p. 1 | THE LAW IN GALATIANS by Dudley Marvin Canright

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 7, 1878

THE LAW IN GALATIANS.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

BY ELD. D. M. CANRIGHT.

(Concluded.)

8. This law was given simply as an introductory teacher to prepare the way for the gospel and faith in Christ, when the proper time should come. We think we can make this point very plain. If so, it alone settles the question. Thus Paul says: “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” Gal. 3:19. The plain statement here is that this law, whatever one it is, was simply given in relation to the seed who was to come, viz., Christ. To him it pointed; in him it centered.

“But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore 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.” Gal. 3:23–25.

The apostle here illustrates the use of the old law by the Greek term παιδαγωγός, paidagogos, improperly translated “school-master.” It is thus defined in Greenfield’s Greek Lexicon: “A pedagogue, i. e., pr. a person, usually a slave or freedman, to whom the care of the boys of a family was committed, who trained them up and formed their manners, attended them at their play, led them to and from the public school,” &c.

Bloomfield’s Greek Testament, in notes on Gal. 3:23, says: “As the law was before compared to a jailor, so it is here likened to a παιδαγωγός, by which term is not to be understood a school-master (for that would have been διδάσκαλος), but the paidagogos, or person (usually a freedman or a slave) who conducted children to and from school, attended them out of school hours, formed their manners, superintended their moral conduct, and in various respects prepared them for the διδάσκαλος.”

The illustration is a good one, and it shows the office of the typical law. This law was not designed to be the ultimate teacher, the real and final instructor of God’s people. It was designed only to lead men to the gospel, to prepare the way for faith in Christ. This we know was the sole design of the typical law, the sacrifices, circumcision, the work of the priest, the services in the temple, and everything in the ceremonial law. These were only types and shadows pointing to Christ. So we are expressly told by Paul himself, in several places. Col. 2:14–17; Heb. 8:1–5; 10:1–9. In perfect harmony with this, the apostle here declares that the law was our pedagogue to bring us to Christ. Then what happened? But after that faith has come, we are no longer under a pedagogue. That law having served its purpose of introducing Christ and the gospel, is now to be laid aside. It seems as though a child could see that this is the apostle’s argument.

Not satisfied with this, the apostle illustrates the nature of that old law in another manner: “Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all, but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world; but when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.” Gal. 4:1–5.

He takes the case of a child whose father is dead. In his will the father has appointed certain persons to teach and guide him till he is of age. Under these restraints he is, for the time, treated like a servant. Even so, he says, God’s people were formerly in bondage under the elements of the world. The Greek word στοιχεῖα, here rendered “elements,” is thus defined by Greenfield: “Stoicheion, an element, elementary part, e. g., of discourse, i. e., an elementary sound.” “Elementary instruction, the first principles, or lowest rudiments of any knowledge.” Benson, in his Commentary, says of this word: “Under the elements of the world.—Under the typical observances of patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations, which were like the first elements of grammar, the a, b, c of children, and were of so gross a nature as hardly to carry men’s thoughts beyond the world.” Whitby and Lowman comment thus: “The elements of the world, i. e., the Jewish rites, so-called.”

This gives the proper idea. God’s people were formerly in bondage under the elementary instructions of that age. The word here rendered “world” is κόσμος, kosmos, which frequently means age, dispensation; so this law was simply elementary, or preparatory only during that age, that is, to prepare the way for Christ when the proper time should come. That this was the exact position which the typical law filled, the very thing for which it was given by the Lord, all will readily admit. It was only rudimentary in its nature, designed to teach and restrain the people as children, till Christ should come. So the apostle adds, “When the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son.” Now, on the other hand, it is not true that the moral law ever occupied any such relation to Christ. There is nothing in the ten commandments that points to Christ or to faith in him. It cannot be said of the decalogue, or the moral law, that it was a law bringing us to Christ, because all the principles of the moral law would have existed if man had never fallen, if Christ had never died.

