A CHANGE OR ABOLITION OF GOD’S LAW IS UNREASONABLE by Joseph Harvey Waggoner

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 1, 1875

A CHANGE OR ABOLITION OF GOD’S LAW IS UNREASONABLE

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

THE LAW OF GOD.—NO. 7.

BY J. H. WAGGONER.

The subject of the two covenants, which we have considered, brings us to a consideration of the change of dispensation. This, in the estimation of many, effects a change in, or abolition of, the divine law. We will first notice that

A CHANGE OR ABOLITION OF GOD’S LAW IS UNREASONABLE.

We have already shown that the holiness required in the present dispensation is identical with that required in the past dispensation, having the holiness of God himself for its model or foundation. He said, “Be ye holy, for I am holy.” Holiness in the precept, “Be ye holy,” cannot change unless holiness in the declaration, “For I am holy,” shall change. But the holiness of God cannot change while his attributes remain unchanged; or we might say, while he remains God.

We have also seen that his law of ten commandments was the rule by obeying which they would be holy. In doing that law they would form right or holy characters, because that law is a holy law. It being the expression of the will of God, it is to us a revelation of the divine character or attributes. For there must be perfect harmony between the divine attributes and the divine will. God cannot deny himself, neither can he change. Our relation to God teaches the same thing.

Man is a moral agent; he is on probation to develop a moral character, and he will be judged at last on a basis purely moral, because God, the Judge, is a moral governor. But moral law, emanating from the divine mind, cannot change, or pass away.

There can be no difference between the attributes of God and the principles of his government. As God is just, justice must be an attribute of his government. As God is love, so also must love pervade his government. As God is immutable, so also the principles of his government must be unchangeable. We cannot conceive of his possessing an attribute which does not shine forth in his government.

But as law is the basis of government, for there is no government where there is no law, so of course whatever applies to his government applies to his law. Therefore, to understand the attributes of God, we have but to understand his will or law, for the latter necessarily grows out of the former. And so our declaration is vindicated, that the law is a revelation of the attributes or character of God.

Now as God, the moral governor, cannot change, and as man is a moral agent, and is required to be holy because God is holy, and the law or will of God is given as the rule of holiness, or the means of forming his moral character, how can that rule change? We are constrained to believe that they who argue for the abolition or change of the law of God—the divine rule of right and morality—do so because they have been misled by superficial views of great principles, not having carefully examined the subject of the divine government, and our relation to it. Of course we now speak of those who have been misled, and who think they are “doing God service,” even while advocating dangerous errors. There is another class, and we fear it is not small, whose opposition to the law of God is best explained by Paul where he says, “The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” Rom. 8:7.

This latter class dislike the law because it condemns, and will not justify them. There is a conflict between them and the law; and the question arises, Which party is right? If they are right and the law is wrong, then the law ought to be put aside, they ought to be vindicated or justified. But if the law is right and they are wrong, then the law ought to be maintained, and they should be condemned. But observation, reason, and Scripture prove that they are wrong—they are sinners, and deserve condemnation for their sins. Therefore, if the law condemns them, it does just what it ought to do. The very fact that they complain of the law because it condemns sin and sinners proves that they are worthy of the condemnation under which they rest.

We say that reason as well as Scripture sustains us in this position. These persons confess that there is a conflict between them and the law. They are opposed to it, and it condemns them. And this is the ground of their complaint, that it will not justify them. Now looking at the world of mankind, beholding the evil everywhere prevailing, and the evidences that man is a fallen, degenerate creature, can we reasonably conclude that a law would emanate from a holy God which, morally considered, is lower than mankind? We cannot. Had man never fallen, had he always maintained his purity of character, the law of God would still have been superior to him, as no person can rise above the law to which he is amenable. Especially could not the creature rise above the law of the Creator. This being true, much more is it true that fallen, sinful creatures cannot rise above the law of a holy God, the law itself being holy. When a conflict arises, the sinful creature must stand condemned, and the law of God must be vindicated.

This argument, reduced to the following form, will show at a glance that our position is the only one which reason can approve:—

1. It is a reflection on the honor and justice of any government to abolish its law while there exists an open rebellion against it. For,

2. If the law was unjust it ought to be abolished. But this fact would palliate the action of the rebels, justify the rebellion, and prove that the governor or lawgiver was unjust. Or,

3. If the law was just it ought not to be abolished, but rather enforced, and the rebels either be made to submit to it or be punished. For a governor to abolish a just law in order to favor criminals, is to favor crime and to trample down right and justice.

And thus, whichever way it is viewed, they who argue the abolition of the law justify rebellion and reproach the government of God.

And that position is not only unreasonable and reproachful to God’s government viewed in its effect upon the law, but it reflects dishonor upon the gospel, by perverting it to a system of license, instead of vindicating justice by a well-guarded pardon. In this respect they who preach the abolition of the law, or denounce it because it will not justify the sinner, treat it as no man would presume to treat the law of the State in which he resides. Every one will confess that the law of the land is right in condemning the thief and the murderer; they do not find fault with it because it will not justify such criminals. No one will claim that the criminal can escape the penalty of the law but by means of the pardon of the governor. No one will argue that the pardon granted by the governor releases the pardoned one from obligation to obey the law he had transgressed. No one will affirm that the pardon then becomes the rule of life, or the means of condemnation for future transgressions. It is a truth beyond dispute that abolition of law and pardon of the transgressor of that law cannot be united or go together. One would be a nullity if both were attempted. For, a law cannot condemn a man after it is abolished, and of course an offer of pardon under such circumstances would be only mockery. Truly, such a theory is more than a perversion of the gospel; it subverts the gospel by destroying its foundations.

ABOLITION OF THE LAW IS DISPROVED BY SCRIPTURE.

