DISCUSSION ON THE SABBATH QUESTION
BETWEEN ELD. J. H. WAGGONER, S. D. ADVENTIST, AND ELD. PETER VOGEL, DISCIPLE.
"Do the Scriptures teach that the seventh-day Sabbath is to be observed by Christians throughout the gospel dispensation?"
ELD. WAGGONER affirms; ELD. VOGEL denies. J. II. WAGGONER'S FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE.
8. THAT men are proved sinners by the law, and are of course under condemnation as long as they disregard it, is further shown by Paul in Rom. 7: 7: "I had not known sin but by the law; for I had not known lust except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." By this it will be seen that "primary law" does have its part in the work of conversion; it convinces of sin, without which there can be no genuine repentance, and, of course, no genuine conversion. Hence Paul taught "repentance toward God"—whose law has been transgressed—"and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ," who takes away the carnal mind, which "is not subject to the law of God," and brings back the straying into harmony with the will and government of Heaven. If Eld. Vogel has any other means than the law to prove men guilty in the sight of God, let him produce the text, or cease his vain speculations. Ps. 19: 7, cannot be referred to the law of types of the O. T. without contradicting the New;
for that law by which annual sacrifices were offered, was "unprofitable" and "made nothing perfect." His error is that he makes no distinction between types and shadows, and the law defining moral obligation, forbidding theft, adultery, &c. His illustration by the duty of giving is entirely defective. To show a distinction between precept and morality, he says the statutory duty of giving a tenth, is abolished, leaving the duty of giving on a moral basis. But the requirement to give a tenth is no more explicitly stated in the O. T. than is the precept to give in the New. And he can only prove the existence of the duty to give by express statements to that effect. The distinction he claims is a fallacy.
We read in the Scriptures that men cannot be justified by the law because they are sinners—they have all transgressed the law—and are of course condemned by it. His insinuation that we seek justification by the law is as unworthy as it is unjust, for he knows better. Condemnation and justification each have their place in the experience of a sinners redeemed, and condemnation must precede pardon. And here I will notice another fallacy which underlies his whole system. He says the law was abolished, but the principles were not. This is the rankest antinomianism, and leaves every one to follow his own inclinations;
for if men are left to judge of the application of principles without precepts, a revelation is a nullity. I repeat, he opens the door for just such liberty as the carnal mind will greatly enjoy. Rom. 8: 7. And his position will not bear the test of Scripture. "By the law is the knowledge of sin." Will Eld. Vogel show that the knowledge of sin is by principles, and not by the law? Again, "Sin is not imputed when there is no law." Will he prove his position by showing that sin is imputed on principles without the law? Every reader of the Bible knows that he cannot. Paul was not convinced of sin by abstract principles, but by what "the law said." Will Eld. Vogel confess to an experience like that of Paul? If not, whose "mouth" should be "stopped" —mine? or his?
9. The purity and perfection of the law is as clearly stated in the New Testament as in the Old. "The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." Rom. 7: 12. There is no necessity for mutilating Ps. 19: 7, as Eld. V. does to make it read, "The law of the Lord was perfect," for Paul confirms it just as it stands. All that has been said of the necessary relation of law and character will here apply. If the law is holy, it is designed to form a holy character, and would therefore justify the doer;
and this is also the reason why it witnesses to the righteousness of God. Rom. 3: 21. And its perfection is shown by all those scriptures which declare that it will not justify sin, or the sinner. It condemns sin, as a good law must; for if it justified the sinner in his sin, it would be a bad law.
On this subject, I may notice a most singular position taken by Eld. Vogel. He pronounces my argument a "sophism," and says a man may be "perfect and holy, as measured by that law, whether the law itself be perfect or imperfect." I am not surprised at his making this declaration;
it is according to his crude notions of law and morality. A man would not be blamed or condemned by an imperfect law if he kept it;
but he would not therefore be perfect. If we have any means of determining that a law is imperfect, the same means will determine that a character must be imperfect that is conformed to that law.
