Some Important Evidence Examined
We continue the consideration of the perpetuity of the law of God by quoting further from an article by Elder J. N. Andrews upon this subject. The extract here presented deals chiefly with the third chapter of Second Corinthians, a portion of scripture which is persistently used as proof that the ten commandments are “done away.” Elder Andrews treated this question as follows:— 2 Corinthians 3. The testimony of this chapter has an important bearing on the subject. As those who teach the abrogation of God’s law regard it as their most important evidence, we will briefly state and examine their position. It is as follows: “1. The law of God written on tables of stone constituted the first covenant. 2. This covenant is here called ‘the ministration of death’ or ‘ministration of condemnation,’ and is abolished or done away in Christ. Verses 7, 13, 14. 3. The abrogation of this covenant annulled the law of God.” To the first point we answer that a covenant is a mutual agreement between two parties; or, according to its second definition, it is writing containing the terms of agreement. (Noah Webster.) The first covenant, according to the first definition of the word, may be read in Exodus 19. The proposition on the part of God stands thus: “If ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people.” Verses 3-7. The answer of the people is as follows: “And all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken. we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord.” Verse 8. This completed the mutual agreement. Its stipulation was obedience on the part of the people. Then follows what may, according to the second definition of the word, be called the covenant, namely, the ten commandments as the terms of the mutual agreement already entered into. The covenant, or mutual agreement is one thing, the terms of that agreement, though closely connected with it, are quite another. We say, then, that the first covenant was, strictly speaking, the mutual agreement entered into by God and his people, the ten commandments being its terms of agreement. Mark this. To the second point we answer that the word “ministration” signifies “the act of performing service,” or “service” itself; consequently it is not the words “written and engraven in stones” to which the apostle refers, but to “the ministration” or service of those words. (Please note the use of the word where it occurs, as in Luke 1:23; Acts 6:1; 2 Cor. 9:13.) The careful reading of this chapter shows that its subject is a comparison of the ministrations of the two covenants. A full account of the ministrations of the first and second covenants may be read in Hebrews 7, 8, 9, 10. The Levitical priesthood with its ordinances of divine service, performed the ministration of the first covenant. The “more excellent ministry” of Christ, including all its branches, fulfils the ministration of the second. And it is a fact of much importance that the ark of God’s testament is found in the heavenly tabernacle, where Christ is ministering (Rev. 11:19), as well as in the earthly tabernacle; that it is clear that the tables of the testament are still the foundation of the divine government. Then the law of God given to Israel as the basis of the first covenant, is clearly shown to be distinct from its “ministration” as given in “the handwriting of ordinances.” As the services of the first covenant meet that antitype in Christ’s ministration, how natural the language that the ministration of condemnation had no glory by reason of the glory that excelleth, the glory of the shadow being swallowed up in that of the substance. Then it is clear that the veil which is on the children of Israel, denotes the typical service or ministration of condemnation, which was abolished or done away in Christ. If you say that it is God’s law which was abolished or done away in Christ, then you teach that Christ destroyed the law. See Matt. 5:17-19. Deny this, who can. To the third part, we answer that the first covenant ceased because its conditions were not kept. We have already shown that the law of God was given to Israel, as the conditions of the covenant between God and his people. The terms of agreement having been broken, the covenant based on them must of necessity cease. But to teach that the abrogation of the covenant annulled the law of God also, would in reality be saying that God abolished his law because men would transgress it! Our opponents teach that the law of God is abolished, and that those precepts which are not re-enacted in the New Testament are not binding on us. The force of this blow is aimed at the Sabbath, but if carried out, its effect would be to overturn the whole law of God. “The law,” say they, “was abolished at Christ’s death.” . . . Now if God abolished his law at Christ’s death, how could he afterward write it in the hearts and minds of his people according to the promise, as given in Heb. 8:10? How could this be done unless he first re-enacted it? And we challenge you to show that God has ever abolished a law, and then re-enacted it. The word of God is not yea and nay after this manner. . . . Do you say that it is the law of the New Testament, or law of grace, which God writes on the hearts of his people? We answer that you can not show the existence of such a law, distinct from the precepts of the decalogue. Besides,7if the precepts of the decalogue are abolished, even its principles can not now exist without a re-enactment. If you could carry out this sentiment, you would show that the ten commandments are all abolished; hence the law of God is destroyed; hence, also, the moral government is destroyed, and men are left without prohibition against any species of wickedness. Do you say that God abolished this law, and then re-enacted all its precepts save the Sabbath commandment? We answer that such an unwillingness on your part to submit to the law of God, shows that you possess “the carnal mind,” which is “enmity against God,” WHICH “IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF GOD, neither indeed can be.” Jesus has said that NOT ONE JOT OR TITTLE SHALL PASS FROM THE LAW till all be fulfilled; but you, to avoid the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, teach us that that commandment has been struck out of the law. Such, then, is your absurd and dangerous position. Will you still cling to it? We invite the attention of the candid reader to “a more excellent way.” We have shown the existence of God’s law from the beginning, and that its observance constituted the conditions, or terms of agreement, on which the first covenant was based. The first covenant ceased because its conditions were not kept. Heb. 8:9. But the dissolution of this covenant could not abolish “the royal law” which had existed from the beginning; hence we believe that the law of God did not cease with the first covenant, but that it continued in full force, ready to be written by the Spirit in the hearts of God’s people. See the promise in Jer. 31:33; Heb. 8:10. There is therefore no such absurdity in our faith, as in that of our opponents, who would have us believe that God abolished his law, and at the same moment re-enacted a part of its precepts. Our faith may be expressed in a single sentence: GOD’S LAW COVERS ALL TIME, and under all dispensations it stands out, before men as the rule of their lives and the sum of their duty to God.