p. 1 | The Sermon by J. H. Waggoner

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, California · Aug 5, 1875

The Sermon.

By J. H. Waggoner

THE LAW OF GOD.—No. 10.

BY J. H. WAGGONER.

Much proof might be brought from the Old Testament in addition to that which has been given. Were we to rest the argument without going further to examine the New Testament, we feel that it might, with safety to our position, be left to the decision of every unprejudiced mind. But it is not our intention either to try to exhaust the evidence or to merely prove our point, but to present an outline of the prominent proofs in both Testaments.

In the teachings of our Saviour he has given us some very decisive utterances respecting the law. This was only to be expected, inasmuch as he came to glorify his Father, to do his Father's will, and to bring back rebellious men to obedience to his Father's government; and Paul says that God set forth his Son to vindicate his justice while he justifies the believer in Jesus. The first words our Saviour spoke concerning the object of his mission to earth were an affirmation of the perpetuity of the law. When a reform is introduced to the attention of any people it is but natural that they should inquire in regard to its intention and what effect it will have upon existing customs and institutions; whether, if carried out, it will reform abuses or subvert government and justice. This inquiry our Saviour met at the very outset, and well knowing that his enemies would charge him with the crime of overthrowing the religion of their fathers which was committed to them by the Lord himself, he gave assurance of his loyalty to heaven in the following words:—

MATT. 5 : 17–19 EXAMINED.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law." On this we notice:—

1. The law of which he spoke was then in existence, and known to them to whom he spoke. This need not be argued; the converse too plainly involves an absurdity.

2. He identified the law which he did not come to destroy by quoting and confirming certain precepts of the decalogue. The enemies of the law have said that he removed or set aside the sixth and seventh commandments, and substituted something more entirely spiritual in their places. This is far from the truth. He taught the spirituality of those precepts by affirming that, in the sight of God, he who hates is guilty of violating one, and he who harbors lust in his heart is guilty of violating the other. The position of the objector is just this: The Saviour taught that hatred is wrong, but he abolished the law which forbids murder; he taught that lust is wrong, but he abolished the law which forbids adultery! and hence, in this dispensation it is not wrong to kill your neighbor if you do not hate him, and it is not wrong to commit adultery if you have no lustful desire! If the absurdity of this is equaled by anything else, we are ignorant of it; and we challenge all the opposers of the law to show that our conclusion from their premise is not just. And is it possible that men of ordinary intelligence who profess to love the Saviour, and to be called of God to preach his word, can boldly teach as gospel truth that which involves such impious and absurd conclusions? We could mention names of men who stand high with their associates as men of ability, who have taken the position noticed above. "Lord, how long?"

3. The Saviour did, in this sermon revoke certain teachings, but not those of the decalogue. The ceremonial law was then soon to be met by its antitype; the civil system was soon to be taken from their hands, as they were no longer to have a national government under the sanction of the Lord; besides these their own customs and traditions had made void the commandments of God, and perverted all that the Lord had committed to them. All these could be consistently set aside, but not the moral law.

4. He taught that the consequences of violating and of keeping the law extend into the kingdom of Heaven. Whatever idea may be entertained of the kingdom of Heaven, no one will confine it to the Jewish age; it must extend into this, the gospel, dispensation, if not into the world to come. This certainly makes their right to the kingdom of Heaven very doubtful who avowedly disregard these commandments and teach men so. We are aware that this bears strongly against the standing of some who make high professions of piety, and who loudly proclaim their faith in Christ. But Jesus has told us to know them by their fruits, not their professions; and he has pointed out the fruit required, that is, to keep those commandments and teach men so. He also has pointed out the uselessness of professing faith in him, when they do not the will of his Father. May the Lord open the eyes of the deluded ones, to understand their duty, and the danger of their present position.

5. It will not do to evade the Saviour's words, as

some have done, by saying that, though he did not come to destroy the law, he did abolish it; for there is no such distinction. When a law is abolished nothing more can be done to destroy it; it is destroyed. They who take that position would destroy the veracity of our Saviour; for how could his hearers regard him, if they first heard him endorse the law and avow that he did not come to destroy it, and then saw him put it out of existence? Nor will it do to say, as some have said, that there is a difference between abolishing law and having it expire by bringing in its antitype, and that Christ did not destroy or abolish the law, but that it met its antitype and expired; for the ceremonial law did expire by the introduction of its antitype, and yet Paul says that the Saviour abolished it, and took it out of the way. Therefore the language of Paul contradicts their conclusion.

