Post by Lee on Mar 13, 2014 3:57:41 GMT
Snipets from 1886 Article:
Both the clean and unclean being the workmanship of God, and forming part of the Creation pronounced by Him “Very good,” it is evident that the distinction between them was not made on account of any inherent cleanness or uncleanness the one or the other possessed. From the fact that many, if not all, of the creatures classified as unclean are unwholesome, it has been argued that the law relating to them was a mere hygienic measure. Had this, however, been the object of the institution the word unwholesome, or one to that effect, would have been employed, for in no sense could the world “unclean” be substituted for “unwholesome.”
What was the purpose God had in view? Israel had just left Egypt and the surrounding nations worshipped false Gods.. Israel was taught to regard them as vile, abominable, unclean. They were enjoined to view themselves as holy, sanctified, clean—as separated from all other people. The unclean animals and the Canaanites bore to Israel exactly the same relation—both were offensive and defiling. On the other hand, the clean animals exhibited the condition and position of Israel—holy and separate.
The ordinance was thus a token and a symbol—a token of what God had done, and a symbol of what He expected Israel to do.
In Peter’s vision (Acts 11.) non-Israelitish people are symbolised by unclean beasts, and the Israelites by the clean. We have been separated from the world, and constituted clean by the truth believed and obeyed. Remembering the promise of Him who hath called us—“Come out from among them, and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be My sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.”
Both the clean and unclean being the workmanship of God, and forming part of the Creation pronounced by Him “Very good,” it is evident that the distinction between them was not made on account of any inherent cleanness or uncleanness the one or the other possessed. From the fact that many, if not all, of the creatures classified as unclean are unwholesome, it has been argued that the law relating to them was a mere hygienic measure. Had this, however, been the object of the institution the word unwholesome, or one to that effect, would have been employed, for in no sense could the world “unclean” be substituted for “unwholesome.”
What was the purpose God had in view? Israel had just left Egypt and the surrounding nations worshipped false Gods.. Israel was taught to regard them as vile, abominable, unclean. They were enjoined to view themselves as holy, sanctified, clean—as separated from all other people. The unclean animals and the Canaanites bore to Israel exactly the same relation—both were offensive and defiling. On the other hand, the clean animals exhibited the condition and position of Israel—holy and separate.
The ordinance was thus a token and a symbol—a token of what God had done, and a symbol of what He expected Israel to do.
In Peter’s vision (Acts 11.) non-Israelitish people are symbolised by unclean beasts, and the Israelites by the clean. We have been separated from the world, and constituted clean by the truth believed and obeyed. Remembering the promise of Him who hath called us—“Come out from among them, and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be My sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.”