The Law of Galatians III
By S. P.
Answer to Bro. Merriam's Question Respecting the Law of Gal. iii, in Review No. 3, Vol. x.
He asks, "Can the Law there spoken of, refer to the Ten Commandments?" I think it cannot; but that it refers to the law-system, as a system; or, the dispensation of law, as such; or, the whole embodiment of law. Some will here ask, if in verse 19 the Moral Law is not referred to; and others, if the typical, or ceremonial law is not referred to. We answer, no more than any particular sticks of timber which are constituent parts of an edifice, are referred to when only speaking of that edifice, as such. But that great system, or dispensation, or embodiment of law, of which these were constituent parts, is only referred to; and as a system, as a dispensation, as a whole, it was added. The word LAW in the New Testament is used in some eight different senses: perhaps more. There are several passages in the New Testament besides those in Galatians, in which the word law is used in its broadest sense. John i, 17. "The law was given by Moses." It is evident to every mind that all laws peculiar to that dispensation were more especially given by Moses, than were those laws that were common to any other dispensation. Hence it does not mean the Law of the Ten Commandments (or Moral Law) merely, though there was perhaps a more complete development of that Law by God himself, at that time, and by the instrumentality of Moses also, than there previously had been. Again, Rom. v, 13. "For until the law sin was in the world." We learn from the connection that this period was from Adam to Moses. If this was the Law of the Ten Commandments, this connection shows that it did not exist till Moses. And further, that there must have been some other hidden, unrevealed law which men transgressed during that period of time. Both of which conclusions are untenable. Again, we have additional evidence that the Moral Law was not alluded to, by paraphrasing the passage a little as follows: Until the Moral Law, the transgression of the Moral Law was in the world; showing also that this Law was transgressed before it existed, which is evidently an utter absurdity. But if we read it as follows: Until the law-dispensation, or system of law, sin was in the world, it is all rational and consistent. For the Moral Law, the transgression of which is sin, was in existence from Adam to Moses. And of course as men transgressed that Law, sin was in the world. This makes it all plain. The above is to show that the word law is used in some instances in its most extended sense. Some evidence will now be given to show that it is used in this sense in Gal. iii; and of course that it is some other law than that of the Ten Commandments. 1. By comparing Gal. i, 6, 7, with verses 13, 14, we get some evidence that Paul was reproving the Galatians for their adherence to the Jews' religion. But we all must admit that the Ten Commandments or Moral Law, which was common to all dispensations, did not distinguish the Jews' religion from the religion of any other class of God's saints. But the law-dispensation did distinguish the Jews' religion from the religion of every other class of saints, which lived either before or since. 2. Several things recorded in chap. ii, and also in chap. v, 2-4, carry the strongest evidence that if the Galatians had not received the rite, they had embraced the sentiment, that circumcision was of consequence to them; and their adherence to this law of circumcision, a part of that dispensation of law and not common with this, was one of the reasons why Paul so sharply rebuked them in chap. iii, 1-5. And that circumcision is a law, and a part of that great system of law, consult John vii, 22, 23; Lev. xii, 3, and Gen. xvii, 14. And further, that the Galatians were not censurable for adherence to the Moral Law, and were censurable for their adherence to the law of circumcision, we take the testimony of this same Apostle as found in 1 Cor. vii, 19: "Circumcision is181nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the Commandments of God." 3. Verse 10 of chap. iii, gives clear additional evidence what law in this chapter was especially referred to; and by this we obtain additional evidence that the Galatians had embraced some things at least, not in common with that dispensation, and the present one. Or rather, altogether irrelevant to the present or gospel age. That the book of the law referred to here, contained all that pertained to that dispensation, is evident from many scriptures and we think indeed from every other consideration also. In the first place, Paul in his quotation, by inspiration supplies the word, book. It is not in the passage quoted, found in Deut. xxvii, 26, reading as follows: "Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them." Had this declaration just followed the record of the Ten Commandments in Ex. xx, or Deut. v, there would then have been some plausibility in the idea that it referred to the Moral Law; but as it was at the closing up of the record of all that pertained to that dispensation by Moses, and also as the idea is expressed by the use of the definitive this, i. e., this law; this is good evidence that it contained the whole record of law given by Moses. Again. In the directions given for a king who might be set over the people we have farther evidence, Deut. xvii, 18, 19. "And it shall be when he sitteth on the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book, out of that which is before the priests the Levites: and it shall be with him, and he shall read therein, all the days of his life." If this book contained the moral precepts only, with what propriety could it be said, he should "read therein all the days of his life?" When he could not read them but a few days, at most, before as a matter of course, they must all be committed to memory, and thus prevent that necessity. Again; if he had only a knowledge of the moral precepts, without a knowledge of any other laws, would he have been qualified to execute that penal code enacted in most cases of rebellion, upon his rebellious subjects? Again, as some believe this book to contain the ceremonial law only, we ask if that king had had a perfect knowledge of the ceremonial without any knowledge of the moral, or judicial code, would he have been any better qualified, in this case, to discharge the duties of a chief magistrate than in the other? Let the unprejudiced answer these questions. It would seem not to be necessary for any of the inspired writers to give us a definite epitome of what their books respectively contained; for when we read them we know their contents. Thus we may know that the book of the law contained the whole embodiment of law. 4. We have the time when this law commenced in verse 17; and the time of its termination, or when it expired by limitation in verse 19 of Gal. iii, which shows to all who appreciate the force of the language of those verses, and who believe that the Moral Law had any existence prior to Moses or subsequent to Christ, that it must have been some other law. And that it did exist prior, and has existed subsequently to those chronological points, an overwhelming amount of evidence has been adduced by the brethren who have written on the subject, both from the book of Genesis, and most or all the writers of the New Testament. And that the dispensation of law did begin with the former of these chronological points, we may all very well understand if we will take the pains to add Paul's 430 years to the chronological year of Gen. xii, and compare the sum of these with the chronological year of Ex. xx; and that it ended with the latter chronological point, or in the midst of the seventieth week no one doubts. 