His assertion is equivalent to saying that a certain thing is straight because it is like a crooked stick, or that a given angle may properly be called a right angle because it bears comparison with an obtuse angle! The crudity of his notions of law and of perfection of character would appear only humorous, were not the subject one of solemn importance, and did not errors in regard to it lead to fatal results.
10. "For we know that the law is spiritual," Rom. 7: 14. Of course, obedience to it is pure, spiritual worship of God. And this fully justifies that other statement of Paul, "The carnal mind is enmity against God;
for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Spirituality and carnality cannot coalesce;
there must be antagonism between them.
Hence, wherever there is opposition or insubordination to the law, there is carnality. As before stated, in such case there can be no genuine conversion—no true repentance.
They may cry, "Lord, Lord," to Jesus, but as they do not the will of his Father they are workers of iniquity—law breakers.
The reader will remember that Eld. Vogel very conveniently passed over the evidence I gave on Rom. 2 that the will of God is the law, and that he is honored by the breaking of the law, and that the Gentile is accepted of God if he keeps the law. Rom. 2: 17-29.
Now if the law is spiritual it is moral. And this text opens the way to expose another instance of false reasoning on the part of Eld. Vogel. To say that I am surprised at the use he makes of Webster's definition of statute, does not half express my feelings, because he knows as well as I do that in that definition Webster has no reference to the tealological distinction of positive and moral. Webster's third definition of positive is, that which is explicitly stated, as opposed to implied. The fifth definition has regard to the theological distinction.
Now, according to the third definition, the decalogue is positive, that is, explicitly stated;
but not according to the fifth definition, that is, in distinction from moral. For Webster says, "The moral law is summarily contained in the decalogue, written by the finger of God on two tables of stone." Had not Webster expressly contradicted his use of the word positive, there might be some excuse for his course;
now there is none. I repeat, his position subverts all morality by subverting the moral law.
11. Heb. 9: 15: This text says that Christ "is the mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance." (1) As Jesus mediates in behalf of transgressors under the first testament, his mediation takes hold of that law which they transgressed;
for their transgressions were real—not of a typical system, but— violations of God's moral law, written on the tables of stone. Of course that law is not abolished, but stands to appear against them in the Judgment if Jesus does not blot out their sins.
(2) The transgressions of that law stand between them and the eternal inheritance, which they could not do, if Eld. Vogel asserts, it looked only to temporal benefits. If it was given to them as a civil law only, they could have broken every precept of the decalogue without incurring moral guilt, or being therefor subject to a future judgment. But every scripture which speaks of its holiness, perfection, spirituality, as a rule of life, of justification, &c., is a direct contradiction of that assertion. Was any moral law binding on the Jews except that which God revealed to them? If there was, by what scriptures do we learn that fact? A little consideration of these queries will convince any one of the groundlessness of Eld. V.'s assumptions.
12. "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid;
yea, we establish the law." Rom. 3: 31. This is the necessary conclusion from the apostle's argument in this and the preceding chapter. And this confirms the view I have presented on the two laws—the moral and the ceremonial or positive. The moral law is established by faith, because condemnation must precede justification, of a sinner;
and pardon supposes the justice of the condemnation, that is, it recognizes the claim of the violated law. Pardon in the absence of law is a nullity. And the idea of abolishing the law and pardoning the transgressor, also, is absurd. But we know that the types or positive laws of the O. T. are not established by faith;
they are made void. The moral law—the decalogue (Webster), is confirmed and established (magnified, extolled, honored, Isa. 42: 21) by the gospel. The ceremonial law was blotted out, abolished, or made void, nailed to the cross. This text settles absolutely the controversy relative to the abolition of the law.