6. Nor is the objection based on the word "fulfill," of any avail. For, (1.) To fulfill in the sense of removing by introducing the antitype is to destroy, as we have already seen, and therefore this would make the Saviour contradict himself. (2.) The word is elsewhere used where it is impossible to under<span style="font-size:0.1px">-</span>stand it to mean to destroy, to abolish, or in any manner to set aside, Matt. 3 : 15.

"Thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness," but not to abolish it, or make it void. Gal. 6 : 2: "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ," not to make it void. And so in Matt. 5 : 17. The Saviour fulfilled the law; he kept his Father's commandments; but he did not destroy or make it void. He set us an example to obey his Father, and in so doing we shall sin no more.

7. Having shown the utter impossibility of the abolition of the law according to this text, the full force of verse 18 is readily seen: "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." The word rendered all may be correctly rendered all things; and this has been variously interpreted to mean all things in heaven and earth, or, indeed, heaven and earth themselves, which is a strong affirmation of the perpetuity of the law; or if all the law or all things in the law, it then teaches that every part of the law, every jot and tittle of it, shall be obeyed. This again is strongly against those who evade one commandment. But if they affirm against all the evidence in the case, that the Saviour meant that it should not pass away till it met its antitype, which was three and a half years, then we should have in our Saviour's language this ridiculous climax: "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till three years and a half!"

Such being our Lord's introductory address in regard to the object of his mission, of its effect upon the stability of his Father's law, and of his intention respecting it, we should be greatly surprised if we should discover anything in his life or in his after teachings which would disparage that law, or fail to meet the words of the prophet: "He will magnify the law, and make it honorable."

There is yet more evidence in this sermon on the mount. The golden rule has been claimed as being peculiar to the New Testament; as evidence that there is a higher standard of right erected in this, than was given in the past, dispensation. But the Saviour says: "This is the law and the prophets." We have furnished from the Scriptures, and from both Testaments, abundant proof that the rule of right and morality—the law—in the Old Testament was the rule of holiness, the condition of life, was perfect, contained the whole duty of man, was profitable even to furnishing the man of God unto perfection and to all good works. And here the Saviour affirms that the golden rule is the outgrowth of the law and the teachings of the prophets. This emphatic endorsement of the law ought forever to put to rest all the assertions of its enemies that the law was not moral and spiritual, and that the morality taught in this dispensation is above that taught in the past. Such assertions are as contrary to reason as to Scripture.

MATT. 7 : 21–23 EXAMINED.

Again, in the same sermon, Jesus said: "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 which is in Heaven."

1. That the will of his Father refers to the law of God, will be definitely proven when we examine Paul's letter to the Romans.

2. This text, as the golden rule, is but a reiteration of the plain statements contained in the Old Testament. Saul committed the serious error of making obedience subordinate to sacrifice, and thereby lost his kingdom. Jeremiah said the sacrifices of Israel were not acceptable to the Lord, because they rejected his law. Solomon wrote that his prayer should be abomination who turned away his ear from hearing the law. These texts show the relation of the law and faith, which is the same in all dispensations; the sacrifices of the Old Testament were typical of the sacrifice of Christ, and the relation which they sustain to the law who offered those sacrifices, illustrates the relation we sustain to the law who present Christ as our sacrifice. Their sacrifices were not acceptable, and even their prayers were abomination, who turned from the law of God. Even so, our confession of Jesus as Lord, our claiming him as our sacrifice is vain, if we do not the will of the Father. "The commandments of God and the faith of Jesus," go together. Without "repentance toward God," whose law we have transgressed, "faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ," the mediator between God and man, is of no avail. Were it not that opposition to the law of God has a tendency to both blind the mind and harden the heart,

this testimony of the Saviour would arouse every one to flee from such a dangerous position.

In verses 22, 23, Jesus said that, notwithstanding his endorsement of the law, and his declaration that faith without obedience is vain, many will come in that day appealing to him in behalf of their strong faith in him, reciting the great works they have done by their faith in him; yet he will disown them as "workers of iniquity."

1. "That day" has no antecedent to which it can refer except to the time of entering into the kingdom of Heaven; verse 21. It therefore has reference to the closing scenes of this dispensation.

2. Those who thus appeal to him have made a very high profession of faith in Christ; in his name they have done many wonderful works.

3. Their profession and their experience are only a deception and a delusion; he never knew or acknowledged them as his; for they united working iniquity with their faith.

4. Jehovah, in the second commandment, has clearly defined iniquity to be violation of his commandments. Of course, the ten commandments are there referred to, in the second of that code. Thus he said: "Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments." Here are described two parties, occupying exactly opposite positions. One hates God and works iniquity; the other loves God and keeps his commandments. As love is the opposite of hatred, so is keeping God's commandments the opposite of iniquity.

