PERPETUITY OF THE ROYAL LAW.
By John Nevins Andrews
3. Was the law of God abolished by the apostles? It may seem to some individuals that this last question is propounded in a singular form. But if the law of God was not abolished by the teaching nor yet by the death of the Son of God, it follows that if abolished at all, it must have been by the apostles. Many have asserted that the apostles re-enacted nine of the ten commandments, to take the place of the ten which ceased at Christ's death; but as we have shown that the Son of God offered himself up as the great Propitiation for the transgression of the law, and not as the means of its abolition, it follows that the ten commandments must be abolished by the apostles, before they could re-enact one of them. It is no more absurd to speak of the apostles' abolishing the ten commandments than it is to speak of their re-enacting nine of them. And if it seem absurd to any individual to believe that the apostles abolished the ten commandments and then re-enacted nine of them, we ask them to consider whether the doctrine which represents the infinite Law-giver as doing this very thing, is not a still greater absurdity? If the apostles abolished the law of God, who gave them authority? The Son of God indeed commissioned them to teach all things whatsoever he had commanded them; but we have seen, in all his teaching to them, that he maintained the immutability of his Father's law, so that from their divine Master they never received such a commission. If they taught as he taught, we shall find them setting forth the perpetuity and immutability of the law of God. And that they did speak the same doctrine which their Lord had taught them, we have divine assurance. John xiv, 26. If the apostles abolished the law, they must have done it in the very epistles in which, according to some of our opponents, they re-enacted nine of the commandments for the gospel dispensation. These epistles were written not far from A. D. 60; so that if the law of God was abolished by the apostles, it was abolished about thirty years after the crucifixion. We have presented the question in this form, that attention might be called to the folly of those teachers who represent the apostles as legislating upon the law of God. A single testimony from the apostle James ought to make those blush for shame who represent the apostles as abolishing the law of God, or as re-enacting a part of it, to take the place of the original code. "There is one Law-giver who is able to save and to destroy." James iv, 12. From the preceding verse it is certain that James thus designates Him who gave the law in person at the first; that law, the authority of which he so distinctly recognizes in chapter i, 25; ii, 8-12. According to James, there is but one such being in the universe; namely, the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God. It is therefore the height of absurdity to represent the apostles as amending, abolishing, or re-enacting the law of God. The twelve apostles never yet attempted to dethrone the one Law-giver, or to usurp any of his prerogatives. We shall now present the plain and explicit testimony of the apostles relative to the perpetuity of the law of God, and thus allow them to speak on this subject in their own behalf. The limits of this article will not admit an extended notice of objections. For this part of the subject the reader is referred to larger works published at Review Office. The word of God is not yea and nay; therefore the plain statements of our Lord and his apostles must forever vindicate the immutability of the divine law. "If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well; but if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty." James ii, 8-12. Several important facts are clearly set forth in this quotation. That the royal law to which James refers is the original law, is certain from the fact that he quotes it from the Scripture, the Old Testament. This is further evident from the fact that James in citing two of the ten commandments, presents them in their original authority; that is, as spoken by God in person. Or if we adopt the marginal reading of verse 11, he expressly acknowledges the authority of that law which contains the sixth and seventh commandments. That law is not abolished: on the contrary, it still stands ready to convince of sin every one who dares to violate it. Verse 9. While those who fulfill it, instead of falling from grace, are said to do well. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." This verse furnishes a perfect parallel to Matt. v, 19. "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven," ("shall be in no esteem in the reign of heaven." Campbell's Translation.) Each of these texts distinctly announces the doctrine that the willful violation of a single precept of the law of God, is sufficient to exclude the transgressor from the kingdom of God. But it may be denied that this language of James refers to the ten commandments. Those who attempt to maintain such a position would do well to read the next verse, in which he brings the whole force of his argument to bear upon the ten commandments. He that violates one of these precepts is guilty of all. Let those consider this who lightly esteem the fourth commandment. Even were it the least precept in the Decalogue, those who willfully violate it, and teach men so, shall be of no esteem in the reign of heaven. The "ALL" here referred to, means one of two things. 