The Law in Galatians Examined by Dudley Marvin Canright

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, Cal. · May 27, 1875

The Law in Galatians Examined.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

WHAT object did Paul have in view in writing this letter to the Galatians? Does he find fault with them for keeping any one of the ten commandments? No such thing is mentioned in the whole letter. In the first chapter he appeals to them thus: “For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it; and profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.” Verses 13, 14. Here he mentions the traditions of the fathers, for which he had been very zealous. He further says that the gospel which he preached was directly revealed to him by Christ himself, and was not taught him by any man. See verses 15–24. Next Paul refers these Gentile Galatians' right back to that great council at Jerusalem, which he and Barnabas attended as recorded in Acts 15; where the question about circumcision and that whole law was fully discussed and settled. Compare Acts 15:1–5 with Gal. 2:1–3, and it will be seen that both refer to the same time and the same question. Hence the decision of that council had a direct bearing upon the question that was troubling the Galatians. So he refers to that council and to the action there taken to convince these Gentile Galatians that they were regarding a law that was no longer to be kept by the disciples. Thus he says: “Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. But neither Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.” Gal. 2:1, 3. Though Titus was a minister, still it was decided that he, being a Gentile, need not be circumcised. This fact, of course, would have great weight with the Gentile Galatians in deciding their duty touching the same question. This fact shows to which law this letter relates. There is no question raised with regard to any precept of the moral law; but every reference is to the ceremonial law. See chapter 2:11–14. “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?” How does this affect the question which Paul is arguing with the Galatians, if the moral law is the one under consideration? It could have no bearing upon it whatever. But if it be the ceremonial law it is indeed very much to the point.

Peter, a Jew, and an apostle, goes to Antioch and freely eats with the Gentiles, which is a direct violation of the ceremonial law. But when certain zealous Jews come from Jerusalem, Peter withdrew from the Gentiles and would eat with them no more, thus showing that he regarded the ceremonial law as still in force and binding on Christians. Paul is justly reproved him for this. “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?” In other words, if Peter, a Jew, could disregard the ceremonial law; how much more the Gentiles. What law had he violated? Any one of the ten commandments? No, he had simply eaten with the Gentiles, and thus broken the ceremonial law of the Jews. This fact is decisive in showing what law is under consideration here.

Further on Paul asks them, “Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Chap. 3:3. This has plain reference to the fleshly or carnal ordinances of the ceremonial law, of which Paul in another place 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. It could not refer to the decalogue, because these precepts are spiritual and directly opposed to the flesh. Rom. 7:14; 8:7. Again Paul 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.” Gal. 6:12.

Here these works of the flesh are directly connected with circumcision; and those who kept that law didit to avoid the cross of Christ, because by regarding the ceremonies of the Jews, they would please them and so escape persecution. That the law here spoken of is that which was written by Moses in the book and not the one on the tables of stone, is shown by the following: “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.” Chap. 3:10. But verse 19 is decisive: “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.” To the question, what is the object of this law, Paul answers that it was added because of transgression. Transgression is the violation of the law. 1 John 3:4. Again; where no law is there is no transgression. Rom. 4:15.

Then it follows that some law existed and was transgressed before this law was given. Nor would it have been given if the other law had not previously been transgressed. We have already seen how this was. When man violated the moral law he became a sinner, needing a Saviour to redeem him. To point to this coming Saviour it became necessary to offer sacrifices. Then there must be priests to offer these, an altar, and a temple. All these required a law to regulate them. Hence it became necessary, as we have seen, to institute the ceremonial law. How long were these sacrifices, the temple, altar, priests, &c., to continue? Till Christ should come to whom they pointed. Hence that law ended there of necessity. So Paul says it was added till the seed should come. But why should the moral law terminate there? Paul further says, it was ordained by angels in the hands of a mediator—precisely the way in which the law of Moses was given. But the decalogue was given by God, written by his own finger, not in a book, but on tables of stone. Then what follows puts it beyond question that it is only the typical law of which Paul was writing. “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.

The law here spoken of is one that pointed to Christ, the sole object for which the law of types and shadows was given. Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1. “Christ was the grand center to which that whole law pointed. But what does the moral law say about Christ? Nothing at all. It points out man's duty but does not point to Christ. Chapter 5:1–3, furnishes further proof that it is not the ten commandments under consideration. “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.”

It will be seen that there is no reference here to the decalogue, but to the law of circumcision. If you be circumcised, says Paul, Christ shall profit you nothing. This he keeps constantly before their minds. He says, Whoever is circumcised is bound to keep the whole law, that is the whole of that law of which circumcision is a part; because if one part is binding, it all is. Hence they must offer sacrifices, &c. He calls it a yoke of bondage, the same term which Peter applies to the law of Moses. Acts 15:10. Can this apply to the ten commandments? Is it a yoke of bondage to obey them? Who will stand up and say that these are a yoke of bondage to him? The man who does will declare himself to be a wicked, carnal man.

The above facts clearly show that it is only the ceremonial law of which Paul is treating in Galatians. It furnishes strong proof of our position that all Bible writers recognized the distinction between the moral and ceremonial laws. D. M. CANRIGHT. Stockton, May 17.