But does not David say of this law, “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul”? And does not Paul say, “I had not known sin, but by the law,” and that “by the law is the knowledge of sin”? Certainly, this is all true. Well, then, does not the law, by convicting a man of his sins, lead him to Christ for pardon? I answer, No. The moral law convicts a man of sin, shows him he is a lost sinner; but there it stops. It does not lead him to Christ. It does not lead him anywhere. It simply condemns him, and leaves him there. You must have something else to point him to Christ; and this is just what the typical law did do in the Old Testament, and what the gospel does in the New.

9. This law in Galatians was designed to last only till Christ should come, when its object would be accomplished, and it would pass away. This is so plainly stated that it hardly admits of an argument. Thus the apostle says: “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” Gal. 3:19. How long was it to last? “Till the seed should come,” which certainly implies that it was not to last longer; and he thus confirms this view: “Wherefore 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.” Verses 24, 25.

This is certainly a plain declaration that this law was of force only till Christ came, and that since he came our obligations to this law have ceased. Moreover, it is to be noticed that Paul is not here talking of individual conversion, and telling what this law did to us while we were sinners, and how we are to regard it after conversion. He is most certainly talking of the two dispensations,—the Jewish and the Christian, and explaining what relation this law sustained to God’s people in the old dispensation, and what relation we sustain to it in the new. And herein is the difference between the argument in the book of Galatians and that in the book of Romans. In Romans Paul argues, not upon dispensations, but upon individual experience, before conversion and after. Not so in Galatians. Here it is the Jewish system of worship, as compared with the Christian system. He certainly argues that since the coming of Christ our relation to that old law is very different from the relation God’s people sustained to it before he came. This is true of the ceremonial law, but not of the moral.

In Galatians 4:1–5, as has already been quoted, he argues that this law stood related to God’s people as a governor or tutor to a child under age; but that when the fullness of time came, and Christ appeared, then it was of no further service. And so again in chap. 5:1–3, he does certainly show that the law under consideration is no longer to be observed by Christians: “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. 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.”

If this language does not show that the law there spoken of was a yoke of bondage, and one which is no longer obligatory, then I should despair of understanding anything; but this is only the conclusion of what he has labored to prove all the way through.

We ask, What is there in the moral law that would indicate that it terminated at the coming of Christ? That law forbids idolatry, profanity, Sabbath-breaking, disobedience to parents, murder, theft, &c. Did man’s relation to these moral duties change at the coming of Christ? Did the death of Christ alter any of these principles? Most certainly not.

10. The typical law did provide a forgiveness of sins, the very thing for which these Galatians were led to keep it. But they overlooked the typical nature of that pardon, which Paul now shows them. That the ceremonial law gave directions by which sins were to be pardoned, is readily seen by the slightest examination. Indeed, this is its main feature everywhere. Turn to Leviticus 4 a moment. The Lord says, “If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord;” “if the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people;” “when a ruler hath sinned, and done somewhat through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord,”—“he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a male without blemish, and he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat, and kill it,” &c. Then he directs how the offering shall be made in each case, and every time ends by saying, “And it shall be forgiven him.” Verses 26, 31, 35, &c.

All through the Jewish age, when any one had sinned, and repented of his sins, and wished to obtain pardon, he brought his offering according to the law, made his confession, and was pardoned. Now those Judaizing teachers claimed that this was still necessary, and that men could not be justified without it. The Galatians fell into this error, and undertook to obtain justification through the observance of that typical law. Nor was it any wonder that they readily embraced that idea; for this typical system of pardon came from God, and had been solemnly sanctioned, and practiced for fifteen hundred years. It was hard for them to realize the radical change which the coming of Christ necessitated in this particular.

But, as already shown, Paul takes up the subject, and shows that this law was only typical, pointing to Christ and ending in faith in him. Gal. 3:19, 25. In other places he clearly asserts that all the offerings of the old system never took away a single sin:—

“Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.” “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually, make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshipers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.” Heb. 9:9, 10; 10:1–4.

