of what is meant by God recording His name in a place: "But go ye now unto My place which was in Shiloh, where I set My name at the first." Let the interested reader look up the various references to "Shiloh." Compare also "Bethel" and "Zion" where God’s name was also recorded.

"And if thou wilt make Me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it thou hast polluted it" (v. 25). The connection between this and the last clause of v. 24 is most significant and important. God had promised to "come unto" Israel and "bless" them in all places where His name was recorded. But if Israel were to come unto Jehovah an "altar" must be erected, an altar where blood should flow and fire consume: blood to propitiate God; fire to signify His acceptance of the sacrifice.

The first thing to notice about this altar (like the one in the previous verse) is its extreme simplicity and plainness. This was in marked contrast from the "gods of sliver" and "gods of gold" (v. 23) of the heathen The altar which Israel was to erect unto God must not be made of that which man had manufactured, nor beautified by his skill: there should be in it no excellence which human hand had imparted. Man would naturally suppose that an altar to be used for Divine sacrifices should be of gold, artistically designed and richly ornamented. Yes, but that would only allow man to glorify himself in his handiwork. The great God will allow "no" flesh to glory in His presence" (1 Cor. 1:29). Solemn indeed are the words "If thou liftest up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it." "Not by works of righteousness which we have done" (Titus 3:5) is the New Testament equivalent. Sinfulness cannot approach the thrice holy God with any thing in hand which his own labors have produced. That is why the Lord had not respect unto the offering which Cain brought to Him: Cain presented the fruits of the ground, the product of his own labors; and God rejected them. And God still rejects all the efforts of the natural man to propitiate Him. All the attempts of the sinner to win the notice and merit the respect of God by his efforts at self-improvement are worse than vain. What God demands of His fallen creatures is that they should take the place of lost sinners before Him, coming empty-handed to receive undeserved mercy.

"Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto Mine altar" (v. 26). The meaning of this is not difficult to perceive. It is parallel in principle to what was before us in the previous verse. "Steps" are a human contrivance to avoid the strain of rising from a lower level to a higher. Man cannot climb up to God by any stops of his own making. What God requires from the sinner is, that he shall take his true place before Him—in the dust. There God will meet with him. It is true that morally and spiritually man is separated from God by a distance, a distance far too great for man to ever bridge. But though man cannot climb up to God, God, in the person of His Son, has come down all the way to the poor sinner. The second chapter of Philippians describes that marvelous and gracious descent of the Lord of glory. Five distinct, "steps" are there marked—the number of grace. He who was in the form of God and thought it not robbery to be equal with God (1) "made Himself of no reputation," (2) "took upon Him the form of a servant," (3) "and was made in the likeness of men." (4) "Being found in fashion as a man He humbled Himself," (5) "and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Self-evident is it then that there are no "steps" for man to climb!

"Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto Mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon" (v. 26). The very efforts of men to climb up to God only expose their own shame. Remarkably is this brought out in the very chapter which records the entrance of sin into this world. As soon as Adam and Eve had eaten of the prescribed fruit we are told. "And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons" (Gen. 3:7). But of what avail were those aprons before Him who can read the innermost secrets of the heart? The very next thing we read is "And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden." Their fig-leaf "aprons" did not now even satisfy themselves! But that is not all: "and the Lord God called unto Adam. and said unto him, Where art thou?" And what was our guilty forefather’s response? This: "And he said I heard Thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because. I was naked; and I hid myself." The apron of fig-leaves only served to make manifest and emphasize the fact that he was naked—naked even with the "apron" on! How true, then, that man’s very efforts to climb up to God do but expose his shame!

It should be pointed out, in conclusion, that the two "altars," the one of "earth" and the other of "stone," both point to the person of the Lord Jesus, bringing out His varied perfections. On this we cannot do better than let Mr. Grant interpret for us: —

"The material which God accepts for His altar, then, is either earth or stone, things which are in contrast with one another; ‘earth’ deriving its name from its crumbling character (eratz, from ratz, to crumble away, says Parkhurst, of the Hebrew word); and ‘stone,’ which resists pressure, and is characterized by its hardness and durability. Of the dust of the earth man is made, and as this is fertile as it yields to the hand that dressed it, so is man to God, as he yields himself to the Divine hand. Earth seems thus naturally to stand for the creature in its frailty,—conscious of it, and accepting the place of weakness and subjection, thus to the bringing forth of fruit to God. While ‘stone’ stands for the strength that is found in another, linked with and growing out of the consciousness of weakness: ‘When I am weak, then am I strong.’ "Now in both respects He who was perfect, who came down to all the reality of manhood to know both its weakness and the wondrous strength which is wrought out of weakness, thus waiting upon and subject to God. It was thus in endurance He yielded Himself up, and endured by yielding Himself to His Father’s will."

The "earth" then, corresponds in thought to the "fine flour" of the meal offering (Lev. 2), speaking of the perfect yieldedness of Christ’s to the Father’s will. Most blessedly was this evidenced in Gethsemane, where we hear Him saying, "Nevertheless, not My will, but Thine be done." The "stone" points to the same thing as the "brass" in the Tabernacle altar. It showed there was that in Christ (and in Him alone) capable of enduring the fearful fires of God’s wrath. The fact that the stones of this altar must not be "hewn," shaped by human chisel, shows once more how jealously God guarded the accuracy of these types. The stones must be left just as the Creator had made them—man must not change their form. The antitype or this would be that Christ, as it were, retained the "form" which God had given Him, And all the pressure of circumstances and all the efforts of men and Satan could not alter it. When the Lord announced the Cross (the "altar" on which the great Sacrifice was to be offered. Peter said, Spare Thyself": that was Satan, through man, attempting to "hew" the "stone"; but the Lord suffered it not.

May God stir up writer and reader to a more diligent and prayerful searching of the Scriptures.

"Doc Notes" All we need is just 10

Gentle readers,

Much confusion prevails today among those who speak of "The law." This is a term which needs to be carefully defined. In the New Testament there are three expressions used which require to be definitely distinguished. First, there is "The law of God" (Rom. 7:22, 25, etc.). Second, there is "The law of Moses" (John 7:2. Acts 13: 39, 15:5, etc.). Third, there is "the law of Christ" (Gal. 6:2) Now these three expressions are by no means synonymous, and it is not until we learn to distinguish between them, that we can hope to arrive at any clear understanding on the subject of "The law."

