THE PERPETUITY OF THE LAW OF GOD.
By John Nevins Andrews
BY J. N. ANDREWS.—[Concluded.] But there is another strong objection existing in the minds of many, which we will now examine. It is this: "The world is under the law, but the Christian is under grace, and not under the school-master." This view admits the fact that the law of God is not abolished, but attempts to show that the Christian is not under obligation to obey it. Nay, that if he should keep its precepts he would be in danger of falling from grace! We say that this view is based on the fact that the law was not abolished at the crucifixion, for an abolished law cannot hold men under it, neither can it convince men of sin as its transgressors, after it has ceased to exist. The fact that the law is our school-master to bring us to Christ, shows conclusively that it has not been abolished. Because an abolished law can never show men that they are condemned and must perish without a Saviour. This view then, is distinct from the idea that the law was abolished at Christ's death. For if it was abolished at that time, then the world is not under it. If the world is under the law, then it has not been abolished. Let us examine the testimony on this subject. Gal. iii, 23—26. "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, for ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." Rom. vi, 14, 15. "For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid." What is it to be under the law then? Hear the testimony of the Bible. Rom. iii, 19, 23. "Now we know, that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." Then in the sight of God, the whole world is condemned and become guilty before him, as transgressors of his law. The sentence of condemnation is just and righteous, so that EVERY MOUTH IS STOPPED. Where is there hope of salvation then? Surely, man in this state is lost. How is the law a school-master to bring us to Christ? Answer. The law shows our guilt and just condemnation, and that we are lost without a Saviour. Read Paul's account of this school in Rom. vii, 7—25. "By the law is the knowledge of sin." Rom. iii, 20. "I had not known sin but by the law." Rom. vii, 7. Then the instruction of the law is absolutely necessary, that we may know ourselves to be sinners in the sight of God. We find ourselves sinners by past offences, and unable to render present obedience. The just penalty of the law hangs over our heads; we find ourselves lost, and fly to Jesus Christ for refuge. What does he do to save us from the curse of the law? Does he abolish the law, that he may save its transgressor? He tells us that he did "not come to destroy" it; and we know that the law being holy, just, and good, cannot be taken back without destroying the government of Him who gave it. Does the Saviour modify its character, and lessen its requirements? Far from it. He testifies that not one jot or tittle shall "pass from it till all be fulfilled." Matt. v, 18; Luke xvi, 17; James ii, 10. And he shows that those who in heart commit any act of iniquity, are transgressors of the law. Matt. v, 22, 27, 28; I John iii, 15. If the Saviour did not abolish or relax the law, how can guilty man hope for salvation? What then does the Saviour do? He gives himself to die in our stead. He offers his own "life a ransom for many." Matt. xx, 28. "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John iii, 16. We now lay hold on Jesus Christ as the great atonement for our transgressions, and receive a full and free pardon of all offence. A way has now been laid open by which man, though justly condemned by the law of God, can yet be saved without dishonoring, or making void the law. God can be just and yet "the justifier of him who believes in Jesus." Rom. iii, 25, 26. Need we inquire further what it is to be under grace? We have already seen in what manner we are saved, notwithstanding the law condemns us, and yet the claims of the law are not made void. When we were lost and ruined by transgression, and had no way to escape the just sentence of the law, God gave his own Son to die for us. The law can then allow mercy to enter and offer pardon to all who will accept it by faith in Jesus Christ. In his person mercy and truth meet together. The law justly condemns us; Jesus bears our sins in his own body on the tree; faith in him justifies, and saves us. The law brings us to faith; faith does not make void the law, but establishes it. Those who are under sin are under the law, those who have been pardoned are under grace. Two states then are brought to view in the New Testament.—1. Under the law.