5. This conclusion is sustained by the language of the text in the original. Iniquity is from anomian, which is defined by Greenfield, "Violation of a law." As the Saviour had before said, in the same sermon, that he did not come to destroy the law, thus directing their minds to the law then existing, this text, Matt. 7 : 23, has unmistakable reference to that pre-existing law of God, which now so many who loudly profess faith in Christ declare he did destroy. And this fact points them out as the very ones spoken to in the text, which may justly be rendered, "Depart from me, ye breakers of the law, I never knew you."

MATT. 15 : 1–9 EXAMINED.

In Matt. 15 the Lord Jesus gave another clear testimony in favor of the law, in reproving those who make the commandment of God of no effect by their tradition. And what he said to the Jews of their treatment of the fifth commandment will now apply to the body of professed Christians in their abuse of the fourth. They taught that it was more acceptable to God to follow a pious tradition than to strictly follow his commandment. So, now, we are told that it is evidence of greater piety to keep Sunday, a day instated by human tradition, than to keep the seventh day, the Sabbath enjoined in God's commandment. The Lord characterized this as drawing nigh to him with their mouth and honoring him with their lips while their hearts are far from him. More expressive language than this could not be used, as the love of God is found in keeping his commandments. Obedience is the only test of love, and the profession is false and the worship vain where this is wanting.

MATT. 22 : 37–40 EXAMINED.

Here we have another strong endorsement of the law by the Son of God. While one apostle says that "love is the fulfilling of the law," Rom. 13 : 10, and another, that "this is the love of God that we keep his commandments," 1 John 5 : 3, the Lord himself not only lays the foundation for these expressions, but he shuts out all evasions by saying that

all the law hangs on love. The first four commandments directly relate to our love to God, and the last six, to love to our neighbor. Many would receive our Saviour's words who now make them void if they did not endorse and uphold all the law. To three-fourths or nine-tenths they would not so greatly object, but all the law includes the fourth commandment, the much-despised Sabbath of the Lord God. And thus it stands, a decisive testimony against those who make void the law by tradition, and will leave without the shadow of excuse all who work iniquity under the cloak of faith in Christ.

LUKE 16 : 16, 17 EXAMINED.

Though often quoted against the law, this text is another testimony in its favor. By the insertion of the word were, by the translators, the sense is somewhat obscured, rendering the inference more easy that the existence of the law is the subject of remark, which is not the case. It is readily seen that the sentence is elliptical, and that it will read more smoothly in our language by supplying the ellipsis. The contrast implied in the text would be complete if it read thus: "The law and the prophets were until John; since that time the kingdom of Heaven is." This would leave out the word preached as a redundancy. But inasmuch as this word is in the text and cannot be omitted, the true contrast is found in this rendering, "The law and the prophets were preached until John; since that time the kingdom of Heaven is preached." And that this is the truth in the case we know; for the law did not cease with John. Even they who now teach its abolition do not claim that it was abolished before the crucifixion.

But this is not all the Saviour's testimony. He adds, "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than for one tittle of the law to fail. Would that all would pay heed to these divine utterances and cease to teach that the law has passed away. Although heaven and earth were created to bring honor and glory to God, and at their creation "the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy," and to destroy them would be so far an abandonment of the divine plan, a failure of the great design, yet they could sooner be destroyed than for the law to be abolished. His work has been marred and defiled by sin, and there might be an excuse for blotting the rebellious orb out of existence, but to repeal his holy, perfect law would be an impeachment of his character—an ever-lasting disgrace to his government. No longer could he point to the offering of his Son as the means whereby "he might be just, and a justifier of him that believeth in Jesus." Such reproach is cast upon his name, and so is his justice dishonored by those who teach that his law has failed. In pity we hope "they know not what they do."

JOHN 6 : 38 EXAMINED.

"For I came down from Heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me."

Here the object of the Son of God in his mission to earth is distinctly announced. As in Matt. 7 : 21–23, and John 7 : 16, 17, much depends upon the construction we put upon the expression, the will of the Father. Fortunately we have an inspired explanation in Rom. 2 : 17–23, and there it is definitely pointed out to be the law of God. And thus it is shown to be a declaration of allegiance to the law.

And what more reasonable than this? A great and wicked rebellion existed against the government of God. The Son of God volunteered to subdue it, and the Father sent him, conferring upon him full authority to act in his behalf. Nothing would be more unreasonable than to say that the Son of God under such circumstances abolished his Father's law and enacted one of his own in its stead. This would be to serve the cause of the rebels; certainly it would be a standing reproach on the Father's government. This is exactly what the antinomians claim, but Jesus denies having any such object before him. He said he always did the things which pleased his Father. How then could he abolish his Father's law, against which a wicked war was being waged? Would not the rebels have abolished it if they could? And if he abolished it, did he not the things that pleased the rebels, rather than the things which pleased his Father?