I re-affirm my position on this chapter: that it refers to the moral law of the O. T., and it condemns both Jew and Gentile. It needs but a few words to expose the fallacy of Eld. V.'s view. He affirms that the law in this chapter includes the Mosaic ritual of types, and that it cannot refer to the Gentiles. Notice: once in this chapter the apostle refers to the "the oracles of God" which were given to Israel. Twice, he speaks of both Jew and Gentile. Twice, he says that all have sinning, or gone astray, which he applies to both Jew and Gentile. Once, he says that all the world are guilty before God. Now, if nothing more definite could be produced, this would prove Eld. Vogel's assertion illogical and unjust. But notick the connection and relation upon which the apostle makes his application: "We have before proved, both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin, as IT IS WRITTEN, there is none righteous, no not one," and thus he proceeds to sustain his charge against Jews and Gentiles by quotations from Psalms, Proverbs, and Isaiah. If this is not proving the Gentiles sinners by the Old Testament I know not what would be proving them such. Reader, what think you? Verses 19 and 20 contain the logical conclusion from this statement;
"all the world" are guilty before God, and "no flesh" is exempt from this condemnation. And the inference of Eld. V. that Psalms,
Proverbs, and Isaiah, are "the law" referred to, is groundless. These quotations are the evidence that Jews and Gentiles are all sinners;
but these quotations are not the law, nor any part of the law, which they violated in sinning! Not a position that he has taken in his last negative will stand the test of examination.
And therefore, again, the law here referred to does not include the "Mosaic ritual;" for the Gentiles were not so related to that law, nor was that law to point out sin;
it was remedial in its nature, based in its operation on the existence of sin. But the moral law, which is spiritual, perfect, and holy, reaches "all the world," and "all the world" must be used in this extended sense when both Jews and Gentiles are so distinctly specified.
I have quoted literally the Authorized Version of Rom. 3. Eld. Vogel says the article should be omitted in verse 20. He has before hinted at the difference of "law" and "the law" in the N. T. If that difference exists, let him show it. If he wishes to make the issue on the Greek article, the way is open. I deny his claim, and promise to meet it whenever he offers anything to sustain it.
12. "For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under the law, but under grace." Rom. 6: 14. Our position on this text is no novelty.
We hold that "under the law" expresses the condition of one under condemnation—not merely under obligation;
for our redemption is from the curse, (Gal. 3: 13, 14), not from the duty. And this expression—under the law—describes the condition of all who are not justified. The contrast is plain between "under the law," and "under grace;" it is exactly the contrast between condemnation and justification. But the Scriptures never present a contrast between obedience or obligation and justification. On the contrary, Paul says, "The doers of the law shall be justified." Here justification is joined to doing the law, but justification is never joined to breaking the law under any circumstances. Selah. All are by nature under the law;
or otherwise, if the law is abolished,
then none are under the law, but all are under grace,
and no condemnation exists. This is the inevitable result of abolishing the law, and is very comforting to Universalists. Are the "children of wrath" under grace? No. Where, then, are they? Under the law—under condemnation;
in sin. Shall we sin, or transgress the law, that grace may abound? "God forbid." He that sins is the servant of sin;
not the servant of God. There was a time when each one who is now a Christian was not under grace, but under condemnation. This relation was only changed by being "redeemed from the curse of the law;" but the curse comes by transgression—not otherwise. Therefore the curse continues as long as the transgression continues, for "by the law is the knowledge of sin." Christ came "to put away sin;"
not his own, for he had none, but ours, which is not done if we "continue in sin." It is easy to be seen that the apostle's argument is based upon the existence of the law, and Eld. Vogel, in quoting scriptures which may and do prove the abolition of the typical law, is "beating the air," and subverting morality by applying them to the moral law.
13. But Eld. V. hit upon one important truth, and I will adopt it as a point in my argument. I wish that his intention had been such that we could give him credit for it. He says, "The decalogue is the constitution of the Mosaic laws, i. e., it sustains the same relation to the laws that the Constitution of the United States sustains to our laws." Exactly so;
and those laws, as our laws, could be abolished without abolishing the constitution or destroying the government. But that was the constitution of a moral government, being a moral law, and it must remain as long as moral obligation remains, without regard to the abolition of laws of a different nature, not fundamental. When the constitution is abolished, all is overthrown.
But Jesus never professed the intention to destroy the government of his Father and to erect another in its stead. He came to reconcile rebels to his Father. His position as "mediator" also attests this. The theory which abolishes God's constitution has Jesus Christ coming to earth and finding a rebellion against his Father;
and on which side does he array himself? On the side of the rebellion, and against his Father's government, totally subverting it by abolishing its constitution! Verily, if that be so, he was the worst rebel of the whole. They had the disposition to overthrow the government of God, and he carried it out for them! Lord, pity those who thus make "Christ the minister of sin."