The "law of God" expresses the mind of the Creator, and is binding upon all rational creatures. It is God’s unchanging moral standard for regulating the conduct of all men. In some places the "law of God" may refer to the whole revealed will of God, but usually it has reference to the Ten Commandments, and it is in this restricted sense we shall here use the term. The Law was impressed on man’s moral nature from the beginning, and though now fallen, he still shows the work of it written on his heart. This Law has never been repealed, and, in the very nature of things, cannot be. For God to abrogate the moral law would be to plunge the whole universe into anarchy. Obedience to the law of God is man’s first duty. This is why the first complaint that Jehovah made against Israel after they left Egypt was "How long refuse ye to keep My commandments and My laws?" (Ex. 16:2, 27). That is why the first statutes which God gave to Israel after their redemption were the Ten Commandments, i. e., the moral law. That is why in the first discourse of Christ recorded in the New Testament, He declared, "Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, of the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill" (Matthew 5:17), and then proceeded to expound and enforce the moral law. And that is why in the first of the Epistles, the Holy Spirit has taught us at length the relation of the Law to sinners and saints, in connection with salvation and the subsequent walk of the saved: the word "law" occurs in Romans no less than seventy-five times, though, of course, not every reference is to the law of God. And that is why sinners (Rom. 3:19), and saints (James 2:12), shall be judged by this law.

The "law of Moses" is the entire system of legislation, judicial and ceremonial. which Jehovah gave to Israel during the time they were in the wilderness. The "law of Moses, as such, is binding upon none but Israelites. The "law of Moses" has not been repealed, for it will be enforced by Christ during the Millennium "Out of Jerusalem shall go forth the Law, and the Word of the lord from Jerusalem" (Isa. 2:3). That the "law of Moses" is not binding on Gentiles is clear from Acts 15.

The "law of Christ" is God’s moral law in the hands of a Mediator. It is the law that Christ Himself was "made under (Gal. 4:4). It is the law which was "in His heart" (Ps. 40:8). It is the law which He came "fulfill" (Matthew 5:17). The "law of God" is now termed "the law of Christ" as it relates to Christians. As creatures we are under bends to "serve the law of God" (Rom. 7:25): as redeemed sinners we are "bondslaves of Christ" (Eph. 6:6); and as such it is our bounden duty to "serve the Lord Christ" (Col. 3:21). The relation between these two appellations. "the law of God" and "the law of Christ," is clearly intimated in 1 Corinthians 9:21, where the apostle states that he was not "without law to God," for he was "under the law to Christ." The meaning of this is very simple. As a human creature, the Apostle was still under obligations to obey the Moral Law of God, his Creator; but as a saved man, he now belongs to Christ, the Mediator, by redemption. Christ had purchased him: he was His, therefore was he under the "law of Christ." The "law of Christ." then, is just the moral of law of God now in the hands of the Mediator—of Exodus 34:1 and what follows!

Should any one object against our definition of the distinction drawn between God’s moral law and "The law of Moses" we request them to attend closely to what follows. God took special pains to show us the clear line of demarcation which He Himself has drawn between the two. The Moral Law became incorporated in the Mosaic law, yet was it sharply distinguished from it: —

In the first place, the Ten Commandments, and they alone, of all the laws which God gave unto Israel, were promulgated by the voice of God. amid the most solemn manifestations and tokens of the Divine presence. Second, the Ten Commandments and they alone of all Jehovah’s statutes to Israel, were written directly by the finger of God. written upon tables of stone, and written thus to denote their lasting and imperishable nature. Third, the Ten Commandments were distinguished from all the other laws which had merely a local application to Israel by the fact that they alone were laid up In the ark. A tabernacle was prepared by the special direction of God, and within it an ark was placed, in which the two tables of stone were deposited. The ark, formed of the most durable wood, was overlaid with gold within and without. Over it was placed the mercy seat, which became the throne of Jehovah in the midst of His redeemed people. Not until the tabernacle had been erected and the Law placed in the ark, did Jehovah take up His abode in Israel’s midst. Thus did the Lord signify to Israel that the Moral Law was the basis of all His governmental dealings with them!

It is therefore clear beyond room for doubt that the Ten Commandments are to be sharply distinguished from the "law of Moses." The "law of Moses," excepting the Moral Law incorporated therein, was binding upon none but Israelites or Gentile proselytes. But the "Law of God," unlike the Mosaic, is binding upon all men. Once this distinction is perceived, many minor difficulties are cleared up. For example: someone says, If we are to keep the Sabbath-day holy, as Israel did, why must we not observe the ether "sabbaths"—the Sabbatic year, for instance? The answer is, Because the Moral Law alone is hireling upon Gentiles and Christians. But why, it may be asked, does not the death-penalty attached to the desecration of the Sabbath day (Ex. 31:14. etc.) still obtain? The answer is, Because though that was a part of the Mosaic law, it was not a part of the Moral Law, i. e., it was not inscribed on the tables of stone: therefore it concerned none but Israelites. Let us now consider separately, but briefly, each of the Ten Commandments.

The order of the Commandments is most significant. The first four concern human responsibility Godwards; the last five our obligations manwards: while the fifth suitably bridges the two, for in a certain sense parents occupy to their children the place of God. We may also add that the substance of each commandment is in perfect keeping with its numerical place in the Decalogue. One stands for unity and supremacy so in the first commandment the absolute sovereignty and pre-eminency of the Creator is insisted upon. Since God is who He is, He will tolerate no competitor or rival: His claims upon us are paramount.

1. "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" (Ex. 20:3). If this first Commandment received the respect it demands, obedience to the other nine would follow as a matter of course. "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" means, Thou shalt have no other object of worship: thou shalt own no other authority as absolute: thou shalt make Me supreme in your hearts and lives. How much this first commandment contains! There are other "gods" besides idols of wood and stone. Money, pleasure, fashion, fame, gluttony, and a score of other things which make self supreme, usurp the rightful place of God in the affections and thoughts of many. It is not without reason that even to the saints the exhortation is given, "Little children keep yourselves from idols" (1 John 5:21).

2. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shall not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them for I the Lord thy God am a Jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me, and keep My commandments" (vv. 4-6).

