p. 101 | Objections to the Sabbath Answered

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 11, 1873

Objections to the Sabbath Answered.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

TENTH OBJECTION.

The law of Christ hath made us free from the law of sin and death, which is the ten commandments. Romans seven and eight.

Answer. This objection takes in Paul’s argument in the seventh and eighth chapters of Romans. Hence we shall be obliged briefly to notice both. The position of our opponents on these two chapters is, that Paul is showing the contrast between the old dispensation and the new—is showing that we are no longer bound to keep the old law, but rather to be governed by the law of Christ. We believe that they make the same blunder in this objection that they did in the previous one. Paul has no reference whatever to any such thing, but continues the same subject that he had up in the sixth chapter, viz., the change which takes place in every individual at his conversion from sin to holiness. He first shows how the law condemns the sinner and yet is just and holy in doing it; and then, how the sinner obtains pardon and grace through faith in Christ and thereby receives strength to keep the law which he previously found himself unable to obey. Now let us read chapter 7:1. “Know ye not, brethren (for I speak to them that know the law), how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth.” He then proceeds to show by a simple illustration what he means by this statement. “For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law of her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.” Verse 2. Look at the illustration a moment. To-day, a woman in Minnesota marries Mr. Smith. Now the law of Minnesota binds her to Mr. Smith as long as he lives. There are three things then in the illustration. 1. The woman. 2. The husband. 3. The law. Now Paul says, “If the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.” Mark, that she is loosed from that law. But what is it that died in this illustration? Is it the law? Suppose that Mr. Smith dies, just as Paul says, does that abolish the law of Minnesota which bound her to Mr. Smith? How absurd that would be! No; the law does not die, and yet the death of Mr. Smith does loose the woman from that law; not because the law is dead, but because the person is dead to whom it bound the woman. Paul proceeds: “So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress.” Certainly, if while Mr. Smith lives she should marry Mr. Jones, she would be an adulteress; for the law does not allow her to have two husbands at a time. Paul goes on, “but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress though she be married to another man.” Yes, if Mr. Smith dies, then she is freed from the law of Minnesota and can now marry Mr. Jones lawfully. Bear it in mind that Paul twice says that if her husband dies she is loosed from the law, freed from the law. The same law which bound her to Mr. Smith now binds her to Mr. Jones. It will be seen that in all this illustration there is not the slightest reference to the death or abolition of the law; the law remains the same all the time. It is the husband that dies, not the law. Now did Paul know how properly to use an illustration? or did he not? We think he did quite as well as our opponents. If this illustration is a proper one, it is a very unfortunate one for the position of our opponents; for in his illustration, the law never died at all, while he declares by the death of the husband the woman is freed, loosed, from the law, and yet the law lives. Now the only question is, What is represented in the illustration by the two husbands. We understand it to be, not the old law and the new law, but the old man, the carnal mind, the body of sin, the unconverted man, to be represented by the first husband, and the Lord Jesus Christ, by the second husband. The following language of Paul we think settles this point: “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.” Verse 4.

Here Paul plainly says, “My brethren, ye are become dead”—not that the law is dead; but it was these brethren who once died; and then who is the second marriage made with? This he as plainly states, that they should be married to him who is raised from the dead. In other words, while the old, carnal man lived, the law of God bound them down in condemnation to that old body of sin; but when that was dead, then they were united to Christ. The next verse confirms the fact that Paul is speaking here of their conversion from sin to righteousness. “For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.” Verse 5. “When we were in the flesh,” plainly means when we were unconverted; and has no reference to being under some former dispensation. He continues: “But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held.” Verse 6. The margin says, “being dead to that” wherein we were held. The American Bible Union translation says: “having died to that wherein we were held;” that is, the old man having died which kept us from being united to Christ, being dead we are delivered from the law, just as the woman was delivered from the law of Minnesota when Mr. Smith died. That it was not the law, but the old man that died, is put beyond controversy by the following language: “For I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just and good.” Verses 9–12. Here Paul says, “I died,” the law “slew me.” Now did the law die? or did Paul die? He says emphatically the law slew him. Then it was not the law that died, but the old man whom Paul here personates. Then hear his conclusion. If our opponents’ position be true, Paul should have concluded like this: “Wherefore the law is dead and abolished, it being a yoke of bondage.” But instead of such a conclusion he sums it up thus: “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just and good.” This conclusion, as all can see, is in perfect harmony with the position we have taken, but utterly irreconcilable with the position of our opponents.