The force of the Saviour's expression in this text will be made still more apparent by carrying out the illustration sometimes put forth by the opposers of the law on the erection of the government of the United States. They say that it would be as reasonable to require us to obey the laws of Great Britain which, as colonies we were once bound to obey, as to require us to keep the law of God which only bound men in a former dispensation. They say that with the change of government new laws were required. The reference

is good, only provided the cases are parallel. Let us see. In 1776 a convention met in Philadelphia which affirmed that the king of England was a tyrant and a usurper, declared their independence of his authority, set up a government of their own, and fought against the armies of the king to put down his authority and to establish the new government. Was this parallel to the action of the Son of God? Did he declare that his Father was a usurper, and cast off all allegiance to his government, and call upon the inhabitants of the earth to take up arms to maintain their independence of his Father? Did the Philadelphia Convention declare that they had not assembled to do their own will, but the will of the king of Great Britain? Cannot they who refer to the change of government in this country, to illustrate the change from a former dispensation to the present, see that their argument perverts the gospel and libels the work of the Saviour? It not only contradicts the words of Jesus in regard to the object of his mission, and his being the representative of his Father, doing his Father's will and not his own, but it represents him as a determined rebel against his Father, and therefore it is no less than the vilest blasphemy.

Every argument put forth to show that Christ abolished his Father's law, tends to this result. It makes the Son a rebel against the Father; and we are constrained to believe that the spirit of rebellion against God is the prompter of all such arguments. And in this view we are confirmed by the words of Paul, who says the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God.

When this position of the no-law teachers is exposed in all its hideousness, we fear that some may accuse us of placing them in a false light, to make our own point, or of fastening on them that which they would not endorse. To relieve ourselves from this charge, we will specify a few cases. The action of our fathers in erecting the government of the United States and

substituting new laws in place of those of Great Britain, was presented to the writer of this to illustrate the change of dispensation, by E. Miller Jr. and J. M. Stephenson, both well known as no-law teachers, and by a correspondent of a paper (then) published in Geneva, Ill., by Benj. Wilson. And Eld. Treat, a prominent disciple of Bloomington, Ind., associate editor of the Christian Record, publicly said in the hearing of the writer, that the law was abolished in order that our allegiance might be transferred from God to Christ! Antinomianism is a delusion which leads its advocates to the most extravagant lengths, and if their eyes cannot be opened to behold their own condition, we shall endeavor to warn others of the error and the danger.

JOHN 7 : 16, 17 EXAMINED.

"Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."

This text also asserts the subordination of the Son to the Father. Jesus denied having come on an independent mission to set up a new government, but says he was sent of the Father to establish his will, and this is the intent of his doctrine. And if any man will do the will of God, obey his law, he will know of the doctrine of Christ, because, as he came from the Father to do the will of the Father, and to restore that will to the position it would have ever occupied had not sin entered into the world, there must be a perfect agreement between the will of God and the doctrine of the Son. Antinomianism presents a disagreement between the Father and the Son. It dishonors both the Son and the Father.

As Jesus gave obedience to the Father as the means of judging of his doctrine, we are authorized by his words to test everything which is now called the gospel by the revealed will of the Father.

God gave his will to man in his law which was declared to be the rule of holiness, to be perfect, and to contain the whole duty of man. But man rebelled against the will of God and brought himself under condemnation. Then God sent his Son to rescue his government from the dishonor which has been brought upon it, and to restore man to his allegiance to God. And as evidence that he was divine, that he came from Heaven, the Son referred to the harmony between the Father's will and his doctrines. By these words we are warranted in rejecting, yes, we are required to reject, everything which is called the gospel which is, in any way, contrary to the will of the Father. This reveals the blindness of those who "make void the law through faith." They have gone so far in putting evil for good that they call that system the gospel in its purity which entirely breaks down the law of the Father; and they accuse of leaving the gospel and of denying Christ, all who "keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus."

We have examined only in part the teachings of the Saviour on the subject of the law. But we have examined it sufficiently to show that all his words are in harmony with, and a confirmation of, his opening declaration that he came not to destroy the law. Had he broken the law of his Father, as some impiously assert that he did, he could not have been our Saviour, as he would have then had part with the rebels; he would have been a sinner. Had he given us warrant or liberty to break the law he would have been the minister of sin, and not the minister of righteousness, or right doing. Gal. 2 : 17; Rom. 10 : 4; 5 : 19; John 3 : 7. He came to save his people from their sins; not in their sins or transgressions. If we continue to transgress his Father's law we are not saved from our sins; we cannot then be partakers of his salvation.