We shall present but a few points at present under this head, but all that has been said on the nature of the law and on the two covenants, and all that shall be said under various heads is a confirmation of this proposition.

1. The proof that the law existed before the exode proves that it is not affected by a change of dispensation. As it did not originate with the introduction of the Levitical economy, so it did not cease when that dispensation passed away.

2. It has been shown that the law is the basis or condition of both covenants; that it was kept by Abraham, the father of the faithful; that it stands against the sinner, whether Jew or Gentile, to bar him from the blessing of Abraham; and that it was confirmed a law, an everlasting covenant to Israel. Therefore its abolition is impossible.

3. Jehovah said they would be holy if they kept it, which shows it to be a rule of holiness, and as such cannot pass away till the requirement to be holy can cease.

4. “The law of the Lord is perfect.” Ps. 19:7. Perfection, in moral matters, cannot be improved. Were the law less than perfect it could not be a rule of holiness. Being perfect it cannot be changed without making it imperfect, nor can it be abolished without abolishing perfection and the rule of holiness.

5. This is strongly confirmed by Eccl. 12:13, 14: “Fear God and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man.” When this was written man’s nature and relations were exactly what they now are. The requirement to be holy was then just what it now is. It was and is, to be holy because God is holy. Man was on probation as a moral agent, to develop a holy character, to fit himself to stand in the Judgment before a holy God. What a monstrous absurdity to suppose, in the face of Scripture and reason, that a law which defines the whole duty of a moral agent should, for any cause, be abolished. That God to accommodate his government to the circumstances of rebels, should abolish the righteous laws which define the whole duty of his subjects, would be truly a wonder. It might be very pleasing to them, but could not be to his glory. It would affect, not only the stability of his government, but the integrity of his character.

6. “My salvation shall be forever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.” Isa. 51:6. This refers to the law of God, and is a direct statement that it shall not be abolished. It must either refer to his law, or to his personal character. That it refers to his attributes or personal character is unreasonable, yes, impossible; for the idea of the abolition of his personal righteousness is too absurd to receive notice. But referred to his law, which is the foundation of his righteous government, the expression is reasonable and, as a revelation, is necessary. And there is proof that it has this application. In Ps. 119:172, it is said, “All thy commandments are righteousness.”

Now as the character of the divine Law-giver is best revealed to us through the revelation of his will, and as his attributes must of necessity be shown forth in his government, the stability of his character must of course be shown by the stability of his government, or law. For it would be of little account to declare in words that he was unchangeable if he showed in his actions, in the administration of his government, that he was not.

This application of the text is confirmed, not only by Ps. 119:172—all thy commandments are righteousness—but, by the context of the verse under consideration. “Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law.” Isa. 51:7. And again, Rom. 3:21, which says that the law witnesses to the righteousness of God. This is sufficient proof of all that we have said concerning the relation of God’s law to his attributes or character. Did the opposers of the law realize the full force and importance of this testimony we think they would pause in their mad career, and tremble at the bare thought of the result of their action.

7. “He will magnify the law, and make it honorable.” Isa. 42:21. Magnify, says Webster, “to extol; to exalt; to elevate; to raise in estimation.” Do they who oppose the law believe the Saviour did such a work as this? If they believe this Scripture we should never learn that fact from their writings. Could it be extolled, exalted, or elevated by its abolition? Did he “raise it in the estimation” of those his professed followers who spare no pains to disparage it? Can they discover any harmony with this prophecy in their own actions? In their treatment of the law?

But again, “he will make it honorable.” This does not mean that it was not honorable before; for we know that God always highly honored his law. The reason why the ark was so greatly honored and carefully guarded was that it contained the law of Jehovah. God ever honored those who honored his law, and turned away from those who rejected it. The text means that he will make it still more honorable; especially as it had been dishonored and rejected. He will rescue it from the reproach which men have cast on it, and elevate it, raise it in estimation higher than it had before been held. So Paul says in Rom. 3:31, “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law.” Thus we have both the work of Christ and the position of his true followers pointed out in these texts. The law had been dishonored by transgression and rebellion.

He came to vindicate its claims, to suffer its penalty, thereby showing its sacredness and perpetuity. He enforced it on men by openly declaring that he did not come to destroy it, and that they who keep it and teach men so will be greatly esteemed in the kingdom

of Heaven; by teaching it as the rule of life; by showing that it hangs on the principle of love; and by writing it in the hearts of his people in the new covenant. His people join in his work by doing and teaching it; by loving it, by consenting that it is holy, just, good, and spiritual; by showing in all their life that it is written in their hearts.

On the other hand, how do the opposers say the Lord Jesus magnified the law, and made it honorable? By breaking it himself; by teaching others to do so; by abolishing it; by inspiring his apostles to denounce it as a yoke of bondage! If they are not shocked by the irreverence of their position, they ought at least to be struck with its absurdity.

8. “I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart.” Ps. 40:8. We learn by Heb. 10 that these are the words of the Son of God to his Father. And this shows that it was love of the law which led him to magnify it and make it honorable. As the Saviour loved the law—as it was in his heart—how can he also love those who despise and contemn it? As it was his work to glorify his Father by magnifying his law and making it honorable, by rescuing it from the reproach of men, how can he take delight in those who reproach it, and strive to bring it into contempt? We think he cannot. We think when “God shall bring every work into Judgment, and every secret thing,” that they who, in probation, “fear God, and keep his commandments,” will find acceptance with him; they will have right to the tree of life, and will enter in through the gates into the city. But the workers of iniquity, however strong may be their profession of faith in Christ, will be caused to depart from him. Matt. 7:21–23.

Thus far we have considered the declarations of the Old Testament. Before giving direct testimony from the New, we will show the harmony between the two; that the New endorses and upholds the Old, but does not supersede or invalidate it.