5. We have further chronological evidence in verse 23. "Before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith, which should afterward be revealed." The above language indicates in the clearest manner that there was a point of time to which the law here referred to, reached, and then the faith of Jesus took its place. This could not be the Moral Law, as that was not to be destroyed or removed; to give place to this dispensation, but by the new covenant, was to be brought nearer than before; even to be written on our hearts, and thus magnified and made honorable; verifying the language of Ps. lxxxix, 28, "My covenant shall stand fast with him." We have additional evidence in the following verses. "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ; but after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." The language here shows, that the law was spoken of in the past tense, and faith in the present tense when Paul wrote. It is evidently therefore not the Moral Law; but the dispensation of law, which ended a little before, and gave place to the faith of Jesus which should afterwards be revealed, or the gospel dispensation. Further that the Moral Law alone was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ we have no evidence. True, it is by this Law we have the knowledge of sin; but how it brings us to Christ we are unable to tell. It was by the ministration of this Law, or by the types and shadows the body of which is of Christ, that men under that dispensation were led to Christ, as it is by the ministration of the gospel, or its teachings that men are led to Christ under this dispensation. 6. It must have been some other law; because it never could harm those who are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, [verse 26,] to keep the Ten Commandments. Yea, rather, we must keep them according to the light we have in order to keep our faith alive. In proof James ii, 22 is adduced. Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? Also Gal. ii, 17. But if while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves are found sinners; i. e., transgressors of the Law, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. Again, Rom. vi, 1. "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, i. e., in the transgression of the Law, that grace may abound? God forbid." Thus we see that every child of God by faith in Christ must keep the Ten Commandments according to the light he has, to keep in a state of justification, and prevent his faith from dying. Had it read, The law is our schoolmaster, instead of was, it would have taught something quite different. In this case, it must have referred to the Moral Law as no other law exists under the gospel dispensation. Again, the phrase, under the law, in Galatians does not convey the same sense we all attach to this phrase when it refers to the Moral Law. In the latter instance we understand it to convey the idea that those who are under it, are exposed to its penalty; or are under condemnation and exposed to the wrath of God. But the 21st verse of chap. iv, completely refutes the idea of its being the Moral Law, if our view in this, as a church, is correct. For who in the exercise of their common faculties could desire to be under the Moral Law, if the sense of that phrase, is to be under its penalty? But if we understand that the Galatians desired to be under any rites or ceremonies which do not belong to the gospel, but did belong to the law dispensation, this would be quite a different thing. And the propriety of the application of that phrase would be apparent. 7. As further evidence to prove what law was here referred to, Abraham's two sons are introduced; the one by a bond-maid, and the other by a free-woman. Chap. iv, 22, 23. In verse 24 Paul says, "Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants." Here we have the key that unlocks the whole mystery of the book of Galatians. It will be useless here to introduce any kind of an argument to show that Paul was not abruptly introducing a subject foreign to, or in any degree different from the one in the preceding chapters; nor would I try to prove that the covenants here introduced, are a continuation of the leading subject of the former chapters, thrown in to elucidate it. For these, with a little reflection, must become self evident to all. Now if it can be shown that the first covenant embraced the same people, the same period of time, and identically the same services that the law dispensation did, then this question must be forever settled. And in order to this, I would refer the reader to Heb. ix. "Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances (margin ceremonies) of divine service and a worldly sanctuary." And Paul goes on with a description of these services, till in verse 10 he gets down to meats, and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them till the time of reformation. Read the whole chapter. Thus we have proof that the first covenant comprehended the same that the law dispensation did. This first covenant had all these; i. e., it possessed all these ceremonies, sanctuary and all, that pertained to that dispensation. 8. And lastly. The reader is referred to chap. v, 3. "For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law." The phrase, whole law, is proof in itself what law is referred to. Whole law, means all law that had ever been given. If any dissent from this opinion, and think it means the whole of Ten Commandments, such are asked if they will inform us why the man who is circumcised is any more a debtor to do the whole of the Ten Commandments, than the man who is not circumcised? True, the phrase, whole law, (as in James ii, 10,) when applied to the present dispensation would include but the Moral Law. But that Paul did reprove the Galatians for adherence to some things pertaining to a former dispensation; and that he did bring up and compare the two; and in each of the four first chapters show by striking contrast the eligibility of the latter, is hoped will soon become apparent to all. The testimony adduced above, to bear on the points at issue, exists inherently within the book of Galatians itself. No collateral testimony being brought from any other book in the Bible; because there are no parallel cases except those recorded in Acts xv.
S. P.
Roxbury, Vt.