(Continued.)
There were two laws in the former dispensation, one of which was a ministration of the other, and was of no utility until the other had been transgressed. The Jews sustained a similar relation to the ten commandments that we do; and to the ceremonial law, that we do to the gospel. In fact, the ordinances of the Jewish church pointed forward to a sacrifice for sin (transgression of a previously-existing law) as the ordinances of the Christian church point back to the same sacrifice: the law of ten commandments being the same in both dispensations.
It is with reference to this that Paul says [2 Cor. iii, 7-11], "But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious. For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious, had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious."
Those who believe in the abolition of the ten commandments, use this text as an argument to prove it. We consider it a decisive argument against them.
1. There was no ministration written and engraven on tables of stone. But as the penalty of death was attached to the violation of each of the ten commandments, they could be termed, "death;" and the law which executed the penalty for violating them, could be termed the "ministration of death, written and engraven on stones:" it being "death," and not the ministration which was written on the tables of stone.
2. Other expressions not only show that it was the ministration which was done away, but they positively forbid the idea of the ten commandments' being done away. Verse 7 says, "The children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses, for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away." And verse 13 says, "And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face that the children of Israel could not look to the end of that which is abolished."
Mark! that which was covered with a vail is that which should be abolished. But the vail was not over the tables of stone, but on the face of Moses. Moses, at this time, was the only minister, and as all the ministration came through him, all the glory of it could be represented as hid behind the vail which covered his face. Moses held the tables in his hand; hence they were not covered with the vail. The children of Israel could look at them, but they could not look at that which was to be abolished; namely, the glory, representing that ministration. This argument we regard as invulnerable.
3. Verse 11 says: "For if that which was done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious." In the former dispensation there were (1.) The law, or ten commandments, and (2.) Its ministration, or the ceremonial law. In the foregoing, Paul teaches that one was done away, and that the other remains. This being true, we are compelled to take the position that the ten commandments are done away and the ceremonial law remains, or that the ceremonial law is done away and the ten commandments remain.
Again Paul says, "The law was added because of transgression, until the seed should come to whom the promises were made." Gal. iii, 19.
This added law could not have been the ten commandments. 1. The ten commandments were not added because of the transgression of some other law; but the ceremonial law was added because of the transgression of the ten commandments. For proof of this see Jer. vii, 21-23. Here God says, "Put your burnt-offerings to your sacrifices, and eat your flesh; for I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings and sacrifices; but this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God and ye shall be my people; and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you. But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imaginations of their evil heart, and went away backward and not forward."
Here we learn that ceremonies were not required of them until they had refused to obey the voice of God. The voice of God is the ten commandments. Proof, Deut. v, 22. That the ten commandments were what the children of Israel refused to obey, is evident from verse 9, where he says, "Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not?"
This testimony is greatly strengthened by the testimony of Neh. ix, 13, 14. "Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments and true laws, good statutes and commandments: and madest known unto them thy holy Sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant."
Here, in addition to the "true laws" which God spake on mount Sinai, he has given laws and statutes by the hand of Moses. Now which of the two is the "added" law? I leave the candid to answer.
But was it added because of transgression? I think it was. God says [Eze. xx, 24, 25], "Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my Sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers' idols, wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live." What can be plainer? He names the commandments which they have transgressed, which has made it necessary to add the other law.
But it is objected that the added law is one which "polluted them in their own gifts." In this the objector errs; for God says, "And I polluted them in their own gifts." Here the polluting was done in addition to the adding of the law.
2. It was added "until the seed should come," only. But the ten commandments last till heaven and earth pass away. Matt. v, 17-19. The law which offered sacrifices did last until the seed came, or until Jesus proved himself to be the true Messiah, by being put to death "in the midst of the week." Dan. ix, 27. There "the sacrifice and oblation should cease." There the typical offerings were swallowed up in their antitype; and the law which offered them ceased.
Again, Paul, in speaking of the same law, says, "It was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ." Gal. iii, 24. The ten commandments did not point to Christ. It is true they would teach a man that he was a sinner, but they pointed to no remedy; while the offerings of the ceremonial law did bring those who accepted of them, to Christ. Every offering pointed to Christ as being the only one through whom they could obtain remission, after having violated the law of God.