—2. Under grace. Those who are under the law, are condemned; those who are under grace, are pardoned. We ask, does Christ come and die to redeem us from the just sentence of the law, that he may bring us to a state where we may at pleasure violate its precepts? Is the law of a character so sacred that it must needs have the death of the Son of God for its atonement,2and when the sinner has obtained pardon, is it then "relaxed, or slacked up," so that it is at his option whether to obey it or not? Does this state of grace give us license to violate the law of God? In answer to these inquiries, we are told that "that part of the law which Christ quoted is certainly binding on us. But those precepts which he did not quote, are not to be regarded, for they ceased at his death." We answer, there is an end to this part of the controversy then, for the law which brings us to Christ for salvation, must most certainly be that law which condemns us. And no part of the law can condemn us, save that which is now in existence. And if it be admitted that we are not at liberty to violate any part of that law which brings us to Christ, we leave this part of the subject, and inquire whether a part of the law was left out by Jesus. For the question we are examining turns on this point. Did our Lord re-enact a part of the law, and leave the remainder to expire, or be abolished at his death? Let us examine the facts in the case. At no one time did our Saviour quote all the commandments. And indeed we may say that he never quoted the first, the second, or the fourth commandment. And still further, he does not re-enact those precepts which he quotes, but refers to them as a part of the law of God. But one or two views can be taken of this subject.—1. Christ meant that those commandments which he quoted were the only ones which should henceforth be binding, or, 2. He appealed to the law of God as to the highest authority, and cited those commandments which were particularly adapted to the cases of those persons with whom he conversed. If the first view be correct, then Jesus meant to teach that henceforward they were not under obligation to obey the first, second, or fourth commandment! And this in the face of the fact that they were all to continue till the crucifixion, when as some say they were all abolished. Further, it is assumed, not proved, that he re-enacted those precepts which he quoted. For, to say the least, the idea is a very strange one, that he should re-enact a law which was already in force. But if the other position be correct, viz., that by quoting a part of the law he sanctioned its high authority, and left it on its own basis, as the law of his Father, then are we correct in saying that the whole law as such brings us to Christ, and when we are justified by faith, we are by no means at liberty to violate one of its precepts. The fact that the law is our school-master, to show us the just claims of God, and our own just condemnation, shows plainly that it has not been abolished; hence, though we have been pardoned through God's free grace, we can never violate its precepts without being "convinced" by it "as transgressors." That we are justified by grace through faith is evident, [Eph. ii, 8,] and yet faith does not "make void the law." For the whole plan of salvation is based on the justice of God's law, and the sufficiency of Christ's atonement. The law stands out before us to show us our transgressions. "The gospel of the grace of God" shows us how we may be pardoned. We are justified by grace through faith. Faith works by love. This is the love of God that we keep his commandments. Thus love is the fulfilling of the law. Gal. iv, 21—31. Those who would reject pardon by faith in Jesus Christ, and take their own chance for salvation through a law which justly condemns them, and shuts their mouths, are here addressed. The Holy Spirit illustrates the old and new covenants by an allegory drawn from the family of Abraham. The great promise having been made to Abraham, that he and his seed should inherit the earth, he was, by virtue of this covenant, called the "father of all them that believe." Rom. iv, 11. This covenant was based on "the righteousness of faith," and contained all those blessings which the subsequent ones secured to his seed. The covenant from Sinai added another condition, viz., "the righteousness of the law." The new covenant is based on the original condition, and points us to Christ's atonement, as the source of grace, that we may fulfill the righteousness of the law." Rom. viii, 3, 4. Notice, it is not the law of God which is represented by the bond-woman, neither is it the gospel which is represented by Sarah. But Hagar represents Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children, and Sarah represents Jerusalem which is above, which is free, which is the mother of us all. The son of the bond-woman represents the children of Old Jerusalem by the first covenant, even as Isaac represents the children of the New Jerusalem, by the new covenant. The bondage of literal Israel was not because the law of God was given to them, but because they were its transgressors,—the servants of sin. John viii, 33—36. The freedom of those who are the children of the New Jerusalem is not that the law has been abolished, but that they have been made free from sin. Rom. vi, 22. Gal. v. That the "yoke of bondage" here spoken of means "the law of commandments contained in ordinances," and not the law of God, is evident from many considerations. The ordinance of circumcision