1. It means only those precepts which James has quoted, which makes "the whole law" to consist of the three precepts here cited, and leaves us at liberty to violate the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, eighth, ninth and tenth commandments, and also the first of the two great precepts from which James quotes—and those who think this tenable ground must occupy it at their own peril; or 2. The "ALL" to which James refers, includes the ten precepts from which he quotes; and he that violates one, has transgressed them all. By this law of liberty, or royal law, men will be judged in the day of God. "Honor thy father and mother, (which is the first commandment with promise,) that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth." Eph. vi, 2, 3. There is an important argument contained in this text, which has been generally overlooked. Paul would enforce upon children their duty to their parents. For this purpose he appeals to the fifth commandment for authority. Some have attempted to evade this argument by saying that Paul quoted this precept from the new law which Christ established, by quoting a part of the commandments to take the place of the original code as given by the voice of God at Sinai. To answer the assertion from which this inference is drawn, we present the fact that there is no intimation in the New Testament that Christ, by quoting a part of the ten commandments, established a new law in the place of the original code. But those who insist on the idea that Christ by quoting a part of the ten commandments established a new code, would do well to ask themselves the question, why Christ never quoted one of the first four commandments. This imaginary new law is no great improvement on the original, when the fact appears that the first four commandments are not quoted by Christ, and consequently on its advocates' own showing, do not form a part of this law. But there is direct evidence that Paul quotes from the Decalogue. By a word of comment inserted in the parenthesis, he identifies this as the first commandment with promise. It is a fact that though Christ has quoted this commandment, he has never appended any promise to it whatever; much less has he added the one here quoted by Paul. It is also a fact that this commandment does stand in the Decalogue, not only as its first commandment with promise, but with the very promise in question annexed! Hence it is a fact that Paul quotes from the Decalogue, and this too for the purpose of enforcing one of the clearest duties in the word of God: thus distinctly acknowledging the fifth commandment as the fountain head of all authority on this subject. With this important fact before us, we can judge whether those do not wrest the words of Paul, who represent him as teaching the abolition of all the ten commandments. Paul tells the Ephesians that he had kept back nothing that was profitable to them. Acts. xx, 20. If therefore the moral law had been abolished, Paul must have revealed this important fact to them. What then must the Ephesians have thought when Paul wrote them four years later, appealing to the Decalogue, and not to his apostolic authority to enforce the duty of children to their parents? Paul was never guilty of such inconsistency; it belongs only to those who teach the abolition of the ten commandments. "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law." Rom. iii, 31. This text has been already quoted as concluding Paul's argument on redemption through the death of Christ. We quote it again to give Paul an opportunity to speak explicitly on the question before us. No one of the apostles has treated so largely upon the doctrine of justification by faith as the apostle Paul. But lest any should conclude from the earnest manner in which he insists upon this doctrine that he believed the law of God abolished, he asks this very question that he may answer it in the most definite manner. His answer should put to the blush those teachers who represent Paul as setting aside, or teaching the abolition of the moral law. "God forbid," says the Apostle, "yea, we establish the law." Nor can an exception be taken to the form of the Apostle's question; for the same word that is rendered "make void" in this verse, is in 2 Cor. iii, 13; Eph. ii, 15; 2 Tim. i, 10, rendered "abolished." Paul has therefore rendered a definite answer to the question under consideration. And the strong language which he uses in denying that he taught the abolition of that sacred law which made the death of God's only Son necessary in order that man might have pardon, should forever silence those who lay such an accusation against him. Paul well understood the fact, that, though men now have the offer of pardon through the blood of Christ, that the time will arrive when this work of mercy will be finished, and the just penalty of the law of God be inflicted upon all who