Your ShelfYour Projects

SINNED WITHOUT LAW

3%

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jun 17, 1875

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 45, No. 25.

Read the full edition

SINNED WITHOUT LAW

By J. H. Waggoner

THE LAW OF GOD.—NO. 14.

BY J. H. WAGGONER.
The opposers of the law have made great use of the objection to its jurisdiction over the Gentiles. We think we have sufficiently proved, and by very direct Scripture testimony, that the law condemns both Jews and Gentiles; that it convicts them all of sin, and brings all the world guilty before God. But to one text they still appeal, and the use which has been made of this text has caused trouble in honest minds. And yet it is easy to see that the opposers do not give a correct exposition of it; they do not harmonize it with the context. We refer to Rom. 2:12, in which Paul speaks of some as having

“SINNED WITHOUT LAW.”

The text reads: “For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law.”
John wrote that “sin is the transgression of the law.” With this definition before us we should know, even if Paul had not spoken it, that “where no law is there is no transgression”—no sin. Whatever the action may be, if there is no law there can be no condemnation—no conviction—for “sin is not imputed when there is no law.” Now as no sin can exist, and no guilt can be imputed, in the absence of law, it follows of course that the expressions, sinned without law, and, perish without law, are not to be understood as teaching that there is no law in the case, but are necessarily so qualified as not to conflict with the other statements of the same writer. And this the opposers of the law also admit, as will be presently shown.
In Rom. 5:13, are these words: “For until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law.” The next verse, namely, “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses,” shows that the expression, “until the law,” is intended to cover the period from Adam to Moses, and therefore it means, until the law was given in the time of Moses. But we have before shown that God’s perfect law of ten commandments was known before the days of Moses. It is freely admitted that the nations were losing this knowledge and sinking into darkness by departing from God. When God promised to give the land to the seed of Abraham, he gave as the reason for deferring it until the fourth generation, that “the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet full.” Gen. 15:16. He would give them a further chance to develop their characters before he destroyed them out of his land.
Now, it is generally argued that the heathen had no opportunity to know God; that they never had received any revelation of his will. But Paul presents the matter in a different light. He says:—
“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and to four-footed beasts, and to creeping things.” Rom. 1:21–23.
That these words apply to the nations of Canaan, the reader will plainly see if he will compare the remainder of the chapter, verses 25–32, with Lev. 18:6–27. It was when the world was in this condition that God revealed himself, and renewed the knowledge of his will, to the posterity of Abraham. Afflicted and grievously oppressed as they were, they had retained more of the knowledge of God than the other nations. Yet it must not be supposed that the nations, degraded as they were, had entirely lost their knowledge of the law of God, and of the desert of their actions. After mentioning their conduct, referring to the vileness of their lives, of which it is scarcely proper to speak, Paul says of them: “Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” Rom. 1:32.
This being so, it is evident that the words, “until the law,” do not mean, until the law existed, for it certainly existed before; nor, until the law was first made known to man, for man had a previous knowledge of it, though we do not know that a written copy was ever given before the tables of stone were given to Moses. “Until the law”—before the law was given to Moses and to the people of Israel—“sin was in the world,” men were transgressors of the law; “but sin is not imputed when there is no law”—that is, if the law had not existed until it was given in the time of Moses, there would have been no transgression and no guilt in the sight of God. Lev. 18:6–27, Deut. 18:9–12, &c., prove that the nations who inhabited Palestine before the exodus of Israel from Egypt were great sinners and very guilty before God. And Paul in Rom. 1 not only affirms that this is so, but says they brought their darkness and sin upon themselves, and that they were “without excuse.” Verse 20.
In Rom. 5:20, it is written: “Moreover the law entered, that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.” Not that there would be more violations of the law after it was given anew, but the odiousness of sin would be better understood as the will of God was better known. The text is exactly parallel to the expression of chap. 7:13—“That sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.”
Let all now carefully consider this question, What law must enter, or be proclaimed, to cause the offense to abound, or make sin appear sinful? By what law can people be convinced that they are sinners? The answer must be, The very law which has been transgressed. We once presented this question to one of the most critical no-law men with whom we ever conversed, and he confessed that it admitted of no other answer. A man cannot be convicted of sin by a law which he has not known, or knowing, has not transgressed. Thus we hold our proposition clearly proved, that the entering of the law to make the offense abound, was the renewing of the law to Israel to make them more clearly apprehend the light in which God regards sin; to understand how odious it is in his sight. And also the expression, until the law, means until the time of such renewing of the law, namely, from Adam to Moses; neither of these expressions have respect to the origin or mere existence of the law.
