THE LAW IN GALATIANS by Dudley Marvin Canright

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jan 31, 1878

THE LAW IN GALATIANS.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

BY ELD. D. M. CANRIGHT.

Those who claim that the law of God has been abolished always go directly to the book of Galatians for their proof. There they get such expressions as this: “The law was our school-master to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith; but after that faith is come, we are no longer under a school-master,” and others of a similar nature. They claim that this means the ten commandments. But this we confidently deny. We freely admit that the book of Galatians does show that a certain law of the Old Testament has been abolished, and so we, Christians, are no longer under obligation to obey it. But we claim that this is the typical law regulating the ceremonial ordinances of the Jewish age. In proof of this we offer the following facts:—

1. Whether they should or should not be circumcised, was the question which was troubling the church at Galatia. A few quotations will readily show this. “But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.” Gal. 2:3. “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.” “And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offense of the cross ceased.” “As many as desire to make a fair show in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.” Gal. 5:2, 3, 11; 6:12, 13. Any candid man who wishes the truth must admit that these quotations show that it was the question of circumcision which was agitating that church; but circumcision is no part of the ten commandments.

2. Against this false doctrine, Paul first appeals to the decision of this very question by the great apostolic council held at Jerusalem, as recorded in Acts 15. Let us notice what question occasioned the calling of that council, and who attended it. “And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” Acts 15:1. What was the point at issue? It was circumcision. Some said if they were not circumcised they could not be saved. “When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.” Verse 2. Here we see that Paul and Barnabas were opposed to that doctrine, and strongly contended against it. Finally, it was determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others should go up to Jerusalem, and consult the apostles about this question. What question? The question of circumcision. “And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.” Verse 6.

Now observe that Paul, in his argument with the Galatians, refers them to that council, and appeals to its decision upon the very question which was troubling them: “Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.” Gal. 2:1. Here he most certainly refers to the very thing recorded in Acts 15. “And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.” Gal. 2:2, 3. Here we see that he brings up the very subject discussed in that council, viz., circumcision, and states that it was decided that Titus, being a Gentile, need not be circumcised. These Galatians were Gentiles, Gal. 4:8, and hence the case of Titus and the decision of that council against circumcision for Gentile Christians was right to the point if it was the observance of the ceremonial law which Paul was arguing with the Galatians; but if it was the keeping of the ten commandments, or the moral law, then it had no bearing at all, because that was not the question discussed in that council.

3. Circumcision and the observance of the ritual law of Moses were the only questions discussed and decided in that apostolic council. Acts 15. That this is so, a slight examination will readily show. “And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.” “And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. But there rose

up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, that it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” Acts 15:1, 2, 4, 5.

Reader, what is the question? If you are candid and willing to see the truth, you must admit that it was circumcision as enjoined in the law of Moses; but there is nothing in the decalogue about circumcision. Moreover, the decalogue is never called the law of Moses, not in a single case in the Bible.

“And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.” Acts 15:6. After they had had much discussion, Peter said, “Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” Here Peter says that the observance of that old law was a yoke which even the Jews themselves found it hard to bear; and he decides that the Gentiles who believe in Christ ought not to be required to keep it.

This was certainly true of the innumerable rites and ceremonies and distinctions of the ceremonial law. Everything had to be done in a very precise manner. No wonder Peter thought it was a heavy yoke. So after the apostles and elders had thoroughly discussed the matter, they came to this conclusion: “The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia. Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law, to whom we gave no such commandment; . . . for it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things, that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.” Acts 15:23, 24, 28, 29.

Notice that this decision related simply to the Gentile Christians, to those who had not been raised in the observance of the Jewish law. The apostles decide that there are only four things in that old law which need at all to be regarded by Christians. All the rest can be disregarded with impunity. What are these four things? Are they any part of the ten commandments? No; the first is meats offered to idols; the second, eating blood; the third, eating things that are strangled or that died of themselves; and the fourth, fornication. Every one of these things is forbidden in the ceremonial law of Moses. Now notice: If the observance of the ten commandments was under discussion in this council, then the apostles deliberately decided that Christians could lie, steal, murder, swear, &c.; because not one of these things was mentioned, and they said that Christians need not observe a single item of the old law except the four points above mentioned. But what a blasphemous conclusion this would be! It was not the moral law which was under consideration; but it was the law relating to circumcision, which we know was a part of the ceremonial law.