Two is the number of witness, and in this second commandment man is forbidden to attempt any visible representation of Deity, whether furnished by the skill of the artist or the sculptor. The first commandment points out the one only object of worship; the second tells us how He is to be worshipped—in spirit and in truth, by faith and not by images which appeal to the senses. The design of this commandment is to draw us away from carnal conceptions of God, and to prevent His worship being profaned by superstitious rites. A most fearful threat and a most gracious promise are attached. Those who break this commandment shall bring down on their children the righteous judgment of God; those who keep it shall cause mercy to be extended to thousands of those who love God. How this shows us the vital and solemn importance of parents teaching their children the unadulterated truth concerning the Being and Character of God!

3. "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain" (v. 7). God requires that the majesty of His holy name be hold inviolably sacred by us. His name must be used neither with contempt, irreverently, or needlessly. It is striking to observe that the first portion in the prayer the Lord taught His disciples is: "Hallowed be Thy name"! The name of God is to be held profoundly sacred In our ordinary speech and in our religious devotions nothing must enter that in anywise lowers the sublime dignity and the high holiness of that Name. The greatest sobriety and reverence is called for. It needs to be pointed out that the only time the word "reverend" is found in the Bible is in Psalm 111:9 where we read, "Holy and reverend is His name." How irreverent then for preachers to style themselves "reverend"!

4. "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work, but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor the stranger, that is within thy gates; For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it" (vv. 8-11). There are two things enjoined here: First, that man should work six days of the week. The same rule is plainly enforced in the New Testament: "And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you" (1 Thess. 4:11). "For even when we were with you this we commanded you. that if any would not WORK, neither should he eat" (2 Thess. 3:10)! The second thing commanded is, that on the seventh day all work must cease. The Sabbath is to be a day of rest. Six days work: one day for rest. The two must not be separated: work calls for rest; rest for work.

The next thing we would observe is that the Sabbath is not here termed "the seventh day of the week." Nor is it ever so styled in Scripture! So far as the Old Testament is concerned any day which was used for rest and which was followed by six days of work was a Sabbath! It is not correct, then, to say that the "Sabbath" can only be observed on a Saturday. There is not a word of Scripture to support such a statement.

In the next place, we emphatically deny that this Sabbath law has ever been repealed. Those who teach it has, are guilty of the very thing which the Savior so pointedly condemns in Matthew 5:19. There are those who allow that it is right and proper for us to keep the other nine Commandments, but they insist that the Sabbath has passed away. We fully believe that this very error was anticipated by Christ in Matthew 5:19: "Whosoever shall break one (not "any one") of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." Hebrews 4:9 tells us that Sabbath-keeping remains: it has not become obsolete.

The Sabbath (like all the other Commandments) was not simply for Israel but for all men. The Lord Jesus distinctly declared "the Sabbath was made for MAN" (Mark 2:27) and no amount of quibbling can ever make this mean Jews only. The Sabbath was made for man: for man to observe and obey; also for man’s well-being, because his constitution needed it. One day of rest each week is requisite for man’s physical, mental, and spiritual good.

"But we must not mistake the means for the end. We must not think that the Sabbath is just, for the sake of being able to attend meetings. There are some people who think they must spend the whole day at meetings or private devotions. The result is that at nightfall they are tired out and the day has brought them no rest. The number of church services attended ought to be measured by the person’s ability to enjoy them and get good from them, without being wearied. Attending meetings is not the only way to observe the Sabbath. The Israelites were commanded to keep it in their dwellings as well as in holy convocation. The home, that center of so great influence over the life and character of the people, ought to be made the scene of true Sabbath observance" (The late Mr. D. L. Moody).

5. "Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee" (v. 12). The word "honor" means more than obey, though obedience is necessarily included in it. To "honor" a parent is to give him the place of superiority, to hold him or her in high esteem, to reverence him. The Scriptures abound with illustrations of Divine blessing coming upon those who honored their parents, and the Divine curse descending on those who honored them not. The supreme example is that of the Lord Jesus. In Luke 2:52, we read "And He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them." On the Cross we see the Savior honoring His mother by providing a home for her with His beloved disciple John.

It is indeed sad to see the almost universal disregard of this fifth Commandment in our own day. It is one of the most arresting of the many "signs of the times." Eighteen hundred years ago it was foretold, "In the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemous, disobedient to parents, unthankful unholy, without natural affection" (2 Tim. 3:1, 3). Unquestionably, the blame for most of this lies upon the parents, who have so neglected the moral and spiritual training of their children that (in themselves) they are worthy of neither respect nor honor. It is to be noted that the promise attached to the fulfillment of this Commandment as well as the command itself is repeated in the New Testament—see Ephesians 6:1, 3.

6. "Thou shalt not kill" (v. 13). The simple force of this is, Thou shalt not murder. God Himself has attached the death-penalty to murder. This comes out plainly in Genesis 9:5, 6, "And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it. and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God made He man." This statute which God gave to Noah has never been rescinded. In Matthew 5:21, 22, we have Christ’s exposition of this sixth commandment: He goes deeper than the letter of the words and gives the spirit of them, He shows that murder is not limited to the overt act, but also pertains to the state of mind and the angry passion which prompts the act—cf., 1 John 3:15.

In this sixth Commandment, God emphasizes the sacredness of human life and His own sovereignty over it—He alone has the right to say when it shall end. The force of this was taught Israel in connection with the cities of refuge. These provided an asylum from the avenger of blood. But they were not to shelter murderers, but only those who had killed "unwittingly" (R.V.). It was only those who had unintentionally taken the life of a fellow-creature who could take refuge therein! And this, be it observed, was not regarded as a light affair: even the man who had taken life "unawares" was deprived of his liberty till the death of the high priest!

7. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (v. 14). This respects the marriage relationship which was instituted in Eden—"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall he one flesh" (Gen. 2:24). The marriage-relationship is paramount over every other human obligation. A man is more responsible to love and care for his wife than he is to remain in the home of his childhood and take care of his father and mother. It is the highest and most sacred of human relations. It is in view of this relationship that the seventh Commandment is given. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" means, Thou shall not be unfaithful to the marriage obligations.

Now in Christ’s exposition of this Commandment we find Him filling it out and giving us its deeper moaning: "I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matthew 5:28). Unfaithfulness is not limited to the overt act, but reaches to the passions behind the act. In Christ’s interpretation of the law of divorce He shows that one thing only can dissolve the marriage relationship, and that is unfaithfulness on the part of the husband or the wife.