But further;
Eld. V. says, "The law was the only bond of union in the commonwealth of Israel," and he thinks therefore it was only political. But in this he jumps from the truth to his conclusion. Of course,
"the constitution" only is the bond of union, even as our laws might all be abolished without destroying the Union, if the Constitution remained. His reference is Eph. 2, which we examine. Paul is therein speaking to Gentile converts to Christianity. He says that before their conversion they were "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world." A bad condition, truly.
Does Paul further say, as Eld. V. argues, that "the commonwealth of Israel" is destroyed, its "constitution" abolished, and their "hope" built upon its ruins? No;
he says "the middle wall of partition" is broken down, those shadowy laws which were peculiar to a natural seed, and now, through the gospel, the great plan of naturalization, those Gentiles by nature "ARE NO MORE STRANGERS AND FOREIGNERS, BUT FELLOW-CITIZENS with the saints and of the household of God." And so in Rom. 11;
"the root" is not dug up and destroyed;
but the natural branches were broken off, and unnatural branches, Gentiles, "graffed in." The Gentiles may be saved if they embrace the covenant made with Judah and Israel, Heb. 8, and are "graffed in" so as to be of "the Israel of God," Gal. 6: 16, and are no more strangers and foreigners from the commonwealth of Israel. But if Israel was but a political body, and that commonwealth only a "civil compact," as Eld. V. teaches, why is it that the New Jerusalem, the heavenly city, has its gates named after "the twelve tribes of Israel"? Rev. 21: 12. Perhaps Eld. V. has not yet learned that "salvation is of the Jews;" his system of theology may need remodeling to embrace the fullness of Scripture truth. None but "Israelites indeed" will enter those gates;
therefore a blessing is pronounced upon them that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." Rev. 22: 14. The commandments sre the "constitution" of "the commonwealth of Israel," and it is not necessary to argue that when Gentiles are no more strangers and foreigners from the commonwealth of Israel, they are in duty bound to obey the "constitution" of that commonwealth, and this will they do if they are good citizens. But if they will not do this they disfranchise themselves. See Rom. 6: 14–16.
If Eld. Vogel acknowledges that he and his brethren are a part of "the Israel of God," they must come to this. But of this I will speak further when I examine the subject of the covenants. ELD. VOGEL'S FIFTH NEGATIVE.
5. THAT the ten commandments were abolished is further evident from Col. 2: 14, where we read expressly about God's "blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us," and that he "took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross."
(1) The ten commandments are the only "handwriting" God ever had (Ex. 31: 18;
24: 12;
32: 16); therefore they are here specifically referred to and are declared to be "blotted out" and "taken out of the way" in so far as they were "ordinances."
(2) "Ordinance" (Gr. dogma, Fr. dokes, to think) signifies a decree, a statute, a positive ordinance;
as, Luke 2: 1, "There went out a decree from Cæsar;"
Acts 16: 4;
"They delivered the decrees." See also "Dr. Webster."
(3) "Blotted out." Gr. exaleipho—Lat. literare, to obliterate, to cancel;
opposed to anagrapho, to record.—Liddell and Scott.
(4) The ten commandments as "ordinances" were "against us" and "contrary to us," since (a) They were largely political and the New Dispensation is not. (b) The New Dispensation has the Messiahship of Jesus as its basis or constitution (Matt. 16: 16-18); hence the ten commandments could not be received in their constitutional aspect. (c) As a political constitution they had a temporal death-penalty (thus treason is punished in political governments) and so were "contrary" to a dispensation of "grace."
