(235-239) sibly adding somewhat to the impression, I am sending out to ecclesias in this vicinity some suggestions, of which the enclosed is a copy :— (1) Berean Study is as old as the church. (2) The volumes—STupIES IN THE ScripTuRES—like the Scriptures themselves, are full of interrogation points—that is, they suggest questions everywhere. (3) The average mind is not competent to make the best arrangement of these questions—linking them together in their proper, logical order. (4) The arranged Questions, furnished by the Brooklyn Tabernacle, supply this lack. (5) These ‘‘Question” Studies have been with us for years. (6) The Bethel “Table Talks” are on the same general plan—surely a forceful demonstration and endorsement of the method. (7) They foster concentration of thought, and give a definite aim in study. (8) They develop ability in analyzing subjects. (9) They assist all the members of a class to study along uniform lines. (10) The church being made up of separate ecclesias, in proportion as the method is followed by the different ecclesias, the church as a whole is studying along uniform lines. (11) We acknowledge the value of uniformity by our unanimous adoption of it in use of daily hymns and daily Manna. (12) They make the leader of a class less a teacher, thus dividing up with the class, more fully, the responsibility for development. (13) It encourages class study, which is surely discouraged in proportion as the leader, either from inclination or as the result of less practical methods, monopolizes the explanation of Studies. ~ (14) It supplies the best basis for study of the lesson beforehand, and neglect of this spells proportionate failure in any method of class work. (15) Each member of a class has a responsibility in this respect which he or she cannot afford to ignore. (It is our opinion that where classes fail to make the method practical the main difficulty lies (a) in a lack of preparatory study; (b) in failure of the leader to impress its importance.) THE WATCH TOWER Brooxiyn, N. Y. (16) Where an ecclesia lacks “speaking” talent, it supplies a good substitute, and we believe in many cases more than a substitute. We incline to the conviction that less dependence on preaching and more on “class” study should be the order. (17) Should the appointed leader be absent from any “study,” the class thus equipped could carry along the study without interruption, any member reasonably well-informed being competent te take charge. (18) If for any reason it should not be deemed wise to have a regularly appointed leader, different members would be prepared to lead in turn—each member recognizing such a one as leader, while filling the office, directing all questions and answerg to him—thus holding the class to order as effectually as though they had a regularly appointed leader. (19) Any answer to a question should be supported by at least two good Scriptures. If each member recognizes his or her responsibility in finding these Scriptures, it will guarantee a study which should make any subject interesting to any visitor present who is interested in the Bible. (20) Should any question come up on any paragraph, after those prescribed for the study have been dealt with, the leader, by turning it over to the class, instead of answering himself, will make the study the more helpful. (This method of turning questions over to the class would often avoid a delicate situation, should the question be such as would call for an answer which might not be acceptable to the questioner. The leader, in thus sharing the responsibility with the class, could express himself the more freely, and no special objection could be taken.) (21) With the “Berean Question” method uniformly followed, in any “study” where a specific number of questions are marked off, and kept up with, we would be at home if temporarily present with any class the world over. (22) Additionally, we all desire to be as closely in touch with the “isolated” ones as possible, and it would seem that nothing could operate more effectually in this direction than the widest possible application of this principle of oneness in study. (23) The fact that the Society is continually urging this method gives the unmistakable inference that WE NEED IT. Your brother in service, W. W. BLack. Vout. XXXII BROOKLYN, N. Y., AUGUST 1, 1912 No. 15 THE LAW MAGNIFIED AND MADE HONORABLE “The Lord... “Where there is no law there is no transgression.” (Rom. 4:15.), would seem to be an axiom—a self-evident truth. No one could transgress a law that was not given to him, that was not applicable to him. In his discussion of the Jewish view of the Mosaic Law, St. Paul used this statement to show that the Jews misunderstood the matter. They had the thought that because God had given them the law at Mt. Sinai, they were justified in God’s sight by that law. But receiving a law is not keeping that law. Therefore, the apostle shows them that by the deeds of the law no flesh could be justified in God’s sight.—Rom. 3:20. Continuing the argument a little further, St. Paul shows that the entire human race was once in God’s favor, as represented in Adam before sin entered. While the race was in that condition of perfection mankind was just before God. But when sin entered, it brought the penalty of alienation from God and of death. Thenceforth the human race was dead in trespasses and in sin, having no right to everlasting life. In that condition God did not give mankind a law, but permitted the world to go without law up to the time of Moses. And even in the time of Moses God did not give the law to the whole world, but only to the Jewish nation. If Israel had been able to keep the law that was given to them at Mt. Sinai, they would have been a living nation—not a dying nation, as the other nations are. The apostle proceeds to say that the commandment, whieh was ordained to life, Israel found to be unto death. (Rom. 7:10) A man cannot be justified by receiving the law, but by keeping the law. The rest of the world were less condemned than the Jews, for, says the apostle, God did not give them that law and they never came under the penalty of that law. So, then, Israel] found the law to work death; and they were under more condemnation than were any other people in the world; for they were condemned, not only in Adam, but also by failure to keep the law. By the Law Covenant given on Mt. Sinai, they were lifted out of the Adamic condemnation and put on will magnify the law and make it honorable.”—Isa, 42:21. trial afresh; and when they failed to keep that law, they had a second condemnation put upon them. St. Paul is here demonstrating the mistake of thinking that the Law Covenant gave Israel a special immunity from condemnation. Then he shows that there are some Gentiles who have never come under the Law Covenant, as did the Jew, but who, nevertheless, show a work of progress, which the Jew had not done; for these Gentiles show a law of love ruling in their hearts. In some respects they judge themselves, and in other respects their consciences excuse or accuse them. The apostle says that since the Jews are condemned by the law given at Mt. Sinai, and since the rest of the world recognize by their consciences that they are condemned, then the whole world stands guilty in God’s sight. What then is that which condemns the Gentiles? The answer is, The original law of God remaining in their hearts, though marred by the fall. God, created our first parents in such a condition of perfection that the law of God was clear, or manifest, to them instinctively. Now, because of the fall, if a man were to use his moral perceptions alone, one man might say that a thing is wrong, and another might say that it is right; each would be guided by his own mind, his own conscience. St. Paul’s argument is that no matter how fallen a man may be, he still has so much of the original law in his heart that his conscience will either accuse him of wrong-doing or excuse his conduct; and unless extremely degraded he will know that it is wrong to steal or to take human life. To whatever extent a man retains this original law of God to that extent he is responsible. No one can sufficiently excuse himself so as to say that he is worthy of eternal life. The Jew could not claim that he had kept the law, for hig atonement for sin was an acknowledgment that he had failed to do so; and the Gentile’s conscience testified to his unworthiness. Therefore, neither was deserving of eternal life. Continuing his argument the apostle explains that none of the fallen race [5070]
This website uses cookies to improve the website and your experience. By continuing to browse this website, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. If you require further information or do not wish to accept cookies when using this website, please visit our Global Policy on Use of Cookies and Similar Technologies.