This conclusion will be still more evident from a consideration of the position of the opposers of the law. They say the whole question turns on the use of the article. In the original the article is sometimes inserted, and sometimes omitted. When it is inserted, it specifies THE law of ten commandments; when it is omitted, the word refers to law abstractly, but not to any law given to the Jews. That this is a fallacy is easy to show. No such distinction exists. The use and omission of the article is governed purely by taste and sound, that is, it is euphonic. This is proved by the following points of fact:—
1. The article is omitted where it should be used, and used where it should be omitted, to suit that theory, when speaking of the Gentiles. Thus in Rom. 2:14, 15, “For when the Gentiles, which have not law [abstractly], do by nature the things contained in THE law [the ten commandments], these, having not law, are a law unto themselves, which show the work of THE law [the ten commandments] written in their heart, their conscience also bearing witness,” &c. Here it would be shown, were that theory true, that the Gentiles have not law, abstractly, that is, they have not any law, but do the things contained in THE law of ten commandments, which show the work of THE law of ten commandments written in their heart. This is the very opposite of the theory offered by the opposers of THE law.
2. When the apostle censures the Jew in verse 25, he speaks of his keeping or breaking law, the article being omitted in both instances in this verse; but when he speaks of the Gentiles fulfilling the righteousness of THE law, in verse 26, the article is inserted. This again is the very opposite of the opposers’ theory.
3. In verse 27 he speaks of the uncircumcision, or Gentile, fulfilling THE law, and thereby judging the Jew who transgresses law. Here again the theory in question is negatived.
4. In Rom. 6:14, which is so often quoted to prove that the ten commandments are not in force, the article is omitted, thus: “Ye are not under law,” which would prove, if it proved anything in that direction, that their abstract or comprehensive law is abolished, and no law is now binding.
5. When Paul says every mouth is stopped and all the world are proved guilty before God, it is by THE law; or that law given to Israel.
6. He says the righteousness of God is now without law, which would mean without any law at all; being witnessed by THE law.
7. In chap. 7:7, 9, 12, 14, 16, he says THE law convinced him of sin; he was alive without law; but he delighted in THE law; THE law is holy; and THE law is spiritual.
8. “He says, chap. 8:4, that the righteousness of THE law is fulfilled in them who are in Christ, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.”
9. Finally, he says the carnal mind is enmity against God, and not subject to THE law, and cannot be. Because THE law of ten commandments is spiritual, holy, just, and good, the carnal mind is opposed to it. By this we can tell who are carnal and who are spiritual.
Thus is this resort of skepticism against the holy law of ten commandments swept away. Were we to admit the distinction, it would still leave our view of the law as related to the Gentiles clearly proved; for it is the work of THE law which is written in their hearts, and concerning which their consciences bear witness in accusing or excusing, as their cases may be. This is really the only resort the opposers of the law can find in Rom. 2, and this avails them nothing; for with the distinction admitted, it is still THE law, or ten commandments which proves them guilty, the work of which is written in their heart. Sin is not imputed when there is no law; but sin was imputed to them, because they were transgressors of the law of God, the Creator of all.
An inference is sometimes drawn to the effect that death reigned from Adam to Moses, not on account of personal sin, but because Adam fell and imparted to his posterity a perishable nature, by reason of which they must die. But they who lived after Moses also stood so related to Adam’s fall. There cannot be shown to be any difference in the dispensations in this respect. And they who lived before Moses were held responsible for personal transgressions, as Cain, Lamech, the generation in the time of the flood, the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the inhabitants of Canaan before the exode. Taking the expression of Scripture in regard to their guilt and of God’s abhorrence of their sins, and remembering that where no law is there is no transgression, and that sin is not imputed when there is no law, every objection and every inference is shut out which can possibly bear against the existence of the law of God from Adam to Moses, and of the knowledge of the law by the nations then living, though that knowledge was impaired by their own wickedness, because they did not like to retain God in their knowledge.
But a few words more may be in place on the expression, “Shall perish without law.” They will not perish unjustly, and they show the work of the law so far written in their hearts that they are without excuse. Thus is it seen that even in their cases God tempers justice with mercy. Though they have brought darkness and blindness upon themselves, and have lost a sense of the breadth and spirituality of the law, and have even forgotten the precepts which teach that all creatures should love and serve the Creator, and that no idol shall be worshiped, God will deal tenderly with them, and not hold them responsible for the full light of the law as it was revealed to their fathers, but let them fall under the condemnation of those sins to which their consciences bear witness. All who are acquainted with the heathen testify that the knowledge of right and wrong is not obliterated from their minds. Though they will commit some sins openly and without shame, as the violation of the second commandment, and sometimes of the fifth, there are other sins which they endeavor to conceal, which proves that they have not altogether stifled the convictions of their consciences. God will let them perish under the weight of those sins of which they are conscious, and not hold them to a strict account for all the requirements of the law as it was committed to Israel, and before them to Abraham, to Adam, and of course to the fathers of all the nations. Their actions are vile; and they know the desert of their crimes. Rom. 1:32. According to their present light and knowledge they will be left to perish. And this will be a righteous judgment on the part of God.

DOES GRACE ABOUND THROUGH SIN?

