LET US REASON TOGETHER.
By W. N. Glenn
MANY professed Christians argue that the law of ten commandments was abolished at the cross. To require the death of an innocent person as the act of abolishing a law would be a strange proceeding. Let us reason for a moment. The violation of the law of God requires the life of the guilty, but to repeal, must be by the enacting power, or, if it be given for a limited period it may expire by limitation. But to subject an unoffending son to crucifixion as a means of repealing a law that had proved a failure because the subjects could not obey it, would be most absurd. A sacrifice, or atonement, shows that the law could not be changed or repealed, therefore paying the penalty establishes the law; thus Paul expresses in Rom. 3:31, “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid, yea, we establish the law.” But we are met here with the supplemental plea that Christ did not die expressly to repeal the law, but to present to man, who could not keep the law, a different plan of salvation from the one originally laid, and that the law died as a consequence. This argument, like many others, reflects upon God's ability as a law maker, or his judgment as to the moral capabilities of his creatures. It were far better to accept the truth about the law and the cross—that Jesus died to vindicate the law, the just for the unjust, that man might through his blood have remission for past offences; and then, by his assisting grace be enabled to keep the law of God in the future.