(5) When this "handwriting" was blotted out, the whole law fell with it as the house falls when the foundation is taken away. Hence, Paul says, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy-day, or of the new moon, or of sabbath days;
which are a shadow of things to come;
but the body is of Christ." 6. "God also made us sufficient ministers of a new covenant;
not of the letter, but of the Spirit;
for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. But if the ministration of death, in the letter, engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadfastly on the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance, which glory was to be done away;
how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be more glorious? . . . For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which abides is glorious."—Bible Union. There are two things here spoken of as "done away;"
(1) "glory was done away," and (2) "another something is done away which had glory or was glorious." That which "was glorious" is "the ministration of death, in the letter," as contained in the ten commandments "engraven in stones." In other words, the ten commandments were done away, (a) In their death-penalties attached as "the ministration of death," and (b) "In the letter," i. e. as "ordinances," "statutes," or positive enactions.
Hence there remains nothing of the ten commandments but their moral basis, the principles that underlie them. The Sabbath, having no moral basis,
but being purely positive, is wholly gone. I turn now to Eld. W.'s fourth affirmative. That of which he complained in a private note was,
as I supposed (for he made no definite charge), to the effect that I had added new matter in my last negative on the first proposition. I expressed myself as unaware of having done so, and said that to such matters he had yet an opportunity to reply and a right to rebuke me publicly for it. This differs the width of the heavens from re-discussion of a closed question.
Just as in the Greek, with reference to Ex. 16: 23,
Bro. W. evaded the issue by talk about "manuscripts" differing in the use of the article (Crosby & 489) when we had nothing to do with differing "manuscripts," but argued from a settled text, he has done with reference to the Hebrew. He claimed a definite construction for Ex. 16: 23, which is impossible, since lamed is not used "in its possessive sense" (Green & 257), hence not in a construct way as in Ex. 20: 10. Here he shifts the issue by saying that I place him in this blunder with Gesenius and the old grammarians generally. No. He has the honor of being alone in this blunder;
he cannot escape it. It was with reference to the assertion that the predicate does not take the article that I said he blundered with the old grammarians. Winer is not quoted by Green for the simple reason that his grammar is Greek, though on the point on which I quoted him he takes in other languages. Green lays down the same rule—"A noun in the predicate may receive the same adjuncts as in the subject," § 259. Hence, while he considers Gesenius "the prince of lexicographers," as a grammarian he condemns him on this point. Eld. W. has "never thrust" his profession of scholarship before the reader. No, no, he was only the first to enter into a disquisition on the Hebrew,
telling us the equivalent for "rest." And how wonderfully he hangs on!
It is equal to the turtle which is said not to let go its bite till it thunders,
though its head be cut off. In Eld. V. this would be "pedantry," but the case is altered by the ox which is gored.
Respecting the Lordship of Jesus Christ I shall speak more fully in its proper place, the next proposition. Meanwhile I would say that I do not mean that the Father has ceased in his nature to be Lord,
i. e., Jehovah, the self-existent one, but that in the official sense of "head over all to the church" (Eph. 1: 22), (hence also head over the "Lord's day"), Jesus is the only head, the "one Lord (Eph. 4: 5)" without a rival, with "all authority (Matt. 28: 18)."
Christ in his Word-state was indeed present at creation, but only as agent, not as proprietor;
By him the Father made the worlds. Heb. 1: 2. Hence, if the Sabbath had even originated there, Jesus would no more be the Lord of it than a carpenter is owner of the house which he builds for another. Nor does Jesus set up such a claim in Mark 2: 28, as I have abundantly shown without reply.
But what means this trying to show that Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath?
Is it not a latent conviction that "Lord's day," in Rev. 1: 10, refers to him as the Lord?92 The O. T. Scriptures furnish us "unto all good works" or make us "wise unto salvation" only
"through faith which is in Christ Jesus," i. e., through the gospel. 2 Tim. 3: 15. The ten commandments—
"the law"—which my brother would extol beyond measure, could neither furnish one "unto all good works" nor make one "perfect," even in the days
when they stood as given from Sinai. "All these have I observed from my youth," said a young man.
"One thing thou lackest yet" (Mark 10: 21), said the Saviour, "If thou wilt be perfect," &c. Matt. 19: 21. Therefore, the ten commandments are not perfect.
If my brother would distinguish between a principle and its application, he would experience no difficulty in seeing that a moral law can be abolished
and yet the underlying principle remain intact.
