WHEREFORE THEN SERVETH THE LAW?
By John O. Corliss
This is a question which often arises upon the presentation of the full claims of the law of God, and is answered in different ways—two at least. One answer that satisfies some is this: The law was abolished by the death of Christ, and therefore we are no longer under it. But there are those who are not turned away with such an evasive answer, and they press the pertinent inquiry, “If God’s law of ten commandments, which we have ever been taught was holy, just, and good, was made void by the death of Christ, then why was it given?” The answer is usually returned: “The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith; but after faith is come we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” Do the Scriptures bring to view any other way for us to be adopted into the family of God but by faith in Christ? No. Since our first parents through transgression lost their title to God’s favor their offspring could only regain it through faith in Christ; and every one of them, however remote they may be, if saved finally, will be saved through the only name given under114Heaven whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:12. Hence it was by faith that Abel’s offering was accepted, and God gave him the witness that he was righteous. Heb. 11:4. Abraham was not justified by works, but by faith in the promised Messiah. He did, however, receive circumcision as a token, or sign, of his faith in the promise of God. Rom. 4:2, 11, 13. Yet we are informed that the reason why God adopted Abraham was because he kept his commandments. Gen. 26:5. Paul says that this promise to Abraham extended to his seed, which is Christ, Gal. 3:16, and that God confirmed it to him by an oath. Heb. 6:13, 14. Yet it was necessary for Abraham to express his faith in the promise by some outward act, and therefore he submitted to the rite of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of that faith. Now Paul says, that the law, given four hundred and thirty years after the confirmation of that covenant, could not disannul the promise that God had sworn to perform, though it was added because of transgressions. Gal. 3:19. If God had no law prior to his speaking one on Sinai, then there could be no transgression. Rom. 4:15. But because God’s holy law did exist, and sin was imputed to them in consequence of its transgression (See Rom. 5:13, and Gen. 4:4–8), it was necessary to give a law which would foreshadow Christ, and by which, in its performance, their faith in him could be kept alive until he should come and take away those sins. Therefore this law to prescribe and regulate the ceremonies and offerings was added to the former ceremony of like nature—circumcision. But why add these ceremonies, if circumcision was only necessary before? says one. We understand that sacrifices were necessary before, and were offered, but without regularity and precision. Therefore they were not added, but only the law to regulate them, so as to have a regular system of faith and worship. This is a matter of necessity. For while in Egypt, in association with that idolatrous nation, the children of Israel had to a great extent, through their transgressions, lost sight of the promise of God, and, if left to themselves and the influence of the nations around them, they would soon become gross idolaters. Hence to keep them together, and teach them faith in the atonement, it was necessary to give a law that would regulate their worship, and be a schoolmaster that would each day point them to, and bring them unto, Christ. And it (the law) was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. To ordain means to establish or appoint. Though it is true that the law of ceremonies came by the approval of God, yet he says that he did not give that law. He does, however, acknowledge that he commanded them to obey his voice (Jer. 7:21–23), which Moses says was the law of ten commandments. Deut. 4:12, 13. Again he says in verse 21: “Is the law then against the promise of God? God forbid; for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.” He also says, in writing to the Romans, that the law which slew him (the ten commandments), “was ordained to life,” and was therefore a different law from the one under consideration in Gal. 3:21, which could not give life, but could only point to Jesus Christ as the only source of life for sinners. There can be no difficulty in understanding the frequently occurring expression, “the law,” as used by the apostle in his writings, and determining its application if taken in its several connections. But some, in order to evade the force of the fourth commandment, which enjoins the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath, class the moral and ceremonial precepts together, and with one sweeping assertion abolish them all, leaving the world to infer from their teachings that no law exists by which to regulate our lives. This ever seems inconsistent to Bible readers, and causes them to lose confidence in its teachings. For, say they: Paul, in writing to the Romans, states that faith in Christ does not abolish the law, while he writes to the Galatians that it was only a schoolmaster, and to continue only till Christ. What shall we conclude from this? We conclude there are two distinct codes brought to view by the apostle: One, which he claims is spiritual; Rom. 7:14; another, which he calls “the law of a carnal commandment.” Heb. 7:16. The first is not made void through faith. Rom. 3:31. The second is abolished in Christ. Eph. 2:15. To those who earnestly desire to know and do the will of God, I would say, Before you decide to renounce God’s holy law, in order to be released from the observance of his day, weigh well the evidence of the Bible upon the point, and then remember that it holds up his law as the rule in the Judgment, Eccl. 12:13, 14; Rom. 2:12–16; James 2:12, and act with reference to that event.