In the same strain, verse 14, he says, “For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.” So also, verse 22, “for I delight in the law of God after the inward man.” Did he delight in an old dead law, which never was better than a yoke of bondage? Strange that men can pervert the word of God to such unreasonable conclusions.

In the following verses Paul proceeds to show that while he consents with his mind to the law that it is good and just, and ought to be obeyed, and even resolves to obey it, yet notwithstanding this, the sinful propensities are so strong that they overcome the good intentions and resolutions; and instead of being able to keep the law of God he finds himself continually transgressing it. Thus he says: “For that which I do I allow not; for what I would, that I do not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh), dwelleth no good thing; for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man.” Verses 15–22.

I think all can see plainly that I have fairly represented Paul’s meaning in these few verses. He says that he delights in the law of God after the inward man, that is, in his mind he admires the law of God; its justice, holiness, and purity, and feels that it ought to be obeyed; but at the same time he finds all the inclinations of the natural man directly opposed to this law and constantly leading him to transgress it.

Thus he contrasts these two laws; for it will be noticed that he speaks of two laws, namely, the law of God and the law of sin which is in his members. Thus he says: “For I delight in the law of God after the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.” Verses 22–25. That “the law of sin” is here set in contrast with “the law of God,” none can fail to see. It will be necessary to bear this distinction in mind in order to understand what follows. “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” Chap. 8:1, 2. Who are here spoken of? Those who no longer walk after the flesh; hence are converted men. Therefore this is true of them only. From what has the law of the spirit of life in Christ freed these men? From the law of sin and death. Is that the law of God, the decalogue? No; for we have before shown that this law of sin and death is the one which rules in the carnal man, and is directly opposed to the law of God. Christ Jesus has freed them from this law, not only by forgiving them their sins, but by giving them grace and spiritual strength to conquer and subdue their fleshly passions, and thus enable them to obey the law of God, which before they could not do.

In the next two verses Paul reaches the grand conclusion which he had been aiming at in all this argument, viz., that the very object of the grace which we receive through Christ is to enable the sinner to fulfill the law, which without the grace he never could do. Thus he says: “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit.” Verses 3, 4. Then there is something which the law could not do, which nevertheless the grace of God can enable man to perform, that is to properly keep the law of God. The law demands a strictly righteous and sinless life in every man. It says, “Thou shalt do this, and, Thou shalt not do that.” But simply requiring this does not enable the sinner to perform it; nor is the law able in any manner to give him strength to do it. The law can demand this and that, and punish the transgressor for his not doing it, but it cannot give grace and strength by which to do these things. Here the grace of Christ comes in and so strengthens us, that, says Paul, the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit. Mark you, Paul does not say that the grace of Christ comes in to supersede and set aside the law as our opponents claim. No, no; but just the reverse of this, viz., that the righteousness of the law, or as the Bible Union has it, the requirements of the law, might be fulfilled in us.”

Finally, he says: “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” Verse 7. Here the grand difficulty with regard to the law of God is fairly stated. What is it? Is it that the law is dead? that it is a yoke of bondage? that it is abolished? that it is no longer to be obeyed? Oh no; but it is the carnal mind which is in the way, and which will not submit itself to this holy law of God. It must be slain and subdued before obedience can be yielded to the law. We fear that the same difficulty exists to-day with those who find so much trouble with the law of God. If they would try as hard to conquer and destroy the carnal mind as they do the law, they would soon delight in the law of God after the inward man.

D. M. CANRIGHT.

Wells, Feb. 13, 1873.