"I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away cloth commit adultery" (Matthew 19:9). Fornication is the general term; adultery the specific: the former includes the latter. 1 Corinthians 7:15 supplies no exception: if one depart from the other, except it be on the ground of unfaithfulness, neither is free to marry again. Separation is not divorce in the scriptural sense. "If she depart let her remain unmarried" (1 Cor. 7:11).

8. "Thou shalt not steal" (v. 15) The design of this Commandment is to inculcate honesty in all our dealings with men. Stealing covers more than pilfering. "Owe no man anything" (Rom. 13:8) "Providing for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men" (2 Cor. 8:21). I may steal from another by fraudulent means, without using any violence. If I borrow a book and fail to return it, that is theft—it is keeping what is not my own. How many are guilty here! If I misrepresent an article for sale, the price which I receive over and above its fair market-value is stolen! The man who obtains money by gambling, receives money for which he has doric no honest work, and is therefore a thief! "Parents are woefully lax in their condemnation and punishment of the sin of stealing. The child begins by taking sugar, it may be. The mother makes light of it at first and the child’s conscience is violated without any sense of wrong. By and by it is not an easy matter to check the habit, because it grows and multiplies with every new commission" (Mr. D. L. Moody).

9. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" (v. 16). The scope of these words is much wider than is generally supposed. The most flagrant form of this sin is to slander our neighbors—a lie invented and circulated with malicious intentions. Few forms of injury done by one man to another is more despicable than this, But equally reprehensible is tale-bearing where there has been no careful investigation to verify the evil report. False witness may be borne by leaving a false impression upon the minds of people by a mere hint or suggestion. "Have you heard about Mr.—?" "No." "Ah! Well, the least said the soonest mended." Again, when one makes an unjust criticism or charge against another in the hearing of a third party, and that third party remains silent, his very silence is a breach of this ninth Commandment. The flattering of another, exaggerated eulogy, is a false witness. Rightly has it been said, "There is no word of the Decalogue more often and more unconsciously broken than this ninth Commandment, and men need perpetually and persistently to pray ‘Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth; keep the door of my lips.’"

10. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s" (v. 17). This Commandment differs from all the others in that while they prohibit the overt act, this condemns the very desire to act. The word "covet" means desire, and the Commandment forbids us to covet any thing that is our neighbor’s. Clear proof is this that these Commandments are not of human origin. The tenth Commandment has never been placed on any human statute book! It would be useless to do so, for men could not enforce it. More than any other, perhaps, does this Commandment reveal to us what we are, the hidden depths of evil within. It is natural to desire things, even though they belong to others. True; and that only shows the fallen and depraved state of our nature. The last Commandment is especially designed to show men their sinfulness and their need of a Savior. Believers, too, are exhorted to "beware of coveteousness" (Luke 12:15). There is only one exception, and that is stated in 1 Corinthians 12:31: "Covet earnestly the best gifts."

May the Holy Spirit of God fasten these Commandments upon the memory of both writer and reader, and may the fear of God make us tremble before them.

"Doc Notes"- It's the LAW Part 28

Gentle Readers,

In His Olivet discourse the Lord Jesus prophesied that, "Because iniquity (Greek, lawlessness) shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold" (Matthew 24:12). Surely no anointed eye can fail to see that this prediction is now" being fulfilled. Lawlessness abounds on every side. Men are bent on pleasing themselves. Authority is openly flouted. Discipline is becoming a thing of the past. Parental control is rarely exercised. Marriage has, for the most part, degenerated into a thing of convenience. Nations regard their solemn treaties as ‘scraps of paper.’ In the U.S.A. the 18th Amendment is despised on every side. Yes, "lawlessness" is abounding. And God’s own people have not escaped the chilling effects of this; the love of many of them has waxed cold.

The supreme test of love is the desire and effort to please the one loved, and this measured by conformity to his known wishes. Love to God is expressed by obedience to His will. Only One has perfectly exemplified this, and of Him it is written, "I will delight to do Thy will, O My God: yea, Thy law is within My heart" (Ps. 40:8). But we ought so to walk even as He walked (1 John 2:6). Simple but searching is that word of His, "He that hath My commandments and keepeth them he it Is that loveth Me" (John 14:21). And again it is written, "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments: and His commandments are not grievous" (1 John 5:2-3). The "waning" of love, then, means departing from, failing to keep, God’s commandments!

The prophecy of Christ in Matthew 24:12 does not stand alone. In the book of Jude, that treats of conditions which are to obtain in the closing days of the history of Christendom, apostates are described as those who "despise dominion, and spake evil of dignities" (v. 8). The despising of dominion is the essence of lawlessness. Those latter-day apostates are also referred to in the second Epistle of Peter: "While they promise them liberty they themselves are the slaves of corruption" (2:19). Their slogan is, emancipation from authority, deliverance from all law.

While we cannot but deplore the lawlessness which abounds in the world and the effect which it is having on many who bear the name of Christ, far more sad and solemn is it to hear their teachers giving out that which can only foster and further this evil spirit. Reputable Bible teachers are declaring that the Law of God is not binding on men today least of all on Christians. They say that the Law was only for Israel. They insist that this is the Dispensation of Grace, and that Law is the enemy of Grace. They affirm that when we become members of the new creation, all the responsibilities attaching to the old creation automatically cease. They argue that because a Christian is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, he needs no law. They brand as legalists the few who press the claims of God’s Law upon the consciences of men. They regard with scornful pity men mightily used of God in the past who taught that the Law of God is a rule of life, a standard for moral conduct.

Now it is of first importance that we obtain a Scriptural view of the nature of the Law. The very fact that it is the law of God should at once show us that it cannot contain anything inimical to man’s welfare. Like everything else that God has given, the Law is an expression of His love, a manifestation of His mercy, a provision of His grace. The Law of the Lord was Christ’s delight (Ps. 1:2); so also was it the apostle Paul’s (Rom. 7:22). In Romans 7, the Holy Spirit has expressly affirmed, "Wherefore the Law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good" (v. 12); yea more, He has declared "The Law is spiritual" (v. 15). How terrible then for men to despise that Law and speak evil of it! What state of sour must they be in who wish to be delivered from it!

Above, we have said that the Law expressed God’s love. This comes out clearly in Deuteronomy 33: "The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; He shined forth from Mount Paran, and He came with ten thousands of saints: from His right hand went a fiery law for them. Yea, He LOVED the people" (vv. 2-3). Love is the fulfilling of the law from the human side and love provided the Law from the Divine side. What, then, ought to be our response to such a Law? Surely that of David: "O how love I Thy Law: it is my meditation all the day"
(Ps. 119:97).