was not one of the precepts of the royal law—was not a part of the ten commandments; but it belonged to the law of Moses. John, viii, 23. The apostles [Acts xv.] in treating of circumcision, and the law of Moses in general, call it a yoke which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear. But that the law of God, so far from being a yoke of bondage, is the delight of God's saints, both testaments prove. Ps. i, 2; exix, 174; Rom. vii, 7, 22; viii, 1-7; 1 John v, 3. And the fourth commandment is particularly pointed out as such, Isa. lviii, 13, 14. Those who observed circumcision were debtors to do the whole law of Moses; for if one of its ordinances is binding all of them must be. Then we should have to return to its offerings and atonements, and thereby reject the one offering of Jesus Christ, the only ground of justification before God. The typical service was succeeded by the antitypical, when the bond-woman was succeeded by the free-woman. "Love is the fulfilling of the law?" Why so? Answer: Because, "This is the love of God that we keep his commandments," and "love worketh no ill to his neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." 1 John, v, 3; Rom. xiii, 10.—Love to God consists in rendering obedience to those commandments which contain our duty to Him; love to our neighbor consists in obeying those commandments which contain our duty to him. Those who love God with all their hearts, and their neighbor as themselves, render cheerful obedience to those precepts which hang on these two great commandments, not forgetting the "new commandment" of Jesus, that his people love one another EVEN AS HE LOVED US. John, xiii, 34; 1 John iii, 16, 22-24. Love then does not make void the law, but fulfills it. Charity, the perfect love of God, is then the end, the object, the design of the commandments of God. If we are led by the Spirit we are not under the law, for AGAINST those who bring forth its fruit, there is no law. Gal. v. 18-23. Eph. ii, 11-17. The care with which Paul has stated what was abolished at the crucifixion, will enable us to understand the subject in its true light. Does he testify that the law of God was abolished? Far from it, for in chapter vi, he enforces the duty of obedience to parents by quoting the fifth commandment. What does he say? He testifies that Christ abolished in his flesh the enmity, the law of commandments contained in ordinances. The middle wall of partition was thus broken down, and the enmity between Jews and Gentiles was slain by the one, that through the one offering, both might be reconciled to God. The law of ordinances, which pointed forward to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, was abolished or done away in him; because the body had been reached which cast the shadow. Col. ii, 17. To this law the Gentiles never were amenable, for it was a wall of separation between themselves and literal Israel. But that all men were under the law of God, and condemned by its precepts, is clearly shown. Rom. iii, 14-23. And this is further evident from the fact that all need a share in the atonement. Eph. ii, 16; Gal. iv, 4, 5; Heb. ii, 9. The one law pertained only to Israel, to the other law all mankind were amenable. By the one, the whole world was condemned, and shown to be guilty before God; by the other, was given a typical atonement, which pointed forward to the offering of Him who should die for the sins of the world. The one having reached its antitype, is abolished; but the other stands, if possible, on a firmer basis than ever. Rom. iii, 31. For the immutability of its character is shown in that the Son of God must lay down his life before guilty man could be rescued from its just sentence. The ordinances of the Jewish Church, ceased with that Church, being succeeded by those of the Christian Church. But the law of God pertains to men not as members of any Church, but as moral agents, amenable to the government of God; hence it is not changed, relaxed, or abolished by any dispensation. Jesus Christ came not to destroy this law, but he did abolish the law of ordinances, nailing it to his cross. The PRECEPTS of the one were spoken by the voice of God, and were written with his own finger in tables of stone; but the other was written by13the hand of Moses in a book. The one was the "royal law" from the "King eternal;" the other is "the hand-writing of ordinances." Matt. v, 17-19; xix, 17; James ii, 8-12; Rom. vii, 7, 12, 22; Eph. ii, 15; Col. ii, 14; Acts, xv, 5. Col. ii, 14-17. A second testimony is borne to the same point. The hand-writing of ordinances was taken out of the way by Jesus, and nailed to his cross. This law being written by the hand of Moses in a book might be blotted out, but the words engraven by the finger of God in stone, never! This law having been abolished, we are not to be judged by any of its festivals or ordinances. Mark the contrast. James introduces that part of the royal law which contains our duty to our neighbor, [compare Matt. xxii, 35-40; James ii, 8,] quotes several of its precepts, and shows us