4. Peter termed the ceremonial law a yoke which could not be borne; and Paul says the same of the law in question in Galatians: “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.” Gal. 5:1. This shows that the law in Galatians and the one in Acts 15 are the same.

5. The moral law is not a yoke of bondage. Can any one of the ten commandments be thus called? Let us look at them. Take the first commandment, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Reader, is that a yoke of bondage? Are you so anxious to get rid of the service of God, and to go after other gods, that this would be a yoke of bondage to you? You dare not say it. Second commandment: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image; . . . thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.” Are you so anxious to worship wood and stone that this commandment is a galling yoke upon your neck? Third commandment: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” Are you so full of cursing and swearing that you want to get rid of this commandment? Do you find that it circumscribes your liberty? Who dare assert such a thing?

So we might go through the whole ten commandments,—“Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” &c. Do you so love these sins that these commandments grieve you, are a galling yoke for you to bear? After a careful examination of the law, our opponents themselves are ashamed to assert that the ten commandments are a yoke of bondage to them. Then the ten commandments are not the law here referred to.

6. Paul’s argument from Peter’s example in eating with the Gentiles proves that it was the observance of the ritual law which was in question. Notice Paul’s argument upon this circumstance:—“But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him, insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” Gal. 2:11–14.

What had Peter done that was wrong? He had gone down to Antioch, and had freely eaten with the Gentiles. In so doing he had violated the ceremonial law. Lev. 5:2, 3; Hag. 2:11–13; Acts 11:1–3. A purified Jew was very careful not to be polluted by touching anything that was unclean, for so the law directed, as will be seen by the above references. The Gentiles were unclean according to the ritual law; but Peter, disregarding this, “went in to men uncircumcised,” and ate and drank, and “lived after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews.” By so doing he virtually said that the ceremonial law need not be observed any longer, even by a Jew. But what one of the ten commandments had he violated or disregarded? Had he lied, or sworn, or broken the Sabbath? No; it was the ritual law upon which his conduct had a bearing.

Now observe: When some of the Judaizing teachers came down from Jerusalem, Peter changed his conduct immediately. He withdrew himself, and would not eat with the Gentiles. By this course he virtually declared that the ceremonial law was still binding, and should be observed. Thus he contradicted himself. Paul openly rebuked him for this. He asked Peter this question: “If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles [as Peter had done before certain ones came down from Jerusalem], and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” Paul’s argument was an unanswerable one. If Peter himself, being a Jew, could be a Christian without keeping the ceremonial law, then why should he compel the Gentile Christians to keep that law which he himself had disregarded?

Of course Paul’s argument was unanswerable. He told Peter further that he made himself a transgressor by building up again what he had once torn down. “For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.” Gal. 2:18; that is, by now scrupulously observing that law, he proved that he had been a transgressor when disregarding it. But which one of the ten commandments had Peter disregarded? Had he been swearing, worshiping images, murdering, lying, coveting, or breaking the Sabbath? No. It seems to me that Paul’s argument from Peter’s course unanswerably shows what law was under consideration with these Galatian brethren.

7. Paul calls the observance of this law the works of the flesh, which shows that it is the ceremonial, not the moral, law. “Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” Gal. 3:3; that is, by observing those fleshly rites, as circumcision, meats, and drinks. That by the works of the flesh he refers to the ceremonial law is shown by what he says a little further on in the same epistle: “As many as desire to make a fair show in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.” Gal. 6:12. In another place Paul directly declares the Levitical law to be a carnal law, that is, one relating wholly to the flesh: “Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.” Heb. 7:16. And again, speaking of the same law, he says, “Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.” Heb. 9:10. Carnal, fleshly ordinances are just what the ceremonial law enjoined, and nothing else. Hence he could truly say to them, that, having begun in the Spirit, they were now trying to be made perfect by the works of the flesh. That this does not mean the observance of the ten commandments is positively shown by what Paul says of that law in Romans: “For I had not known lust, except the law had said, ‘Thou shalt not covet.’” Rom. 7:7. Here is one of the ten commandments. Of this law he says, “For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin.” Rom. 7:14. The ten commandments, then, are a spiritual law. Again he says of it: “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” Rom. 8:7.

The carnal, fleshly mind, then, is directly opposed to the spiritual law of God, the ten commandments. Here we have another proof that it was not the observance of the moral law that was under consideration in Galatians.

(To be Continued)