While Divine love provided the Law, the prime purpose of God in giving it was that His authority should be maintained. Israel must be brought to see that they were under His government. And this of necessity. The creature must be made to recognize the rights of his Creator. No sooner did the Lord God place man in the Garden which He had planted for him, than He commanded him—note how in Genesis 3 God pressed this both upon Eve and Adam (vv. 11, 17). The very ground of the sentence passed upon them was that they had repudiated His creatorial claims.

Now what we have in Exodus 19 and 20 is the enforcement of God’s claims upon double one. They belonged to Him not Israel. His claim upon them was not only because He had made them but also because He had purchased them: they were not only His creatures, but they were also His redeemed people. It was this second relationship which is now pressed upon them both in Exodus 19 and 20. In the former He says, "Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto Myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people: for all the earth is Mine" (vv. 4-5). In the latter, He prefaces the Ten Commandments with the statement "I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage" (v. 2). But it should be carefully noted that in Exodus 20 He presses both of His claims upon Israel. In the first verse it is, "And God (the Creator) spake all these words"; while in v. 2, He reminds them, that as the Lord their God He had brought them out of the land of Egypt.

Now what we would particularly emphasize here, is the fact that redemption does not cancel the claims which God has upon men as His creatures. Instead, these claims are still enforced, but, the new relationship into which redemption introduces, imposes additional responsibilities, or, more accurately speaking, supplies an additional motive for recognizing and meeting God’s claims upon us. In the previous chapters we have witnessed God dealing in marvelous grace with Israel, bearing with them in tender patience, supplying their every need. But now the point has been reached when they must be taught that God has righteous claims upon them, that His Throne must be established over them, that His authority must be owned, that. His will is supreme and must be made the regulator of their lives, and that as His redeemed they were under the deepest possible obligations to fear, obey, and serve Him. Notice how Moses pressed this upon Israel near the close of his life: "The Lord thy God redeemed thee, therefore I command thee this thing today" (Deut. 15:15).

"The laws which God gave unto Israel fall into three classes: the moral, the ceremonial and the civil. The people of Israel may be considered three ways. First, as rational creatures, depending upon God, as the Supreme Cause, both in a moral and natural sense. And thus the law of the decalogue was given them; which, as to its substance is one and the same with the law of nature (the work of which is written on man’s heart. A.W.P.) binding man as such. Second. as the Church of the Old Testament, who expected the promised Messiah, and happy times when He should make every thing perfect. And in that character they received the ceremonial law, which really shewed the Messiah was not yet come, and had not perfected all things by His satisfaction (sacrifice), but that He would come and make all things new. Third, as a peculiar people, who had a policy of government suited to their genius and disposition in the land of Canaan: a republic constituted not so much according to those forms which philosophors bare delineated, but which wins in a peculiar manner, a theocracy as Josephus significantly calls it, God Himself holding the reins of government therein—Judges 8:23. Under this view God prescribed their political laws" (Dr. Herman Witsius, 1680—a deeply-taught theologian from whom our moderns might learn much).

We heartily concur with the remarks of the late Mr. D. L. Moody in "Weighed and Wanting"—"The commandments of God given to Moses in the mount at Horeb are as binding today as ever they have been since the time when they were proclaimed in the hearing of the people. The Jews said the Law was not given in Palestine (which belonged to Israel), but in the wilderness, because the Law was for all nations." We believe that the Ten Commandments are binding on all men, and especially upon Christians, and that for the following reasons:—

First, because it is both right and meet that the great Creator’s authority should be proclaimed by Him and acknowledged by His creatures. This was the demand which He made upon Adam, and every sober mind will acknowledge it was a righteous one. Even the unfallen angels are beneath a regime of law: of them it is said, "Bless the Lord ye His angels that excel in strength, that do His commandments, hearkening unto the voice of His word" (Ps. 103:20). Only a spirit of lawlessness can inveigh against the statement that every human creature is responsible to keep the law of God.

Second, because the Ten Commandments have never been repealed. The very fact that they were written by the finger of God Himself, written not upon parchment, but on tables of stone, argues conclusively their permanent nature. If it was contrary to the mind of God that those living during the Christian dispensation should regard the Ten Commandments as binding upon them surely He would have said so in plain language. But the New Testament will be searched in vain for a single word which announces their cancellation.

Third, because we need them. Has human nature so improved, is man so much better than he was three thousand years ago, that he no longer stands in need of the Divine Law? If the covenant people of old required to have such statutes are the Gentiles today any less self-sufficient? Are men now so little prone to idolatry that they need not the Divine command "Thou shall have no other gods before Me? Has the enmity of the carnal mind been so refined that it is no longer timely to say "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain?" Are the children of this twentieth century A.D. so devoted to their parents and so marked by the spirit of obedience that it is superfluous to say to them "Honor thy father and thy mother?" Is human life now held in such reverence that it is idle to say "Thou shall not kill?" Has the marriage-relationship come to be so sacredly regarded that "Thou shall not commit adultery" is an impertinence? And is there now so much honesty in the world that it is a waste of breath to remind our fellows that God says "Thou shalt not steal?" Rather is it not true that in the light of present-day conditions the Ten commandments need to be thundered forth from every pulpit in the land?

Fourth, because the Lord Jesus Christ Himself respected them. Galatians 4:4 tells us that He was, "made under the Law." On entering this world He declared "I delight to do Thy will, O My God: yea, Thy Law is within My heart" (Ps. 40:8), and the record of His earthly life fully bears this out. When the ruler asked Him, "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?" He answered, "Thou knowest the commandments—‘Do not commit adultery,’" etc. Whatever may have been our Lord’s reason for returning such a reply, one thing is clear—He honored the holy Law of God! When the lawyer tempted Him by asking. "Which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" (Matthew 22:36), His answer once more shows Him maintaining the authority of God’s Law.

Fifth, because of our Lord’s teaching on the subject. In the Sermon on the Mount we find Him saying, "Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill For verily I say unto you till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:17-19). What could be clearer than this? So far from affirming that He had come to cancel the Law, He declared that He would fulfill it. Yea, more, He insisted that the Law shall remain, and remain intact so long as the earth remained. His words that not "one jot or tittle of the Law should pass away (become obsolete) proves conclusively that the fourth commandment (on the Sabbath) would remain in force equally with the other nine! Finally, He solemnly warns us that the one who should teach men to break one of these commandments, shall suffer loss in a coming day.