are then in their sins. Knowing the terror of the Lord, he labored night and day to persuade men to become reconciled unto God, and thus escape the penalty of the law—the second death. Paul affirms that he did not teach the abolition of the law. Who dare affirm that he did? Yea, said he, we establish the law. Who dare deny it? "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." Rom. vii, 7. The conversion of Paul took place some years after the crucifixion of Christ; so that what he says relative to the law of God has direct bearing upon this subject. The experience of the Apostle, as here narrated by himself, is a proper example of sound conversion to God. The law of God struck the first blow in Paul's religious experience; and thus it is with all others. The tenth commandment of the decalogue convinced Paul that he was a sinner; and he testifies that had it not been for that precept of the law, he had not known himself a sinner: thus exemplifying his own statement that "by the law is the knowledge of sin," showing that the law is God's great standard of right. The remainder of chapter vii exhibits the powerful struggle of Paul, as an awakened sinner, to keep the law of God. He is constrained to call the law holy, and the commandment holy and just and good; and he testifies that it is by the commandment that sin becomes exceeding sinful. He adds that the law is spiritual, but that he is carnal, sold under sin. His language depicts in the most21striking manner the power of the carnal mind. Notwithstanding he approved the holiness and excellence of the law of God, he was carnal, sold under sin, and unable to render acceptable obedience to its precepts. The other law of sin in his members baffled all his efforts to keep the law of God. In despair he flies to Christ for refuge and help. He obtains forgiveness of his past transgression of the law of God, through faith in the great propitiation for sin; he is delivered from the carnal mind—that other law of sin in the members—and grace is given him, that he may hereafter render acceptable obedience to the holy, just and perfect law of God. Rom. viii, 1-4. The guilt of transgression, and the just condemnation of the law, are now gone; Paul is under grace; the law of God is now placed in his heart; and he manifests his love to God by keeping his commandments. The first part of Romans viii, presents this happy change. This narration of the Apostle's experience strikingly illustrates the words of David: 'The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.' Several important truths are clearly brought to view by this portion of scripture. 1. The law of God has not been abolished; for here is direct testimony that it existed in its full strength, several years after the crucifixion of our Lord.
2. The law here referred to is the decalogue; for Paul quotes its tenth precept. Nor can this be evaded by saying that Paul quoted from the law of Christ. (1.) The words purport to come from 'the law,' an expression never used with reference to the words of Christ. (2.) The words in verse 7 are a literal quotation from the decalogue; but as Christ never used the expression, they are not a quotation from his words. (3.) But there is direct proof in verses 22 and 25 that Paul quotes from 'the law of God.'
3. The law of God is his great standard of holy principles; and if these were abolished, sin could not be known.
4. The law of God began Paul's Christian experience. If that were abolished, there could be no Christian experience, for there could be no knowledge of sin, the apostle Paul being judge. Rom. iii, 20; iv, 15; vii, 7.
5. 'Sin by the commandment' becomes 'exceeding sinful.' Verse 13. The reference to the law and the commandment, in this chapter cannot be mistaken. No one will attempt to deny that Paul refers directly to the decalogue, using the tenth commandment as a representative of all the rest. The sin forbidden by each of the commandments, becomes 'exceeding sinful' when viewed in their holy light. How great, then, must be the guilt of those who openly desecrate the fourth commandment, after they have once been enlightened respecting it by the word of God! Finally, the great design of the gospel is to deliver fallen man from the just condemnation of the law of God, and to place him where he may fulfill the righteousness of the law. 'The Law reveals and makes us know
What duties to our God we owe;
But 'tis the Gospel must reveal
Where lies our strength to do his will.' 'Whosoever committeth 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. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not; whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.' 1 John iii, 4-8. This text is worthy of careful examination. Let us notice some important truths here presented.
1. The New Testament definition of sin is here given: 'Sin is the transgression of the law.' Every sinner is a transgressor of the law of God.
2. John establishes the fact that this is the original law of God, by the statement that Christ was 'manifested to take away our sins;' that is, our transgressions of the law: thus showing that it was a law which existed, and was transgressed prior to the first advent.
