Untitled article by W. H. Littlejohn

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Third-day, July 16, 1867

THE LAW OF GOD AND THE SABBATH WHICH IT ORDAINS.

By W. H. Littlejohn

BY W. H. LITTLEJOHN.

(Continued.)

2. Heretofore we have regarded the subject from a rationalistic standpoint, purely. It is with pleasure that we now turn to look upon it in the light of a “more sure word of prophecy.” We do so in the full confidence that it will neither speak in a doubtful tone, nor contradict the conclusions which we have already reached. It is our intention to present but a few of the texts which bear upon the question. The more competent and credible the witnesses, the fewer are required for the establishment of a given proposition. One single passage of Scripture standing in a suitable connection, clearly enunciating a given doctrine, and shown to be properly translated, is all that is necessary to prove that doctrine correct. For the Bible being the word of God, is necessarily harmonious in all its parts. The only object, therefore, to be gained by quoting even as many as we shall, will be that of removing from the mind of the reader, every doubt as to whether the translators have accurately expressed the sentiments of the sacred writers.

Having promised thus much, we shall enter upon our task after calling attention to the fact that it is not our present purpose to show either that Christians are in duty bound to keep the law, or that they are violating one of its provisions. It is simply our design, now to show that it has never been repealed. For this purpose, we shall use the following quotations.

1. “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.” Rom. iii, 19.

The above, written as it was in A. D. 58, had its origin so far this side of the crucifixion as to leave no doubt that when it was penned, this dispensation had been fully entered upon. It follows, that the doctrine which it teaches, is as true to-day as it was then. What then does it teach? We answer: The very principle which we are seeking to prove. That is, the law still lives. For Paul alluding to it as something familiar to the minds of the Romans, represents it as speaking to a certain class who were then under it, in order “that every mouth might be stopped, and all the world become guilty before God.” But we submit:

First. That it would be as incompatible with a proper use of terms, to represent a dead law as speaking, as it would to ascribe a living voice to a dead man.

Second. That the apostle is here pointing forward to the judgment, and indicates the law of God as the rule by which the world are to become guilty. Any view therefore, that would represent him as entertaining the opinion that it had ceased to exist even before his day, is too absurd to admit of argument. For, should we ignore Paul’s inspiration, we would still be compelled to admit that he was a man of too much sagacity to fall into so gross an error as that of supposing that guilt could attach to an individual for the violation of a statute which had become obsolete long before the time of the alleged offense. But, should we concede to the advocates of no law that he was agreed with them in sentiment, it would simply have the effect to destroy the significance of the question before us without affording them any relief; since, while endorsing their view that the law was repealed, he would still make it the test of character in the last day. So that the only safe course to be pursued, would be that of perfect obedience to its requirements.

Third. That it would be a contradiction of terms to say that any man was under a law which had no existence. Having said thus much respecting the passage before us, let us examine another of like import.

2. “And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law.” 1 Cor. ix, 20. The above is introduced for the purpose of showing that Rom. iii, 19, is neither an isolated, nor an incorrectly translated passage, and that its teachings were in perfect harmony with the sentiment of the same writer expressed elsewhere. The verse transcribed from Corinthians furnishes an explicit testimony of the existence of the law when written. The context shows this to have been during the present dispensation. For it represents Paul as endeavoring to win to Christ those who were under the law. Rather a difficult task, if there was no such class then in existence. And it will be unnecessary to remind the reader that there could not have been, unless there was a law to be under.

Should any one, in their desire to escape the consequence of the conclusions reached above, indulge the fancy that the law here spoken of was that of Moses, and not the commandments, they will recollect:

First. That in taking this position they assume that the Mosaic code was binding on some in A. D. 57, and as a consequence even down to the present time, because there has been no change of condition from that time to this.

Second. That an admission that it was the law of Moses here spoken of would be virtually a surrender of the whole question. Because, having been added on account of the transgression of the commandments, it would necessarily become void the moment they were taken away.

Again, should they, in their efforts to escape the difficulties alluded to above, assume that the law spoken was neither of the two which we have been considering, but something entirely different, and one which might more properly be denominated, the law of Christ, it will be sufficient to remind them that such a theory would represent the apostle as being engaged in the unnecessary and ridiculous labor of turning to Christ those who had turned to him already.

