A few reasons why we are not under the law by John Norton Loughborough

Publishing Committee · Rochester, N.Y. · Oct 11, 1853

A few reasons why we are not under the law.

By John Norton Loughborough

BY J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.

“For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law but under grace.” Rom. vi, 14.

Much is said by those who oppose the Sabbath of the Lord, relative to the abolition of the law of God which he spake from Sinai, and often are we met with the text before us, which doubtless the advocates of the no-Sabbath theory, suppose sustains their position.

Not long since an article appeared in the Advent Harbinger, from the pen of L. P. Judson, entitled, “Forty-one reasons why we are not under the law,” in which the writer endeavors to maintain that the reason we are not under the law is that the law is abolished, and he quotes largely from the apostle Paul, to maintain, if possible, his position.

I shall be obliged in my investigation of this matter to dissent from the writer referred to, although, with the Apostle, I contend that a Christian is “not under the law but under grace.” Why are not Christians under the law? is it because the law has undergone a change in the change of dispensations, or has the change taken place in us? Are the people of this dispensation so much more willing to obey God than the Jews, that it requires a law less strict to govern them than the Jews; by no means; for says Paul, “evil men shall wax worse and worse.” The position of our opponents, as already stated, is this: in the past dispensation the Jews were under the law, but now we are not under it, because it is abolished. Before passing farther, I would notice that the position of our no-Sabbath friends destroys itself; for if the law has been abolished, we could not be under it, if we wished to. When a law is repealed (or abolished) it ceases to be a law. It is not a rule of action. The definition given by Walker, is: “law—rule of action.” If this definition be correct, when a statute ceases to be a rule of action, it ceases to be a law.—And according to the position of our opponents, God’s law ceased to be a rule of action at the cross; in other words, ceased to be a law. But Paul says we are not under the law, some rule of action, the ten commandments

according to their own position. But to return to the text.

Paul here states a fact, and afterwards assigns his reasons for so doing.

Fact—“Sin shall not have dominion over you.” Reason—“For ye are not under the law.”

Then when a man is under the law, sin has dominion over him, and the implication is, if sin had dominion over them, they would be under the law.—Over whom does sin have dominion? not those who live in obedience to the law, but sinners. The next verse to our text (the 15th verse of the same chapter) is, also, destructive to the position of our no-Sabbath friends. “What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.” Rom. vi, 15. We inquire, what is sin? “The transgression of the law.” 1 John iii, 4. What law is sin the transgression of? The law to which we are amenable. To what law are we amenable? To the law of God. Then sin is any transgression of the law of God. But says the objector, we are amenable only to the law of Christ. To suit that theory, the text should read thus: For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not amenable to the ten commandments, (or under them,) but grace; what then, shall we transgress the law of Christ, because we are not under the ten commandments?—God forbid.

But we do not feel disposed to grant such lenity.—We ask, what law is it that they are not to transgress? The very one they are not under. What law is it that they are not under? The ten commandments, as all admit. Then Paul’s argument is that we are not to transgress the law, because we have been pardoned, and thus liberated from its grasp; and if we transgress again we shall become ensnared, and brought into bondage. Paul speaks, also, in Rom. iii, of those who are under the law. “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped and all the world become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law, there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Rom. iii, 19, 20. By what law is the knowledge of sin? The very law we cannot be justified by; and that is the law that saith whatsoever it saith, to those who are under it. It speaks to sinners in all dispensations. But some would have it read, the law said; but Paul says, it saith, or, in other words, was then speaking. Then the law of which Paul spake was a rule of action, at the time he spake; and this law was the ten commandments, according to the admission, even of our enemies. Some of our friends would urge, because Paul says we cannot be justified by the law, that, therefore, we are not to keep it. But he says,—“the doers of the law shall be justified.” Rom. ii, 18. How? by doing the law? no, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.—“Therefore, we conclude, that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law.” Rom. iii, 28.

We have found by these texts, who are under the law. They are those who transgress it. The lawless ones, that the law was made for. The law was made for the lawless and disobedient, [1 Tim. i, 9.] to bring them to the path of rectitude. The ultimate design of the law was, doubtless, to show men their rebellion against God. “Moreover the law entered, that the offence (or transgression) might abound.” Rom. v, 20.

But why are not Christians under the law? We answer, because they are not transgressors. Although they once were, they have been delivered from that position through the efficacy of the blood of Jesus, which has been spilt to obtain their pardon, and redemption from the curse of the law. Then we conclude that the reason why we are not under the law is, that a change has taken place in us. This change is fully presented in Rom. vii.

But here our opponents again claim to have an argument for the abolition of the law. The ground claimed is, that the law had dominion over the Jews till the time of Christ; that the church was bound to the law till the law died, and then they were freed from it. But we inquire, was this the argument of the Apostle?

“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.” Here Paul several years past the time when it is claimed that Christ abolished the law, and placed it where it could have dominion over no one, says, it “hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth.” He proceeds to state: “For the woman which hath an husband, is bound by the law to her husband so long as her husband liveth; so then, if while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress. . . . 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. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, ye 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.”

