FROM WHAT DOES CHRIST JUSTIFY?
In Paul’s remarkable discourse recorded in the 13th of Acts, and in which the Gentiles were so much interested that they besought that it might be preached right over again to them the next Sabbath, occur these words, verses 38 and 39: “Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man [Christ] is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins. And by him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.” It seems surpassingly strange that any one should quote this text to prove the abolition of the ten commandments, and the substitution, in their place, of some other rule of life. Yet such is the confusion of some men’s ideas upon this question, especially those that believe in the abolition of the law, that they seem just about as ready to quote texts that are fatal to their position, as any others. Perhaps, however, we ought to excuse them in this; for of all the texts which touch upon the Sabbath at all, those which are not fatal to their position, are exceedingly scarce. In fact, we might safely rest the whole support of our cause on those very texts which our opponents bring up to overthrow it. We do not need any better. Mr. M. M. Eshelman, one of the editors of the Brethren at Work, in his little pamphlet on “Sabbatism,” makes this use of the text we have quoted above: “Dear reader, are we justified by Christ, through faith, from all things from which we could not be justified by the law of Moses, or only a few things? We know it to be a scriptural fact that we are justified, by Jesus Christ, ‘from all things from which we could not be justified by the law of Moses.’” Now will he, or any other person of this class, please tell us what those things were from which those whom Paul addressed, Jews and Gentiles (for it was a mixed congregation), could not be justified by the law of Moses. What were they? The word, justify, if we take the definition of the Greek word, means, “to hold as righteous, to declare righteous.”—Robinson. According to the English it signifies, “to prove or show to be just, or conformable to law, right, justice, propriety, or duty.”—Webster. Now who is such a mental bankrupt as not to be able to see that the apostle, in the words quoted, points directly to something lying back of the law of Moses, in reference to which they sought through that law of Moses to become righteous, or free from guilt, and in reference to which, while they could not obtain this through the law of Moses, they could obtain it, or be justified, through Christ? Again we ask, What were these things? No one, not hopelessly blinded by prejudice, will deny that under the former dispensation the things from which they sought to be justified were the commandments written on the tables of stone by the finger of God. These God declared to be his law. This law was deposited in the ark and placed in the most holy of the sanctuary; and in reference to it the whole Mosaic ceremonial was performed. What is meant by being justified from these commandments? Answer, Being made free from guilt in reference to them, or being brought into the same relation to God, as if we had never transgressed them. How did they seek justification? Through their sacrifices; for without the shedding of blood there is no remission, which was the point to be gained. And why could they not obtain justification, or forgiveness for their transgressions of that law, through these sacrifices? Because the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin. Heb. 10:4. Of what use, then, were these sacrifices? They were effectual simply as means through which the people could show their faith in the effectual Redeemer to come. Another conclusion now just as inevitably follows from the apostle’s language, namely, that the work of Christ has reference to the very same things; for through him we are to be justified from all things, from which we could not be justified by the law of Moses. What things? The commandments written on the tables of stone, in reference to which the Mosaic sacrifices were offered. From those we receive justification through Christ. Paul says this in as explicit terms as need be used; for he says that “through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins.” This, then, is the same as being justified from those things from which we could not be justified by the law of Moses. And what is sin? An apostolical definition is, “the transgression of the law;” that moral law which has been almost uniformly admitted throughout Christendom to be the law summarily contained in the decalogue. Yet men in their deplorable blindness will resort to such scriptures which so clearly teach the perpetuity of the law, to prove its abolition! Our friend evidently has not looked at the text with sufficient care to discover the distinction which the apostle makes. And then he is guilty of such inaccurate reasoning as to make the law of Moses itself that from which they sought justification through the law of Moses. But a law cannot justify a person from itself. No person, on a moment’s thought, will be guilty of supposing anything so absurd. If, however, it is said, that the law of Moses is all that is referred to in the verses quoted, then that law is still in force, otherwise there would be no need of justification from it through Christ. When Paul, in A. D. 45, gave this discourse, he could not talk about their being justified from anything through Christ, which Christ had abolished on the cross thirteen years before. A man would be an idiot to talk about our being justified through Christ from the law of animal sacrifices; for that law is not now binding upon us, and we need no justification from it. It is no sin to pay no regard to it. Not so with laws which are binding on us; from these, if we transgress them, we need to be justified. But there was something which the law of Moses did not justify from, which has come over into this dispensation, which Christ does justify from. This the text teaches. Now if the law of Moses, as already mentioned, is the only thing referred to, then that has come over and is binding still. Thus we see men in this instance, in their anxiety to abolish the moral law, proving the perpetuity even of the ceremonial! But if they say we are justified from these things because they are abolished, then every moral precept in force in the Mosaic dispensation is abolished, as well as the Sabbath, and is out of existence; for the text says, “all things from which we could not be justified by the law of Moses;” and our friend is pleased to lay great stress on the “all things.” He wants to get rid of that blessed, holy, and delightful institution, the Sabbath of the great God. To do this he calls it the law of Moses. But there were nine other commandments associated with the Sabbath, and he calls them also the law of Moses. Now he claims that because we are justified by Christ from these things, we are released from the Sabbath, and it does not exist. Then we reply, we are released from the others, and they do not exist; for remember it is “all things.” We can then blaspheme and lie and steal and kill! Oh, no! you hasten to exclaim; Christ has brought these things over into this dispensation! Oh, ho! then Paul’s declaration is not true that we are justified from “all things” which you say are contained in the law of Moses. If there is but one law, and that is the law of Moses, and Christ freed us from it, then it is all gone by the board. But if he brought over any part of it to be binding upon us, as it existed before, he did not free us from it all. Here is a dilemma from which no man living, who is short-sighted enough to take the position of our friend, can possibly extricate himself. Just three positions, then, can be suggested on the language of Paul in Acts 13:38, 39. The first is, That God has a uniform standard of action, or rule of life, for all men in all ages, an immutable and eternal moral law, the same in the past dispensation as in this; that the law of Moses, or the typical services of that dispensation, could not justify a person from the claims of that law, that is, remove from him the guilt of transgression, because it was only a shadow; but that Christ, the real sacrifice, does in reality justify us, as Paul declared. This is what we believe and claim. The second position is, That the whole Mosaic law is binding in this dispensation. The third is, That no moral principle which was in existence in the old dispensation is binding in this. If there is only one law, the law of Moses, and “justified from” it, means that it is abolished, then all is gone; if it does not mean abolished, then that whole law comes over to us, and is binding through this dispensation. One of these positions must be taken. The first is in accordance with the Scriptures, reasonable and consistent. But any man who advocates the second or the third is either mentally or morally unsound.