Sixth, because of the teaching of the New Testament Epistles. In them we find the Ten Commandments recorded and enforced. At the close of Romans 3, where the apostle treats of Justification, he raises the question, "Do we then make void the Law through faith?" and the emphatic answer is "God forbid: yea, we establish the Law." In the same Epistle he declares again after quoting five of the Commandments. "Love is the fulfilling of the Law" (13:10), and love could not "fulfill" the Law if it had been abrogated. Once more, in 1 Corinthians 9:21, Paul says, "Being not without Law to God, but under the Law to Christ."

Seventh, because God has threatened to chastise those Christians who disregard His Law. In the 89th Psalm there is a striking prophetic passage which brings this out plainly. In vv. 27-29 God declares of Christ, "I will make Him My Firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth. My mercy will I keep for Him for evermore, and My covenant shall stand fast with Him. His seed also will I make to endure forever, and His throne as the days of heaven." And then God solemnly adds. "if His children forsake My Law, and walk not in My Judgments; If they break My statutes, and keep not My commandments; then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes." The writer often wonders how much of the afflictions that so many Christians are now groaning under are explained by this scripture!

The Ten Commandments have been rightly designated the moral law, inasmuch as they enunciate a rule or standard for human conduct. Their application is race wide. Even Mr. Darby admitted in his Synopsis (Vol. 1, p. 86), "such is the character of the Law, a rule sent out to man, taken in its largest character" (italics ours). While dissecting from the expression "moral law," and while denying that the Law was a "rule of life," for the believer, nevertheless Mr. Darby did not go to the lengths of Antinomianism to which some of his followers have gone in their teachings. In Vol. 10 of his "Collected writings" he said," If I make of the law a moral law (including therein the principle of the New Testament and all morality in heart and life), to say a Christian is (delivered from it is nonsense, or utter monstrous wickedness: certainly it is not Christianity. Conformity to the Divine will, and that as obedience to commandments is alike the duty of the renewed mind. I say obedience to commandments. Some are afraid of the word, as if it would weaken love, and the idea of a new creation; Scripture is not. Obedience, and keeping the commandments of one we love, is the proof of that love, and the delight of the new nature." As to Mr. Darby’s consistency in arguing that the believer nevertheless is not under the Law in any sense, we leave the reader to judge.

It is not our intention to refute the objections which have been made against the truth that the Ten Commandments are not binding on men today, and that believers especially are in no sense under the Law. We have dealt with these, and expounded the scriptures which are supposed to support the objections, in our booklet on "The Saint and the Law." Suffice it now to point out that in the Word a sharp distinction is drawn between "the law of Moses" and "The Law of God:" the former was for Israel only; the latter is for all men. The Lord grant that writer and reader may be able to truthfully say with the Apostle Paul. "I delight in the Law of God after the inward man" (Rom. 7:22); and again, "So then with the mind I myself serve the Law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin" (Rom. 7:25).


To be continued...

"Doc Notes" Part 27 Sinai

Dear Gentle readers,

"In the third month, when the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the same day came they into the wilderness of Sinai. For they were departed from Rephidim, and were come to the desert of Sinai, and had pitched in the wilderness; and there Israel camped before the mount" (vv. 1, 2). Thus was fulfilled God’s promise to Moses. When he appeared to him at the burning bush He had declared. "Certainly I will he with thee: and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain" (3:12). Many difficulties had stood in the way, but they had disappeared before the irresistible execution of God’s counsels like the dew before the morning sun. Israel had been made willing to depart from Egypt, and their masters had been glad to let them go. The waters of the Red Sea had parted asunder so that the covenant-people went through dry-shod. The wilderness of Etham had been crossed so too had the Wilderness of Sin, and though two whole months had passed since they left the land of Pharaoh, not an Israelite had perished with hunger or died through sickness. "Ye shall serve God upon this mountain" (3:12), and they did. No word of God can fail. No matter how the enemy may rage, "the counsel of the Lord shall stand" (Prov. 19:21).

"In the third month... the selfsame day . . . Israel camped before the mount." The time-mark here is important. It supplies a key to what follows. Three is ever the number of manifestation. Jehovah was now to give His people a wondrous manifestation of Himself. Previously, they had seen His judgments upon Egypt; they had beheld His power displayed at the Red Sea, they had witnessed His guiding-hand in the pillar of Cloud and Fire; they had experienced His mercies in the providing of the manna and the giving of water from the smitten rock: but they were now to behold His exalted majesty as suitably was this displayed from the mount.

"And Moses went up unto God, and the Lord called unto Him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you unto Myself. Now, therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people, for all the earth is Mine" (vv. 3-5). These verses have suffered much from the hands of certain commentators. Most erroneous conclusions have been drawn from them. Men well versed in the Scriptures have strangely overlooked other passages in the previous chapters which plainly contradict their assertions. One respected expositor begins his remarks on Exodus 19 and 20 as follows:—"A new dispensation is inaugurated in these chapters. Up to the close of chapter 18, as before indicated, grace reigned, and hence characterized all God’s dealing with His people, but from this point they were put, with their own consent, under the rigid requirements of law." In this he is followed by others of the school to which he belongs. A wide influence has been exerted by this school, and today thousands blindly accept the dicta of its leaders as though they were infallible. Indeed, one will at once court suspicion of his orthodoxy if he dares to challenge their ex cathedra utterances. Nevertheless, it is our bounden duty to test by the Word all that men have to say upon it.

So far as our own light goes, we know of nothing in Scripture which warrants the assertion that "a new dispensation" began when the children of Israel reached Sinai. John 1:17 is often appealed to in proof:—"The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." But this verse is far from proving what is assumed. The Lord does not here say that a "new dispensation began" with the giving of the law: that is what men have read into it. If "the law was given by Moses" signifies that the Jewish dispensation began at that point, then the second clause—"but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ"—must mean that the Christian dispensation began with the coming of Jesus Christ. But it did not. The Christian dispensation did not begin, and could not, till after the death of our Savior. John 1:17 contrasts the ministries of Moses and Jesus Christ.