3. In Christ there was no sin; that is, there was no transgression of the law. This ought forever to silence those who affirm that Christ broke the fourth commandment.
4. 'Ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins.' Those who think that Christ was manifested to take away the law of his Father, would do well to consider this verse. He was manifested to take away (not the law of God, but) sin, the transgression of the law. If Christ was manifested to take away the law, it follows that to remove our transgression, he took away the law which we had transgressed: thus showing that he had a greater dislike to the law of his Father than he had to sin, the transgression of that law! But how did Christ take away sins? 'He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.' Heb. ix, 26. He shed his own blood as a propitiation for the sins of men: thus honoring the law of God, and opening to guilty man a way of escape.
5. 'Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not;' that is, whosoever abideth in Christ, doth not transgress the law. This is a truth of the deepest importance to those who think that the law is made void by faith, or done away by the gospel. Not a few who understandingly break the fourth commandment, quiet their consciences with the thought that Christ is their Saviour. Let such remember that none abide in Christ, who understandingly transgress the law of God. In this matter of vital importance, the Apostle utters a solemn warning: 'Let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin (transgresseth the law of God) is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning.' 'All thy commandments' says the Psalmist, 'are righteousness.' Ps. cxix, 172. Every violation of the law is sin. Those who understandingly transgress the law of God, to use the severe language of the beloved disciple, are 'of the devil.' To break any one of the commandments of God constitutes a man a sinner, and exposes him to the penalty of the law—the second death. Rom. vi, 23; Eze. xviii, 4, 20; Rev. xx, 14, 15. 'My little children, these things write I unto you that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.' 1 John ii, 1, 2. We have already listened to John's definition of sin, and have learned that it is the 'transgression of the law.' Many affirm that this is the law of Christ. In the text before us we have the means of deciding this point. John begins by exhorting those to whom he writes, not to sin; that is, not to transgress the law. He adds, 'If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.' Then it is God the Father whose law is broken, and with whom an advocate is needed, by the sinner. There is one Law-giver, whose holy law has been broken by all mankind; and there is one Mediator between that Law-giver and the transgressor. James iv, 12; Rom. iii, 19, 23; 1 Tim. ii, 5, 6. The one Law-giver is God the Father; the one Mediator is our Lord Jesus Christ. If Christ were the Law-giver, then our mediator must be between Christ and us. But instead of this, God the Father is the being whose law has been transgressed, and Jesus is the great High Priest between that broken law and its guilty transgressors. And this fact is confirmed by the next sentence: 'He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.' Then Jesus stands between the Law-giver and the sinner, not only as an advocate, mediator and High Priest, but also as the propitiation for the sins of men. In other words, he is the great Sacrifice that has been offered for man's transgression of the law of God. How deeply interesting is the thought that in the temple of God in heaven, where the ark containing the law of God abides, we have a great High Priest, who has once offered himself for our transgression of that law, and through whom we may obtain full and free pardon of all our transgressions. Rev. xi, 19; Heb. viii, 1-3. To the professed people of God who still violate his law, we would address a word of exhortation and entreaty. 'As though God did beseech you by us, we pray you in Christ's stead be ye reconciled to God.' The carnal mind is enmity against God, and is not subject to his law. Pray that God may deliver you from it. Would you possess that charity or perfect love, so fully described in 1 Cor. xiii, which is the fulfilling of the law? Then heed the words of the apostle John: 'This is the love of God that we keep his commandments; and his commandments are not grievous.' 1 John v, 3. The fourth commandment has long been trodden down, but under the latest message of mercy to men, the people of God are seen keeping all his commandments and the faith or testimony of Jesus Christ. Rev. xiv, 9-12. Will you not be of this number? The dragon is yet to make war upon this remnant of the church; but he shall not prevail. Rev. xii, 17. The last testimony respecting the commandment keepers is given by the Son of God in Rev. xxii, 14. 'Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.' This is the blessed fruition of our hope, shortly to be realized.