that he who violates a part, is guilty of breaking the whole law, and adds, "so speak ye, and so do, as THEY THAT SHALL BE JUDGED BY THE LAW OF LIBERTY." That we should not be judged by an abolished law is perfectly natural; that we should be judged by a law to which all men are amenable, is in the highest degree reasonable. We have before noticed other sabbaths, besides the Sabbaths of the Lord; we here contrast the laws by which they were enforced. Heb. viii, 6-13. The promises on which the two covenants were based are here noticed. The first required perfect obedience to the law of God, [Jer. xi, 4, 5; Ex. xix; xx,] but did not contain those clear and gracious promises of pardon through Jesus Christ that were needed by fallen guilty man. Hence it was not faultless, though the law of God on which it was based as its condition is pronounced by both testaments to be perfect, holy, just and good. Ps. xix; Rom. vii. The covenant "waxed old," because its conditions were broken; hence the new covenant, based on better promises, was introduced. This covenant shows us the great atonement from whence we may expect pardon, reveals to us the fountain of grace, from whence we may receive strength to yield obedience, and places the law of God in our hearts. Jer. xxxi, 33; Heb. viii, 10; x, 16. The transition from the old covenant to the new, is marked by the death of the Testator. Heb. ix, 15-17; 1 Cor. xi, 25; Gal. iii, 19. But if the law of God was abolished at that time, then no law was in existence to place in the hearts of the people of God! Nor can this point be met fairly by saying that Christ brought forward a part of the law by quoting it, for it would be absurd to believe that he re-enacted part of a law which was already in force, or rather that he re-enacted a part of the law, and then abolished the whole! Those who adopt this idea, are bound to explain why Christ should omit the first, second, and fourth commandments. Or rather, they are bound to prove that he re-enacted those commandments which he quoted, for their argument is mere assertion till this is done. We repeat, there is but one Law-giver, and this is not the Son, but the Father.—James iv, Ex. xx. James ii. The royal law is here enforced by James in an unmistakable manner. Had he believed that it was abolished, or that it was a "yoke of bondage," he would never have said, "If ye fulfill the royal law," "ye do well." Nay, he would never have asserted that if they had respect to persons they would commit sin and be convinced of the law as transgressors; for an abolished law can never convince a man of sin. Rom. iv, 15. The sixth and seventh commandments of this law are then quoted. And we are shown that the transgressor of one precept is guilty of breaking all; [Macknight] which is not unlike the words of our Lord, that "one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled." Then if one part be in force, it is all in force. If one commandment be broken, all are broken. Such is the testimony of James. How can those, who violate the fourth commandment, meet this in the Judgment? See verse 12. But the fourth commandment is evaded thus: The Sabbath has been changed, and good men in past ages have kept the first, instead of the seventh day. Are we not safe in following them? We offer to yield the first point when one text is brought which testifies that the Sabbath has been changed, or that the first day was ever sanctified by God, or that we are required to keep it holy. Further, we reply that every man is accountable to God for the light which shines before him. The fact that God has given us light on this subject, shows that we have no excuse for further disobedience—no cloak for our sins. Certainly we cannot plead the right to make void the "commandment of God" that we may keep "the tradition of the elders." Mark vii, 9. The fourth commandment is definite, requiring us to keep that day holy which God himself rested upon, and sanctified. We may charge God with folly in giving this commandment, but in the day of Judgment we shall find that obedience would have been far better. 1 John iii, 3, 4, Whosoever committed sin transgresseth also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins, and in him is no sin. Notice these striking thoughts. The definition of sin is "the transgression of the law." Every sinner is a transgressor of the law. In Christ was no sin, hence no transgression of the law. Jesus was manifested to take away our sins. How does he do this? He dies for us that we may be delivered from the just sentence of the law; its execution is stayed, that mercy may be permitted to enter, and offer pardon through the blood of Christ. The refusal of pardon offered at such an immense cost, greatly enhances the guilt of the transgressors; for they have not only violated the law of God, but by this act they tread under foot his Son who died to redeem them. From these testimonies we conclude that the New Testament teaches the perpetuity of the law of God, and for that reason does not re-enact any part of it. Paris Me., Feb., 10, 1851.