When, then, did the Mosaic dispensation begin? If not when Israel reached Sinai, at what other point in their history? Without any hesitation we answer, on the Passover night; it was front that night their national history is to be dated, and that the Mosaic dispensation commenced. Previous to that night they had no existence as a nation, no corporate existence; they were a disorganized crowd of slaves. But that night everything was changed for them. Then, for the first time. were they termed an "assembly" (Ex. 12:6). That the Passover marked not only the beginning of their national existence but also the commencement of the Mosaic dispensation, is abundantly clear from the fact that their calendar was then changed by Divine order (Ex. 12:2)!

The new dispensation (the Mosaic) began by the establishment of a new relationship between Jehovah and His people. They were now His redeemed. As we have shown in a previous paper, redemption is two-fold—by purchase and by power. Israel were purchased to God by the blood of the "lamb," they were delivered from their enemies by His power at the Red Sea. If, as some able expositors contend, the crossing of the Red Sea was three days after the Passover night, then the analogy between the beginning of the Mosaic dispensation and the beginning of the Christian dispensation is perfect. In one sense the Christ-dispensation began at the death of Christ, with the "rending of the veil"; in another sense, it began three days later, at His resurrection from the dead.

The leaders of the "school" referred to above teach that, prior to Sinai, God dealt with Israel in pure grace, but that at Sinai they, for the first time, came under law. Such a mistake is even more excuseless than the statement that a "new dispensation" began then. Israel were under law before they reached the Mount of God. Listen to the testimony of Exodus 15:25-26, "And he cried unto the Lord; and the Lord showed him a tree, which when he had cast into the waters, the waters were made sweet; there He made for them a statute and an ordinance and there He proved them. And He said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, and wilt do that which is right in His sight, and wilt give ear to His commandments, and keep all His statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians." Surely this is plain enough; reference is made to both God’s "commandments" and His "statutes." But lest the quibble be raised that this was prospective, i. e., in view of the Law which He was shortly to give them, we beg the reader to weigh carefully our next reference. In Exodus 16:4 we read that God said, "Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in My law, or no." The meaning of this is explained in v. 23, "This is that which the Lord had said, Tomorrow is the rest of the Holy Sabbath unto the Lord; bake that which ye will bake today and seethe that ye wilt seethe: and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning." Israel’s response to this is given in v. 27 "And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none." Now mark attentively the next verse, "And the Lord said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep My commandments and My laws?" Certainly this was not "prospective." It was retrospective. It furnishes indubitable proof that Israel were under law before they reached Sinai.

That there was a marked change in Jehovah’s dealings with Israel after Sinai cannot be denied, and we suppose it is from this premise that the erroneous conclusion has been drawn that a new dispensation then began. Before Sinai was reached, when Israel "murmured," God bore with them in greatest long-sufferance, but after Sinai their murmurings were visited with summary chastisements. How then, is this to be explained? If it was not the giving of commandments and statutes which introduced the change in God’s dealings with His people, what was it? We answer, it was because of the covenant which Israel there solemnly entered into. Prior to Sinai, God dealt with Israel on the ground of the Abrahamic covenant; but from Sinai onwards, He dealt with them nationally, according to the terms of the Sinaiatic covenant. As this is of vital importance to the understanding of the later Scriptures we must dwell upon it in a little more detail.

Genesis 15 records the covenant which God made with Abraham, confirmed later to Isaac and Jacob We cannot now attempt an exposition of the second half of Genesis 15, though it is of deep importance. Briefly the facts are these In verse 6 we read for the first time of Abraham’s justification. Following this, the Lord bids Abraham prepare Him a sacrifice. This Abraham does, dividing each animal "in the midst" Then a deep sleep fell upon Abraham, and while asleep, God promised to bring His descendants, of the fourth generation, into Canaan. Then we read of the Shekinah-glory passing between the pieces of Abraham’s sacrifices—an action which symbolically signified the making of a covenant, see Jeremiah 34:18, 19. Following which, we are told, "In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abraham saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land" (Gen. 15:18).

Three things should be carefully noted. First, there was only one party to this covenant—Jehovah himself. Abraham was asleep. Its fulfillment therefore, turned alone on the Divine faithfulness. There were no conditions attached to it which man had to meet. Second, it was based upon a sacrifice. Third, it was a covenant of pure grace. Mark "unto thy seed have I given this land." Contrast from this Genesis 13:15. "For all the land which thou seest to thee will I give it!" But now a sacrifice had been offered, blood had been shed, the purchase-price had been paid, a solemn covenant had been made; hence the change from "I will" to "I have."

Now it is of the very first moment to observe that God’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt was on the ground of His covenant with Abraham. Proof of this is furnished in Exodus 2:24 where we read "And God heard their groaning, and God remembered His covenant with Abraham, with Isaac and with Jacob." Again, in 6:3, 4, we find God reminding Moses of this: "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by My name Jehovah was I not known to them, And I have also established My covenant with them to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage wherein they were strangers." It was on the ground of this covenant that the Lord dealt with Israel up to the time they reached Sinai! The last thing recorded before Israel reached Sinai was the giving of water from the smitten rock, and mark how the Psalmist refers to this, "He opened the rock, and the waters gushed out: they ran in the dry places like a river. For He remembered His holy promise to Abraham His servant" (Ps. 105:41,42).But at Sinai Jehovah’s relationship to Israel was placed upon a different basis.

In Exodus 19:5 we find God, from the Mount, bidding Moses say unto His people, "Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine; and ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation." There has been much confusion upon this and much consequent error. The Lord was not here referring to His covenant with Abraham (that patriarch is not mentioned at all in the chapter). This is made unmistakably clear from His words, "If ye will obey My voice indeed and keep My covenant." There was nothing about God’s covenant with Abraham that Israel could "keep." There were no conditions attached to it, no stipulations, no provisos. It was unconditional so far as Abraham and his descendants were concerned. But here at Sinai, God proposed to make another covenant, a covenant, to which there should be two parties—Himself and Israel; a covenant of works, a covenant which Israel must "keep" if they were to enjoy the conditional blessings attached to it.

What were the terms of the Siniatic covenant, and what were the conditions and blessings attached to it? The answer to these questions is plainly stated in the Scriptures. In Exodus 34:27, 28, we read, "And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. And he was there (on the Mount) with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, The Ten Commandments." Forty years later, Moses reminded Israel, "And He declared unto you His covenant, which He commanded you to perform, ten commandments; and He wrote them upon two tables of stone" (Deut. 4:13).