These statements are positive. Not a single sin was removed by all those sacrifices. They only pointed to Christ, and through faith in him thus shadowed forth, was the pardon obtained. Most certainly this is the beginning and end of Paul’s argument with the Galatians. But the moral law made no such offer of pardon. The Lord never said that their sins should be forgiven if they would not steal, nor lie, nor swear; hence there is no reason to suppose that they would think of looking to that law for pardon or justification.

11. No fault is found with them for trying to observe any one of the ten commandments; but they are reproved, time and again, for trying to observe the typical law. This fact I regard as very decisive. If their observance of the decalogue, or the moral law, was the subject of dispute, why does not Paul mention some of the commandments which they were wrongly trying to observe? But he mentions no such thing. He does not tell them that they need not keep the Sabbath, nor does he point out any commandment of the decalogue as the one under dispute. But see how plainly he does tell them wherein they are wrong: “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. 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.” “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. 5:2, 3; 6:12. Circumcision, then, was the difficulty; but this is in the ceremonial law, not in the decalogue.

12. It was not simply a wrong theory of justification which they had adopted, but they were practicing what Paul condemned. This, again, shows it was not the observance of the moral law, because it was their duty to keep that, and Paul always taught the observance of that law. Rom. 3:31; 7:12; Eph. 6:1–4, &c. Nor did these Galatians openly reject Christ. They professed to believe in him the same as before. What, then, was the trouble? They were seeking justification by the rites and ceremonies of a law which was dead.

13. The observance of the decalogue could not show a rejection of Christ, but the observance of the typical law, after his death, would, and this is just what Paul charges them with. The typical law, with its rites and ceremonies, pointed to the death of Christ. There it met its fulfillment, its antitype; and hence to observe that law afterward was virtually to say that Christ had not yet come, and thus to deny him. And so Paul charges them: “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. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” Gal. 5:2–4.

Here he says that if circumcision is binding, then the whole of that law is binding, and should be observed. If that is so, then Christ has not come, and faith in him is vain. But how could the observance of the moral law show any rejection of Christ? Did the disciples show that they rejected him, because they would have no other gods, nor worship an image, nor swear, nor break the Sabbath, nor dishonor their parents, nor murder, steal, nor covet? Any honest man can see in a moment that the observance of these precepts would have no bearing upon the question.

14. Paul argues that no one can be justified by the works of the law, which is true of any law, moral or ceremonial. This is true of the moral law as well as of the ceremonial. “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. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” Rom. 3:20, 23.

Why cannot any one be justified by the observance of the moral law? Because of the simple fact that when you have once broken that law, it must always condemn you. What kind of a law would that be that would justify the man who broke it? Now all have broken the moral law, and hence it must condemn everybody. There is no pardon in it. Neither could the observance of the typical law take away sins, as we have shown before. Paul repeatedly affirms that. “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.” See also Heb. 7:18, 19; 10:1–4; 9:9–14. Consider a moment: what is there in the shedding of an animal’s blood that could take away a man’s sins? Absolutely nothing. So, then, there was no law given the observance of which could pardon sin or justify the sinner, and hence Paul says to the Galatians: “For if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” “For if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.” Gal. 2:21; 3:21. So the great apostle truthfully argues that pardon and justification cannot be obtained by law of any kind. It must come through faith in Christ, through the unmerited mercy of God.

15. Hence in his argument upon justification by faith only, Paul shows that even the observance of the moral law cannot justify a sinner: “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” “But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident; for The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith; but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” Gal. 2:16; 3:11–13.

Evidently the reference in these verses is to the moral law. For he uses the same language concerning it in Rom. 3:20. Furthermore, it is the curse of the moral law from which Christ, by his death, redeemed the sinner. This part of Paul’s reasoning was absolutely necessary to his argument, to show that forgiveness and justification cannot be obtained by the observance of any law, moral or ceremonial.