There is an expression in Rom. 3:5, 6, and a question in chap. 6:1, which together present a most important truth. The first says if our unrighteousness, or sin, commend the righteousness of God, or if we may do evil that good may come, then God would not be just to enter into judgment with us for our sins. If we by transgressing his holy law magnify his grace and thus glorify him, then he cannot judge the world. But Paul says of those who thus abuse the grace of God that their damnation is just. This certainly should lead all to examine their ground with all carefulness, especially if they have been inclined to make void the law through faith.
Chap. 6:1, presents the same idea, and is very explicit in statement. In chap. 5:20, 21, it is stated that in the gospel the grace of God has superabounded; it has abounded over our sins. Then arises the question, Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? At first view this would seem to be a needless point of inquiry, but on further observation we shall find that Paul, by inspiration, is following up the devious ways of the carnal mind. For this is exactly the position of all those who make void the law through faith, and claim that they are fallen from grace who keep the law. An illustration in familiar terms will make this more apparent.
A father, having ascertained that his son has violated one of his commandments, calls him to account for his sin; but being full of love and compassion for his son, he says, “My son, for this transgression of my law you deserve to be punished; but I have no pleasure in your pain, and would that you would obey me, and thus not fall under condemnation and be liable to punishment. Now, I will forgive you this sin to show my love for you, and trust you will appreciate my love and kindness to you, and always obey me in the future.” That this expresses the exact will of God toward us, see Eph. 2:4–8; Rom. 6:23; Eze. 33:11; Matt. 3:8; John 5:14.
Soon after this display of mercy the father learns that his son has been guilty of violating his law again; and on being called to account he justifies himself as follows: “When I transgressed your law before, your mercy was manifested in the forgiveness of my sin; and your love and mercy were never so strikingly manifested as then. To more fully develop those noble traits of your character, and give room for richer displays of your grace, I have committed other sins. And you will not be justified in punishing me, for my unrighteousness commends your righteousness, and my disobedience gives room for a display of your love and mercy. As I enjoyed your grace, which abounded over my transgression, I fear that, if I keep your law, I shall fall from grace. Therefore, hereafter, I will live only in your grace, and continue to transgress your law, that your grace may abound.”
Can any one for a moment suppose that a father, who knew that his laws were just, and who had any regard for his authority as a father, would be satisfied with this reasoning? But this is exactly the method of reasoning adopted by those who put grace in opposition to the law. They accuse us who keep the law of denying Christ, because through Christ our sins were once forgiven. To appreciate his forgiveness we must constantly trample on the law, that we may constantly enjoy new manifestations of his forgiving love! In earthly governments we consider that that man best shows his appreciation of a pardon who lives thenceforth a life of obedience. And why not under the government of God? Hath the Lord delight in the violations of his law, by which man is proved guilty in his sight? Opposers of the law claim that God is so greatly delighted with the sacrifice of his Son, that he is always pleased to have us come to him pleading the merits of that sacrifice. And so he is, provided we make him the minister of righteousness, and not the minister of sin. Rom. 5:19; Gal. 2:17. The text last cited is worthy of special consideration, because it so well applies to this point. “For if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.”
The sacrifices of the Old Testament were typical of that of Christ. They served to show God’s abhorrence of sin, and they illustrate the relation which the sacrifice of Christ bears to our obedience. The principle was fully stated to Saul, whose piety, willing to do more than God commanded, did not hesitate to do contrary to God’s commandment. Said Samuel to him, “Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.” I Sam. 15:22. That this is the principle which governs the relation of sacrifice to obedience at all times and in all dispensations, is easy to show. Thus the Lord said by Jeremiah: “Behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it. To what purpose cometh there to me incense from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far country? Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me.” Jer. 6:19, 20. Sacrifice in disobedience to the law is not acceptable to God.
As sacrifice is but a form of worship, and an expression of devotion, it follows that worship is not pleasing to God when offered without obedience to his law, as it is written: “He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.” Prov. 28:9.
This principle cannot be evaded by saying, That was true in the past dispensation, but we have faith in Christ, by which we are released from obedience to the law. That is making Christ the minister of transgression. We claim that those sacrifices, being typical of that of Christ, were an illustration of the relation of his sacrifice to obedience to the law. Jesus and his apostles taught the same thing. “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in Heaven.” Matt. 7:21. And when he reproved them for making void the commandment of God by their tradition, he said again, “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” Matt. 15:9. And it was this professed faith in Christ of which the apostle wrote, “Wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” Jas. 2:20. What he here indorses as works, which vitalizes and gives efficacy to faith, is easy to discover; for he has just before inculcated obedience to the law, and quoted two of the ten commandments. And this relation between the law and faith is positively fixed in Rev. 14:12: “Here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” By true, living faith the law is not made void, but established. Rom. 3:31. Dead faith evades the law; but such faith is found with the carnal mind which is not subject to the law of God.
It is truly astonishing that men can be so blinded as to profess perfect love to God while willfully violating his commandments, when the Scriptures say, “This is the love of God, that we keep his commandments;” that they will claim to be completely sanctified through faith, when their rejection of the law proves that they have nothing but a dead faith; that they affect to receive wonderful blessings in prayer when they turn away from and reject the law, when the Scriptures say such prayer is abomination. Well did Andrew Fuller characterize the worship of such as “irreverent familiarity with God, and in some cases a daring boldness in approaching him; yet such is the strength of this antinomian delusion that it passes for intimate communion with him.” Antinomian delusion, indeed! where grace is supposed to dispense with obedience to God’s commandments, and his glory is enhanced by neglect of his precepts!