The Law of God and Liberty.
By W. N. Glenn
THE AVERSION to the law of God is a growing evil in Christendom. It has become so prevalent that it may properly be styled religious communism—a nominal allegiance to his Government, with a determined opposition to his law. We are told by those who profess to be teachers of godliness, and are accorded high rank in their profession, that this law is subversive of the liberty of the gospel, that it is a yoke of bondage, that we cannot keep it, that it was never intended by its author that we should keep it; and, furthermore, that Jesus died to relieve us from its obligation. Even those who make the loudest profession of "holiness to the Lord," in their eagerness to get rid of his law, are ready to discard the entire Old Testament, which the Saviour enjoined his followers to search (John 5:39), and which is the only voucher for the truth of the New Testament, which they claim for a guide. Their idea of gospel liberty, is, to do away with any and everything that would work any restraint upon their action. Their attitude toward the Government of God is precisely the same as that of the Communists toward the Government of France; the Nihilists toward the Czar; the Socialists toward the Emperor of Germany, and other elements of a like character toward almost every government on earth. The only difference is that the communists in earthly governments have more or less cause for complaint, while the dissenters from God's law make loud proclamation of his goodness and mercy and tender care. The action of such subjects would indicate that their loyalty is limited to the extent of their license to do as they please, and if ever the King of Heaven should impose any law upon the citizens of his kingdom the no-law party would at once become a troublesome element. But suppose we set aside the Old Testament, on the ground that it belongs to a law-governed dispensation which ended at the cross. What then? Why, of course we must be consistent and set aside everything else that savors of law. Let us look into the New Testament. In Matt. 5:17-19 we read:— "Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
We have discarded the Old Testament, but we are not rid of the law yet, for according to the Lord himself, it is not to pass "till heaven and earth pass." Passing along through the New Testament, we incidentally find the position allotted by Paul to the opponents of law, in Rom. 8:7: "The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." It is pretty hard on professed Christians, to say that they are at enmity with God just because they claim freedom from the "galling yoke" of his law; but we have New Testament authority for it. And for the benefit of those who claim to be in a "justified state," yet opposed to the law, we will allow Paul to define their position also: "Not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." Rom. 2:13. But we turn over a little farther, and in 1 John 3:4 we find this declaration: "Whosoever committeth sin, transgresseth also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law." So we are not rid of the law yet; for if so, John could not only have said, "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not" (verse 6), but he could have truthfully added, the infidel and the idolater cannot sin, for "sin is not imputed when there is no law." Rom. 5:13. Now we will pass on to the closing book, "The Revelation of Jesus Christ," which "he sent and signified by his angel unto his servant John." In the 14th chapter the scene is carried down to the very close of time, and those who have resisted the worship of the beast and his image are designated as "they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." So we find by these brief quotations, as also by many others that can be readily referred to by any one desiring to do so, that the law of God is as emphatically maintained in the New Testament as in the Old. Then what will our no-law advocates do, who have cast aside the Old Testament in order to bury the law from their sight? We have supposed that they would at least be consistent. If they insist on maintaining their position of antagonism to the commandments, and wish to be consistent in so doing, there is nothing left for them but to throw away the New Testament also. Having done this, they will stand in their true light, on the platform of their beau ideal of liberty—"not subject to the law of God." But the question arises, Is the law of God antagonistic to liberty? In reply, we will assume that in Egypt the Israelites were in a great measure prevented from practically observing the law through the rigorous servitude imposed upon them. At least it is recorded (Ex. 5) that their labor was greatly increased when they expressed a desire to worship their God—and of course an acceptable worship would include obeying his law. When the Lord brought them out of Egypt, he said that he brought them "out of the house of bondage." And this he did that they might enjoy the privilege of obeying and serving him in a land "flowing with milk and honey." If not being subject to the law of God is a true definition of liberty, they certainly had a chance to enjoy it in Egypt to their heart's content. But the Lord, in whose special charge they were, and who had a special care for their temporal and spiritual welfare, calls their situation one of bondage. And he repeated his law audibly to the whole multitude, and furnished it to them in indestructible form, to assist them in the enjoyment of their liberty. In the days of the apostles this same statute was still the "royal law" (Jas. 2:8), and it is affirmed that whosoever shall "offend in one point, he is guilty of all." Yet the same apostle calls it a law of liberty. It is a law of liberty because by obedience to it we are free from its condemnation—the highest phase of liberty that the Christian heart could hope for. The experience and testimony of David ought to be good authority, for he both carefully observed it and flagrantly violated it. He did not find much liberty as a result of its violation, for he said his "sin was ever before" him—bitter results followed him to his grave. So it must have been the peaceful consequences of its observance that led him to write: "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; the statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes." Ps. 19:7, 8. Surely a law that converts the soul, rejoices the heart, and enlightens the eyes, cannot be called a very grievous bondage. On the contrary, the "beloved disciple" says "his commandments are not grievous" (1 John 5:3); and one who was "caught up to the third heaven" to be instructed in the gospel declares them to be "holy, just, and good." Rom. 7:12.