Then, also, my position would cease to seem to him contradictory.
I would not object to the terms "the moral law," "the ceremonial law," &c., if there were separate laws corresponding to these terms. But since the law is one, and portions of it are "moral," it is obviously proper to speak of moral "parts."
"The beginning of the gospel [good news] of [concernerning] Jesus Christ," that is, the beginning of a history of Jesus, is the introduction to Mark's biography of him. At most, it can only refer to the gradual exhibition of the principles of the reign of Christ;
for long after this, Jesus still says, "I will build my church (Matt. 16: 18)." The gospel, in fact, could only begin after the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, since these are essential items in it.
1 Cor. 1: 1–4.
It is simply not true that I said, I am not concerned whether marriage is moral or not. Eld. W. must have described himself, when he said, "There is a certain peculiarity in him, which prevents his doing justice to an opponent." I spoke only with
reference to this discussion.
If I have done my brother injustice in saying that he regards all "duty" as having originated before
the fall, it is with pleasure that I stand corrected.
But he certainly argued that the ten commandments
are "primary law," and that all "primary law" is
moral, intending, thus, to prove the Sabbath moral.
I showed the defect in his reasoning by pointing to
the command not to eat of a certain tree in Eden, as
"primary," and yet positive.
Galatians was indeed written to Gentiles, but not
with reference to their paganism. The law, the law,
the law, was their cry, and Paul addressed them as
those who "desired to be under the law." Hence,
the "times" of Gal. 4: 10, are not identical with
those of Deut. 18: 10, and the "days" are clearly
Jewish days. Nor is it a question as to the number
of days observed, but as to the kind;
if mine are
gospel days, and my brother's Jewish, then he is
condemned, and I approved. Neither must he be too
hasty in calling Christian Sunday-keeping a "heathen time," on mere human authority;
we will soon
hear the Scriptures on this point.
I said that I knew of no text which calls the ten
commandments the law simply (Please note this little
word when you quote me again, Bro. W.);
certainly,
Ex. 24: 12, does not do it, but qualifies it by "which
I have written," so making "law" definite and sufficiently accounting for the presence of the article.
Says Kerl, Comp. Eng. Gram., p. 180, a noun may
be "definite, as being made so by some accompanying, descriptive words," and so take the article;
as,
"the man who is upright." Having so often had
occasion to chide my brother, I must here give him
credit for a clever thing. The Hebrew accent over
"law" in Ex. 24: 12, is indeed pashta and not
kadhma;
they are just alike in character, and often
nearly, and sometimes wholly, in position, so that
they may be easily mistaken for each other, as I inadvertently did.
But the practical result remains
unchanged—"law" is less disjoined from "commandments," than this from "which I have written;"
the latter is so separated by zakeph katon that
it must qualify "law" as well as "commandments."
This is not "fanciful," as Bro. W. says, but, as Green
says, § 28, "The punctuators have attempted . .
to represent to the eye the precise position held by
each word in the structure of the sentence."
I can easily account for God's writing only the
ten commandments. They were the Jewish constitution, and constitutions are usually better cared for
than other laws.
On Jer. 7: 22, 23, Eld. W. has not even tried to
grapple with my explanation. The surface meaning
of words is not always their intended import. "If
thy hand offend thee, cut it off"—who would take
the surface meaning here?
Bro. W. seems unfortunate in his collation of evidence in favor of two laws. If there are two laws,
and Eph. 2: 15, refers to one exclusively, it is to the
ten commandments—"the law of the commandments"—and "blots" them out. Moreover, the
same law may be "spiritual" or "carnal," according to the standpoint from which it is viewed, or as
standard with which it is compared.
In different
conditions of patient, the same dose may be poison
or medicine;
and any one's love, as compared with
that of his fellows, may be warm, but as compared
with God's, cold.
In one condition, the law would be
a "delight," in the other, "a yoke of bondage;"
in the one, good, in the other, not good.
It is also
quite possible to "magnify" a law by an "honorable discharge."
