18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

Bad Husbands and British Law,‭ ‬and the Law of God

—‬Two women recently applied to a London magistrate for protection against the rapacity of their husbands who not only did nothing to support them,‭ ‬but pillaged what their wives were able to get together by their own efforts.‭ ‬One had recently pulled their children's bed from under them,‭ ‬and sold it for a few shillings.‭

Both women asked the magistrate to step in between them and ruin,‭ ‬and to both he made the same reply.‭ ‬He said that,‭ ‬they having been married before the law of‭ ‬1883‭ ‬was passed,‭ ‬he could do absolutely nothing for them.‭ ‬The Act is not retrospective.‭

‭"‬Your husband can take everything you have and sell it.‭ ‬That is the law,‭ ‬madam.‭"

One of the unhappy creatures ventured to observe that it was a bad law.‭ ‬The magistrate did not contradict her.‭ ‬He only assured her that‭ "‬no human being‭" ‬could prevent her husband from making a wreck of her home.

‭—‬It is one of the blots of human law generally that women married and unmarried are inadequately protected.‭ ‬The law of God by Moses was very different.‭ ‬Neglect of marriage provision dissolved the marriage tie.‭

Seduction not followed by marriage was punishable by death.‭ ‬A mother was even protected against a rebellious son,‭ ‬who was to be put to death if incorrigible.‭ ‬Good will it be for the world when the law goes forth from Zion.‭ ‬In many senses will Christ

‭ "‬save the children of the needy,‭ ‬and break in pieces the oppressor.‭"

The Christadelphian, Mar 1889

23 His body [nevelah] shall not remain all night upon the tree [etz], but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged [talui] is accursed [Kilelat - under curse] of Elohim;) that thy land [adamah] be not defiled, which the Yahweh thy Elohim giveth thee for an inheritance [ nachalah].

The relation of the Jews to eternal life as individuals and to the everlasting possession of Canaan in blessedness and peace as a nation, is manifest. They are circumcised and therefore bound to keep the whole law; by which law they seek to be justified. But how vain and impossible is their enterprize! The Law says,

"Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do thern" (Deut. 27:26); and so unexceptional is this sentence, that it even cursed the Lord Jesus saying, Cursed is every one that hangeth upon a tree" (Deut. 21:23; and in this way He was made a curse for men (Gal.3:13).

Now, the law teaches, that without the shedding of blood their is no remission of sins, and prescribes certain sacrifices which must be offered upon an altar in Jerusalem, and there only. To say nothing of other impossible things, these offerings, which are indispensable, the Jews neither do nor can, present.

These are things, then, they do not continue in, and therefore they are cursed by the law, and condemned by Moses, in whom they trust. They are under the sentence of death, and of eternal exclusion from all inheritance in Canaan and the world. They may possibly believe in the promise made to Abraham, that God will give the land to him and the Christ; but they deny that Jesus is the person named in the will, which is tantamount to rejecting the covenant itself.

Elpis Israel 2.2.

THE BLOOD OF CHRIST

The taking away of sin is specially associated with the bloodshedding, death, or offering of Christ, because that is the one element of the process of sin-taking-away, which implies all the rest. It is a common and natural peculiarity of speech to employ that feature or element of any act or matter which logically involves all its other elements.

To say that Parliament passed the Education Act is a sufficient intimation that the Act was first framed, drafted, introduced, and discussed, and that all the forms of the House were complied with.

There could not, of course, have been a "passing" of the Act unless the framing, drafting, introduction, and discussion had taken place; but in subsequent allusion, no one thinks of mentioning these minor (though essential) matters. The passing stands for all, and involves all. Endless illustrations of the same sort will occur to the thoughtful mind.

The death of Christ implies all the other parts of the process by which sin was covered. When you say Christ died, you intimate his birth, his nature, his character, and his resurrection. These all go with it.

Thus, Christ could not have died if he had not been born. He would not have been Christ if he had not been from the loins of David. Christ could not have died if he had not been mortal. He would not have been Christ if he had been a sinner, and he would not have been sinless unless he had been God manifest in the flesh by the Spirit; and when he died with these conditions preceding, his resurrection was the secured sequel; for it was not possible, being an holy one, that he should be holden of death.—(Acts 2:24.)

The death of Christ, then, is that feature of the process of sin-covering which logically involves all the rest, and, therefore, is the appropriate description of that process, although it be absolutely true that the death of Christ would have availed nothing for sin-covering if he had not risen.—(1 Cor. 15:17.)

The prominence of "the blood of Christ" is due to the symbolism of the law which converged and terminated in him. Blood-shedding was its constant feature in the slaying of animals from the foundation of the world.

This blood-shedding had two significances, related one to the other, and both declarative of a fundamental principle in the relations between God and man, and illustrated in the death of Christ, who was slain for us. The first is that death is the penalty of sin. The blood is the life (Lev. 17:11–14), and the shedding of blood was, therefore, typical of death.

But it was typical of more than death; it was typical of a violent manner of death: for in natural death, the blood is not shed. Violent death includes death, but death does not necessarily include violence.

Bloodshedding included both ideas. But why was it necessary that both should be thus prominent in the law? Because death had a double hold upon those for whom Christ was to die. They are hereditarily mortal because they inherit their being from one who was condemned to death because of sin; and their own numerous offences render them liable to the violent death decreed by the law.

Christ came under both curses, and discharged them both by the shedding of his blood. He came under the first in being born of the same condemned stock "of this man (David's) seed." He came under the second in the act of crucifixion; for the law declared the man

"accursed of God, " (Deut. 21:23),

who hung on a tree; and the spirit in Paul applies this to Jesus.—(Gal. 3:13.) Hence the shedding of his blood comes to be expressive of his whole work, even more completely in a verbal sense than his death; inasmuch as the shedding of his blood tells us he not only died but died violently.

The literal shedding of his blood by the nails and spear of Rome was the Spirit's ritual in the one great offering, connecting the offering with the slain beasts of the Mosaic law, and repeating the symbolism set forth from the beginning in the shedding of their blood; in the same way as the rending of the temple veil coincided with his death.—(Matt. 27:51.)

The shedding of his blood would not have availed had he not died; and the crimson fluid would have been of no value to any human being, had it been caught in a bottle and preserved, as it oozed from the lacerated flesh. Its "preciousness" lay in the precious results it effected for us by the favour of God; and its cleansing power lies not in its physical nature, but in our spiritual perception of what God connected with it, and faith in His assurance of what He will do for us, if we submit to this vindication of his way towards men.

The washing of us in his own blood is a figurative expression of the forgiveness of our sins we receive on our recognition and submission to God's whole work in Christ, whom he hath set forth as a propitiation for our sins. God for Christ's sake forgives us if we believe and obey him.

The Christadelphian, Dec 1873