16. But when Paul declares what law was not to be observed, what law ended at the cross, he is very particular to specify the typical law. Where the apostle argues that the law has passed away, he says that it is the one relating to circumcision, the one which was a yoke of bondage, the one which pointed to the seed—to Christ, the one that typified the death of Christ, the one which was only preparatory for the coming of Jesus, &c. Let us read what he says: “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” Gal. 3:19.

He says that “the law was added because of transgressions.” This is just the reason why the typical law was given. Having transgressed the moral law, the people were condemned to death for their sins. Then they could only obtain pardon through faith in the death of Christ. In order to show this faith, it became necessary to offer sacrifices, to have an altar, a temple, priests, &c. To regulate all these ceremonies, it was necessary to have a law. Hence came the typical law. It was added. For how long was it added? Till the seed should come. Then, it is a law that pointed to Christ, the seed. But the decalogue did not point to Christ.

“It was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” This unmistakably points to the law of Moses, the ceremonial law; and why? Because the decalogue was not given through angels. God himself spoke that directly from Heaven, with his own voice; but he sent angels to communicate the other law to Moses, who wrote it out with his hand in a book. The Syriac Testament says, “The law was given by angels, through a mediator.” Whiting says, “Made known through angels.” As we have said, the moral law was neither made known nor given through angels, but God delivered it himself, in person.

Then Paul says, verse 24, the law was our school-master (pedagogue, remember), to bring us unto Christ. This again shows that it is the typical law, not the moral. We have already argued this at length, showing that the sole object of the typical law was to point to, and prepare the way for, Christ; but that the moral law does not point to Christ in any manner. It says nothing about Christ. This shows what law is done away.

In chapter 5:1–4, the apostle leaves no chance to mistake as to what law is abolished: “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. They were to stand fast in the liberty which Christ gives to them. But does Christ give his people liberty to lie, steal, covet, swear, or break any precept of the moral law? No one dare affirm it. He says that the law of which he is speaking is a yoke of bondage. But the ten commandments are called “the law of liberty.” James 2:10–12. And the psalmist says, “I will walk at liberty; for I seek thy precepts.” Ps. 119:45. Then there is no bondage in keeping the law of God, but this other law was a yoke of bondage.

Who can mistake what law is meant when Paul explains it as he does in the following verses? “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.” Gal. 5:2, 3. This is the law of circumcision. And then the next verse: “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” It was the law through which men looked for pardon, for justification. That this was the ceremonial not the moral law, I have before abundantly shown. Verse 11 shows the same thing: “And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offense of the cross ceased.” Once more he says: “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. 6:12, 13. Here Paul tells directly the thing under dispute, that which others were urging upon them, and which he was fighting against, namely, the observance of the law of circumcision.

Then look at Paul’s allegory, drawn from Sarah and Hagar, in chapter 4:21–26: “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?” Verse 21. Now he is going to quote from the law. Does he proceed to quote from the ten commandments? Let us see: “For it is written that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free woman.” Verse 22. This is not written in the ten commandments certainly. “But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the free woman was by promise. Which things are an allegory; for these are the two covenants; the one from the Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.” Verses 23, 24.

Where was the ceremonial law given? On Mount Sinai. Ex. 25–31. Moses went up into a mountain and was there forty days, receiving and writing out the Levitical law. Paul continues: “For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.” Verses 25, 26. What does Hagar represent? Jerusalem, and the Jews with their ceremonial worship, to which they had clung after rejecting Christ. So Paul says. What does Sarah represent? Jerusalem which is above, the mother of Christians.

Some have foolishly said that Hagar represents the ten commandments, and Sarah the law of Christ. This is not only an unfounded assumption, but it is directly contrary to what Paul says. He makes Hagar represent a very different thing. Jerusalem was the center of all the ritual system, and it was by the observance of these carnal ceremonies that the blinded Jews expected to obtain justification, instead of by looking to Christ, the antitype of them all.

Thus we think we have conclusively shown that Galatians plainly teaches the abrogation of a certain law, and that this law is the one relating to circumcision, to types and shadows pointing to Christ, and hence it most certainly was the ceremonial law.