It is claimed that the reason why we are “become dead to the law” is, that the law has been abolished. But can this conclusion be drawn from the text itself? We think not without marring the language of the Apostle. Why is it that we are dead to the law? is it not because we have been liberated from sin, that the law has relaxed its grasp upon us, and justice has been satisfied by the atoning blood of Jesus?—We are disposed to incline to this position.

The exposition of the second and third verses claimed is that the law bound the church to itself, till the time of Christ, and now we are liberated, because the law is dead. But we ask, first, if this be the case, for the similarity between the illustration, and the point illustrated? In the fact stated, which is used for an illustration, there are three things introduced. The woman, the law and the husband; and two of them are bound together by the third; and that third which binds them is the law. But in the application made by our opponents, there are but two points used, and it is claimed that the law bound the church to itself; but in place of that, two parties, aside from the law, are bound together by the law; and furthermore, the conclusion drawn by the Apostle is not, that we have been liberated from the law because the law is dead, but that we have died, and, therefore are free to be married to another, because our relation to our first husband has been changed by death. The illustration would not prove that we have been bound to the law; but that we have been bound by the law. The fact that a woman’s husband dies, does not change the law that bound her to her husband; but it does change her relation to him; for he is no longer her husband. But does it, therefore, follow that when she marries a second husband, she will have a right to marry again, while her second husband liveth? Nay, verily; the same law that bound her to her first husband, binds her to her second husband. Neither would it necessarily follow because “we have become dead to the law,” the law has undergone a change.

We now inquire, what was our first husband?—and what occasioned the bondage spoken of? says Paul, in the fifth verse, “For when we were in the flesh, the motions (margin, passions) of sins, which were by the law, (or which the law makes manifest, or discovers,) did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.” This shows that the time we were bound to our first husband, was when we were in the flesh, or before, “The old man was crucified with his deeds.” Says the same Apostle, speaking to believers: “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so, be that the spirit of God dwell in you.—Romans viii. 9. And according to his testimony to his Ephesian brethren, this spirit is received, after we believe in Christ. Romans vii, 6, reads as follows: “But now we are delivered from the law that being dead wherein we were held; (margin being dead to that,) that we should serve in newness of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter;” or in other words: “Fulfill (obey) the royal law according to the scripture, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,’ James ii, 8. We have previously shown

in this article that sin has dominion over a man when he is under the law; and according to this, it is sin he is held in; so if he is dead to that he was held in, he is dead to sin,” Rom. vi, 2. So, then, we conclude with Paul, that we are delivered from that to which we were “bound by the law,” “our first husband,” “sin;” and that we should be married to Jesus Christ. And instead of letting “sin reign in our mortal bodies, to obey it in the lusts thereof,” our bodies should be fit “temples for the living God,” instead of our passions being at the control of the adversary, we should have Christ formed within, the hope of glory, and bring every thought and word in subjection to his will. And instead of being under that law, which justly binds all (who transgress it) to death, we should be children of obedience, and obey in spirit, the same law of love which was “ordained unto life,” for the faithful, but is found by transgressors, to be unto death.” Instead of the old man with his deeds, we should “put on the new man which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness,” and henceforth, “present ourselves a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God,” and yield ourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and our members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

Some object that it is not the law we are to serve, because it says: “serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter;” and they suppose it is not spiritual. But says Paul: “The law is spiritual, but I am carnal sold under sin.” Rom. vii. 14.

We call attention to Rom. vii. 4, as given by James Macknight. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also have been put to death by the law, in the body of Christ, in order that ye may be married to another, even to him that is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.” The reader will at once perceive that the reason why we have become dead to the law, as expressed in our translation, is not because the law is dead, or because the law has undergone a change, but because we have been slain by it, and our relation to sin, thereby, has been changed. We find ourselves no longer servants of sin, and proceed to join ourselves to Christ, the living vine, that we may bring forth fruit to his glory. But it is the grace of God, alone, which has placed us in this position. Instead now of being bound to sin by the law, the goodness of God constrains us to serve him; and while we are beholding the exceeding loveliness of his character, we are led to exclaim with the Apostle, “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgements, and his ways past finding out!” Rom. xi, 33. Truly, we are under grace; for, “grace is reigning through righteousness,” (obedience to God,) and by it are we already saved through faith. “We have been put to death by the law in the body of Jesus Christ.” The law requires the lives of all those who transgress it, “For the wages of sin is death.” The law knows no attribute but justice and will be satisfied with nothing short of its claims. The stern decree of Jehovah has gone forth, that disobedience to his law must be met with its just due, “death.” And aside from the way Jesus has opened that we might be absolved from sin and guilt, we should perish for ever, without mercy. There is no justification by the law; but it is found alone by faith in Jesus, our mediator.

We subjoin an extract from the writings of Christmas Evans, in which is beautifully illustrated the stern requirements of the law of God; and the plan of salvation which has been opened through the blood of Jesus, by which mercy has been permitted to enter the world.