3. “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” Matt. v, 17. Such was the emphatic disclaimer of the Saviour to any intention to destroy the law. Now, as it was the Son of God, and not fallible man who uttered these words, we shall be safe in concluding that the results of his mission accorded perfectly with its object. In other words, that when he had accomplished that which he came to do, the law remained precisely as he intended it should, i. e. fulfilled, but not destroyed. All that remains to be done, therefore, in order that we may learn the exact import of the passage before us, is to ascertain the signification of the words, fulfill and destroy, when used in connection with law. That the first is not in common parlance, the synonym of abolish will appear upon a moment’s reflection. To illustrate; we think it will not be disputed, that should one say, “that every good citizen fulfills the law of his state” he would use it in its ordinary acceptation. But if we could with equal propriety, use the word abolish in this connection, or if the repeal of a law was a necessary consequence of its being fulfilled, then would we have presented the anomaly of a state whose statutes would require re-enactment every time they were complied with.

An additional illustration must suffice. It will be found in Gal. vi, 2. “Bear ye one another’s burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ.” The remarks already made will apply with equal force to the passage last quoted. For, if the view we are combatting is correct, then the moment that the Galatians, in obedience to the apostle’s injunction, had made a successful effort to bear one another’s burdens, they thereby repealed the law of Christ, thus relieving themselves and their successors from the duty of paying any further heed to the new command left by the great Head of the church.

What then, you ask, is the sense in which the word is used in the connection before us? We reply, It means to answer the requirements of. (Webster.)

As the antithesis of this, the Saviour uses the word destroy, meaning to bring to naught, to put an end to, &c. Thus understood, the perpetual obligation of the

commandments is placed beyond a doubt. For as the Saviour did not, and as one less than he could not, destroy them, they must by virtue of their original enactment still exist. Not only so, but their authority with us should be increased rather than diminished, as the result of his mission. For he as our great exemplar, has by the perfect obedience which he accorded to them, set us a pattern which we ought to follow with scrupulous fidelity until we have an express command to deviate. That this has never been directly or indirectly given, will appear as we advance.

4. “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” Rom. iii, 31.

Such were the words of one than whom there never has been among men, a more competent person to instruct in all the doctrines of the Christian religion. Their importance in this controversy can only be duly appreciated when we remember that the writings of the one who uttered them are quoted more than those of all others to prove that the law of God has been abrogated. The apostle as if conscious that he had, in performing the difficult and delicate task of drawing the line between the two dispensations, made use of language which might, under some circumstances, be construed into an approval of such sentiments, pauses, and in the most emphatic manner repudiates once and forever any such construction. “Do we then make void the law through faith?” he says, “God forbid.” To make void is according to Webster to make empty, to annul, to render of no validity or effect. It follows therefore, that he who entertains a theory which would result in this, must not rest it upon any language of Paul’s; for he asserts in the most solemn manner that this is not the doctrine which his writings were designed to inculcate. Nor was he satisfied with this. On the contrary he goes so far as to record, in the most impressive way, the fact that the faith which he entertained and which must have been that committed to the saints, established the law; i. e., “made it stable or firm: fixed or set unalterably.” But how was this to be accomplished? Certainly not by taking a course like that pursued by many at this day, who are exhausting every resource of logic, and every art of sophistry to bring it into contempt. Not by representing it as Jewish in its origin, and oppressive in its character. Not by instructing men that it has been abolished, and that they are not only at liberty to trample it under foot, but that it would be wicked to endeavor to carry out its requirements. No, this is the work of the destroyer. This is not the way in which any law whether human or divine, ever has been or can be established. How then shall it be done? The answer is obvious. It must be represented as possessing those properties and qualities that are inseparable from laws which are established. Its authority as a rule of action must be acknowledged and the fact be made clear that it proceeds from a competent authority and rests upon the principles of justice.

Such are undeniably the teachings of one of whom the Saviour said, “He is a chosen vessel unto me to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.” Will you hear him, or will you give ear to those self-constituted teachers who preach another gospel unto us beside that which he preached, and ought therefore, though they were angels from Heaven, to be accursed. See Gal. i, 8.