Rom. 3: 31: "Do we then make void the law through
faith? God forbid;
yea, we establish the law"—requires a few words.
If we accept the common version here, the allusion is to the entire Mosaic code,
with special reference to its moral or basic principles.
So
Conybeare, who retains the article before law, construes it.
If the reference were even exclusively to
the ten commandments, it would recognize only the
binding force of the moral principles therein contained, and would in no wise prove the perpetuity
of the Sabbath, which is purely positive.
This is
not simply a possible explanation, but a necessary
one, since the Sabbath, together dengan every positive
enaction of the law, are elsewhere declared abolished.
But as Paul wrote it, the case is still stronger.
Macknight renders him literally thus: "Do we then
make law useless through the faith? By no means, for
we establish law." While the word law without the
article may and often does refer to the Mosaic law
(though the conception is necessarily different from
that in which the article is used), it is also the only
way we can use the word, when we wish to speak of
law in general.
And who shall say that this last is
not Paul's thought? It is the very expression best
calculated to set it forth, and the Jewish law would
have been better referred to in the use of the article.
See, too, how it suits the connection.
Paul is proclaiming a universal system of pardon upon faith in
Christ (verse 30).
A few object that a system of
pardon so accessible would render law useless, since
there would be no sense in condemning a man and
pardoning him, in one breath;
it would make condemnation a mere farce, and law a sham;
it would
be better to have no law.
On the contrary, replies
Paul, we establish law;
that is, (1) A system of pardon recognizes the existence of law, for pardon without law transgressed is impossible, and (2) The presence of a system of pardon in the economy of God
declares it a necessity, and by implication, law, with
reference to which it was made, a necessity.
And so
far is a system of pardon from being an evil, that
even the Jew's own Scriptures speak well of it.
David pronounced it a "blessed thing" (chap. 4: 6–8),
and even father Abraham was pardoned upon faith.
(Verse 3;
Gen. 15: 6.)
We come now to passages that are such excellent
proof-texts in favor of the abolition of the law, that I
shall not be content with simply rescuing them from
the wrong service into which they are pressed, but
shall duly marshal them for aggressive warfare.
When I turned aside from my first argument, I had
made three counts.
4. "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the
law." Gal. 3: 13.
This implies redemption from
the law itself.
In fact, just as "the gift of the Holy
Spirit" denotes the Holy Spirit as a gift (Acts 2: 38),
so to be redeemed from "the curse of the law" is to
be redeemed from the law as a curse, as "a yoke upon
the necks of the disciples which neither our fathers
nor we were able to bear."
Am I asked how Christ redeemed the Gentiles from
the curse of a law under which they never were?
The answer is twofold: (1) The curse of the law as
applied to the Gentiles, need not denote identity with
that of the Jews, but simply similarity, just as "the
reproach of Christ" (Heb. 11: 26), as predicated of
Moses, denotes not identity, but similarity.
(2) In
one sense, the Jewish law was a curse, even to the
Gentiles.
The gospel could not come to them till in
time that it came first to the Jews (Jer. 31: 31)—for "salvation
is of the Jews"—and to these it could not come till
the law was removed.
The law, so far from being the basis of the Abrahamic covenant, was a mere appendage, "four hundred and thirty years after," and "was added because of transgression till the seed [Christ] should
come." Gal. 3.
"For the promise [or covenant]
that he should be heir of the world was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law." Rom. 4: 13.
5. "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 (not being myself under the
law), that I might gain them that are under the
law." 1 Cor. 9: 20.
The parenthesis is not in the
common version, but in improved versions.
If we
accept it, Paul says expressly that he is not under
the law;
if we reject it, he says no less—he "became
as under the law," for special purposes.
And if
Paul, who was a Jew by nature, was not under the
law, who will presume to put this yoke upon the
necks of the disciples?
But, says Eld. W., "under the law" means under
condemnation.
So, then, Paul became as "under
condemnation!" And the Galatians "desired to be
under condemnation!" (Chap. 4: 21.) "O foolish
Galatians." No;
Paul himself puts "under the
law" in antithesis with "without law." (1 Cor. 9:
21.)