WHEN DID THE LAW DIE? by M. Hull

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 18, 1859

WHEN DID THE LAW DIE?

By M. Hull

THERE are almost as many different times given for, and as many theories taught concerning, the death of the law, as there are theologians who talk about it. However well theologians may agree on other points it is evident that there is a perfect "Babel" here. For instance one will say, "I believe the law was abolished by John the Baptist," for the Lord says, (Luke xvi, 16,) "The law and the prophets were until John, since that time the kingdom of God is preached and every man presseth into it." Go to hear another one preach and he will tell you that the law was abolished by Christ, for Paul says "it (the law) was added because of transgression, until the seed should come, to whom the promise was made." Another will tell you that it was abolished by the apostles, for the apostles decided at the conference, that there should be no greater burden bound upon the church than "these necessary things, that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication, from which if ye keep yourselves ye shall do well. Fare ye well." Acts xv, 28, 29.

We will examine the above scripture facts, and see if either of them, or all of them combined, kill the law of God.

1. The law and the prophets were until John, since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. Does this text teach that there is no law or prophets this side of John? I think not. "There hath not arisen a greater prophet than John." Luke vii, 28. Our Saviour was also a prophet. See Acts iii, 22, 23; vii, 37, 38. There have also been prophets since the death of Christ. Acts xxi, 10; 1 Cor. xiv, 37. Even in this dispensation we are exhorted to covet the gift of prophecy. 1 Cor. xiv, 1, 39. And further, when we get down to where the church are looking for the coming of the Saviour, which they are not warranted in doing until the signs are fulfilled, we are exhorted to despise not prophecyings. 1 Thess. v, 20. Then the gift of prophecy did not come with John the Baptist. The question now is, was the law abolished by John? But if the law was abolished by John, we are left from John's day forward without law; and "where no law is, there is no transgression," hence, there are no sinners since the days of John. But say our opponents, "There has been a new law given." By whom? How many commandments are there in it? What is the first commandment in it?

The first commandment given by John is to repent, but is that the first commandment in the new law? Repentance presupposes that man is a sinner, and "sin is the transgression of the law;" without the law there can be no sin. Rom. iv, 15. Hence, when John preached repentance, the law must have been in force, and those to whom John preached, transgressors of it. With the above facts before us, we greatly marvel how any one can suppose the law was abolished in the days of John.

We next inquire, is it necessary to abolish the law and the prophets in the days of John, to make the words of the Saviour in Luke xvi, 16, true? We think not. The law and prophets were the only guide until John. After which the preaching of the kingdom of God was attached. The preaching of the kingdom of God did not abolish the law and prophets, but aided them in accomplishing their work.

2. The law was added because of transgression, until the seed should come to whom the promise was made. Gal. iii, 19. Here we are willing for the sake of the argument to admit that the law was only added because of transgression until the seed should come, but when the seed comes, he hitches another "till" on which reaches to the passing of the heavens and earth. Matt. v, 17-19. But we have proved that the word "until" in Luke xvi, 16, does not prove that the law was abolished in the days of John, nor does the word "till" in Gal. iii, 19 necessarily prove that the law was abolished when the seed came. Let us here examine the Saviour's teaching and see whether it abolished the law.

He does not commence by saying, I give you a new law, and after you have transgressed it I want you to repent. Nor does he give the precepts of a new law, but commenced by saying "Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matt. iv, 17. His teaching is based upon the acknowledged existence of the law. Had man never transgressed, he could not be required to repent, and if the law which he had violated were dead, he could no more be required to repent, than I could for violating the territorial laws of Iowa after their repeal.

Our Saviour does not especially labor to prove the existence of the law, that not being a disputed point in his day, but rather takes the existence of the law for granted, and bases his teachings upon it. Thus, he says, whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them, for this is the law and the prophets. Matt. vii, 12. Would not the same principle which led the Messiah to make the above declaration, lead him, if necessary, to say "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy," "for this is the law and the prophets."

3. But we must pass to the third position taken by the no-law-ites, viz., That it was abolished by the apostles. And here I must say that that theory must be hard pushed for evidence, which resorts to Acts xv to prove the abolition of the law of ten commandments, for not one of them is mentioned during the whole conference.

The apostles have not written "expunged" across the face of the decalogue; nor have they taken up one of them and said it is repealed. Then what evidence can our no-law friends draw from the apostolic council? Why, say they, the discussion was about the law, and the decision was that they were to obey none of it but the part which they specified. But does not this prove too much? The apostles did not specify one of the ten commandments. The conclusion is, therefore, not one of the ten commandments is binding upon us. We have the privilege of having other gods, making and worshiping graven images, breaking the Sabbath, disobeying our parents, killing, committing adultery, stealing, bearing false witness, and coveting our neighbor's goods. Believest thou all this?

The fact is, the discussion was not whether they should or should not obey the ten commandments, but it was concerning circumcision and the law of Moses. Lev. v, 5.

If the apostles abolished the law, we are left without law, and hence, without sin, for "sin is the transgression of the law," and "where no law is there is no transgression." But if we are kept without sin, we need no Saviour. Then why preach "a godly sorrow that worketh repentance unto salvation?" 2 Cor. vii, 10. But our opponents say we are not left without law, for the apostles have given us a new one. I would ask when? and where? how many commandments are there in it? which is the first commandment? Here is the place for them to show themselves lawyers. The answer (as given by an opposer to me) is that the new law commenced being published on the day of pentacost. But this is too soon for the theory which I am examining, for the old one did not die until it was slain by the apostles at the council. Then the world is for a period of eighteen years under both old and new laws! But will our friends be so kind as to tell us what the first commandment in the law given on the day of pentacost is. They must answer it is repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Acts ii, 38. They will. Then what commandment takes the place of the one which says "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

Thus we have swapped off a natural moral duty, for a positive arbitrary one. Peter tells them to be baptized for the remission of sins. But sin is the transgression of the law; hence, Peter bases his preaching upon the law which they had transgressed. They had broken the sixth commandment which says, "Thou shalt not kill." Peter accuses them of having crucified and slain the prince of life.

The fact is, the whole gospel system is based upon the law, hence, the moment the law is stricken out of existence the gospel becomes a nullity. Dear reader, may you and I be found obeying both the law and gospel. M. HULL.