Returning to Exodus 19, we learn there that in response to Jehovah’s proposal to enter into a legal covenant with them, Israel unanimously and heartily accepted the same: "All the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do" (v. 8). These words were repeated by the people after Moses had made known to them the details of the covenant, "And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments; and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do" (24:3). Then the covenant was solemnly ratified by blood. See Exodus 24:4-8.

Now it was on the ground of this Siniatic covenant, not on the ground of the Abrahamic, that Israel entered Canaan in the days of Joshua; and it was on the ground of this Siniatic covenant that God dealt with Israel during their occupancy of the land. This was made apparent right from the beginning. As soon as it became evident that there was an Israelite who had broken the eighth commandment, the Lord declared, "Israel hath sinned, and they have also transgressed My covenant which I commanded them; for they have even taken of the accursed thing, and have also stolen, and dissembled also, and they have put it even among their own stuff... And it shall be that he that is taken with the accursed thing shall be burnt with fire, he and all that he hath; because he hath transgressed the covenant of the Lord, and because he hath wrought wickedness in Israel" (Josh. 7:11, 15). Accordingly we find that Achan and all his family were stoned to death. At a later date, we read, "And it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they returned and corrupted themselves more than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them, and to bow down unto them; they ceased not from their own doings, nor from their stubborn ways. And the anger of the Lord was hot against Israel; and He said, Because that this people hath transgressed My covenant which I commanded their fathers, and have not hearkened unto My voice; I also will not henceforth drive out any from before them of the nations which Joshua left when he died" (Judg. 2:19, 21). The rending of the kingdom was because Solomon failed to keep this covenant (1 Kings 11:11). Throughout Israel’s occultation of Canaan, God dealt with them on the ground of the Siniatic covenant. See Jeremiah 11.

A few words upon the circumstances attending the Siniatic covenant must suffice. In verses 10 and 11 we read, "And the Lord said unto Moses, "Go unto the people, and sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their clothes, and be ready against the third day; for the third day the Lord will come down in the night of all the people upon Mount Sinai." Here we have emphasized what was noted upon the opening verse of the chapter. It was in the third month when the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt that they arrived at Sinai; and it was on the third day of this month (twice repeated) that the Lord declared He would "come down in the sight of His people." Clearly, then, what we have here is a manifestation of the Lord Himself. cf. Deuteronomy 5:24. And everything that followed was in perfect keeping with that fact bearing in mind the typical character of that Dispensation.

The people were to "sanctify" themselves, even to the point of washing their clothes. How plainly this intimated that God would draw nigh only to a people who were clean—that it is sin which separates the Creator from His creatures.

"And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount or touch the border of it; whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death" (v. 12). Much has been made of this in the endeavor to prove that a "new dispensation" had begun, that God was no longer dealing with Israel in grace. But it is only another example of men reading their own pre-conceived ideas into Scripture. Moreover, it is, in this instance, to ignore what has gone before. Months earlier when Jehovah had appeared to Moses at the burning bush and Moses had said, "I will now turn aside, and see this great sight." God at once called to him and said, "draw not nigh hither put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground" (3:5)!

"And it came to pass on the third day in the morning that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud settled upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that was in the camp trembled" (v. 16). This, too, has been twisted to mean something quite different from its obvious import. These were the awe-inspiring attendants of the awful majesty of Jehovah, upon whose face none could look and live. Were these phenomena intended to show that Israel had done wrong in entering into this covenant? Or were they designed to manifest the dignity, the holiness, the greatness of the One with whom they were making the covenant? Surely the latter. If proof of this be required it is furnished in 20:20. "And Moses said unto the people, "Fear not, for God has come to prove you, and that His fear may be before your faces that ye sin not" and cf. Deuteronomy 5:24. Let it not be forgotten that in heaven itself the apocalyptic seer is given to behold a Throne out of which "proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices" (Rev. 4:5)—the identical things witnessed on Sinai!

There is a passage in Deuteronomy which should forever settle the question as to whether or not Israel acted wisely in entering into the Siniatic covenant, as to whether they did right or wrong in promising to do all that the lord had said, and as to whether God was pleased or displeased with them. This passage is found in the fifth chapter of that book. Moses is there reviewing what took place at Sinai. He declares,

"These words, the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice and He added no more. And He wrote them on two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me" (v. 22). He then reminds Israel of the response which they made, "And it came to pass, when ye heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, (for the mountain did burn with fire), that ye came near unto me, even all the heads of your tribes, and your elders: and ye said, Behold, the lord our God hath showed us His glory and His greatness, and we have heard His voice out of the midst of the fire; we have seen this day that God doth talk with man, and he liveth. Now therefore, why should we die? Per this great fire will consume us; if we hear the voice of the lord our God any more, then shall we die. For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire as we have, and live? Go thou near, and hear all that the Lord our God shall say; and speak thou unto us all that the Lord our God shall speak unto thee; and we will hear it and do it" (vv. 23, 27). And then in verse 28 we are told, "And the Lord heard the voice of your words, when ye spake unto me; and the Lord said unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken unto you; they have well said all that they have spoken." Nothing could be plainer than this. God was not displeased with Israel for their avowal of allegiance, any more than he was displeased with Joshua when he said, "But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" (Josh. 24:15).

Finally, it must not be forgotten that Exodus 24 completes what is before us in Exodus 19. There we read of the ratification, of the covenant. There we are told, "And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people, and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient" (24:7). Now what is of special importance to note is the words which immediately follow, "And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, ‘Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words." The application of the blood to the people plainly signified that God would deal graciously with them. What, then, was the outstanding lesson which Jehovah taught Israel at Sinai? This, that His grace towards them would henceforth "reign through righteousness" (Rom. 5:21).

In closing, let us make practical application of what has been before us. Such a view of God’s majesty as Israel were favored with at Sinai is the crying need of our day. The eye of faith needs to see Him not only as our "Father," as "The God of all grace," but also as the "High and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity" (Isa. 57:15), as the "Great and Dreadful God" (Dan. 9:4), as the One who has said, "Behold, the nations are as a drop in a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance; behold, He taketh up the isles as a very little thing . . . all nations before Him are as nothing; and they are counted to Him less than nothing, and vanity" (Isa. 40:15, 17), read the whole of Isaiah 40. If we beheld Him thus, then should we work out our own salvation with "fear and trembling." Let it not be forgotten that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament is one and the same; He is a God into whose hands it is a fearful thing to fall. May His Holy Spirit so reveal Him to us, as the One to be reverenced, obeyed and worshipped.