In Col. ii, 14-16, Paul speaks of Christ's having blotted out "the handwriting of ordinances" (the law which was added because of transgression—the schoolmaster that pointed to Christ), and adds, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath-days, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ." Here I think all must agree that it is the ceremonial law that contained the feast-days, new moons, and Sabbaths, which shadowed forth that which is of Christ; hence the ceremonial law is the schoolmaster. For further testimony upon this point see Heb. viii, 5; ix, 23; x, 1.
In the above scriptures you will learn that the law "which stood in meats, and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation," not only led those who followed it, to Christ, but to his ministration in the heavenly sanctuary.
3. "To bring us," is supplied in Gal. iii, 24. It is evident that there is an ellipsis here that must be supplied with some word, but I think the words "to point us to Christ," would be preferable. At least they would not be so liable to be misapprehended.
But if any doubts yet remain as to what law is the subject of the book of Galatians, they will be removed by reading some of the various places where the word law occurs. It is unnecessary for us to give all the places of the occurrence of the word. Let the reader examine them at his leisure.
1. Chap. ii, 14-16. "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? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."
Here174Paul informs us that Peter dissembled not in keeping the ten commandments, but in compelling the Gentiles to live as do the Jews, and then shows that we are not justified by the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ. Thus the contrast is drawn between a law by which the Jew expected justification or pardon for his sins, and the faith of Christ, by which God's people now obtain justification. The same contrast is drawn by the same apostle in Acts xiii, 38, 39: "Be it known unto you, therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." No one can read Gal. ii, 14-16 in the light of this latter text, without understanding that "the law of Moses," or the ceremonial law, is the one referred to here. The phrase "law of Moses," never refers to the ten commandments.
2. In Gal. iii, 10, we read: "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 written in the book of THE LAW, to do them." If the ten commandments are the subject of remark here, then we should expect to find the writing referred to, in them; but it is not there; it is in Deut. xxvii, 26.
Again, the text should read, "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written on the tables of stone," if that is the law to which he refers. The words, "book of the law," render it certain that the ceremonial law is the one of which Paul speaks. There are no "curses" written in the ten commandments; but Paul makes the two following quotations from the law of which he is speaking: (1) "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law;" and (2) "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." This last quotation is taken from Deut. xxi, 23.
3. In Gal. iv, 21-26, Paul introduces an allegory in the following language: "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bond-maid, the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bond-woman was born after the flesh, but he of the free woman was by promise, which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants, the one from Mount Sinai which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar; for this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is and is in bondage with her children: but Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all."
Our antinomian friends suppose that this allegory teaches the abolition of the ten commandments; and if the ten commandments are the subject under consideration, I acknowledge myself unable to fairly meet their positions; for what he calls "the law" in verse 21, he calls "the covenant that gendereth to bondage" in verse 24. But I do not believe that there was one of the ten commandments in the old or new covenants. The ten commandments are "God's covenant," not made with any people, but obedience to which, was enjoined upon all. Rom. iii, 19. First and second are relative terms; so are old and new. The old covenant relates to the new, and the new to the old.
The ten commandments existed before the old covenant was made with the children of Israel, and will exist after the new has accomplished its work. That the ten commandments were a perfect covenant in and of themselves, we prove thus: "And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." Ex. xxxiv, 28. "And he declared unto you his covenant which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments, and he wrote them upon two tables of stone." Deut. iv, 13.
Here the ten commandments ARE A COVENANT, not a part of a covenant. Now if it be true that the ten commandments are the old covenant (and they are all of the covenant to which they belong), then they are gone; for the old covenant has given place to the new. But the truth is, the ten commandments are no part of the old covenant. The old covenant was the remedial scheme through which they approached God after having violated his law of ten commandments. The new covenant is the plan through which we approach God and obtain remission for our sins. When Paul wrote to the Galatians, the Jews expected justification, or remission, through the ceremonial law, or old covenant. They expected to go to old Jerusalem, into the old temple, and through the old priests offer the old sacrifices, and thus claim justification on the conditions of the old covenant. But Paul informs them that Jerusalem which is, is in bondage, hence could not give liberty to her children; that we must now approach the "building not made with hands," the new sanctuary in the New Jerusalem, "by a new and living way." A new victim has been offered, and a new Priest is officiating in the new temple, after a new order. In this consists the new covenant. As none of the ten commandments are in the old covenant, so none of them are in the new. But the old and new are both plans through which the violators of the ten commandments can obtain mercy.
4. Verse 21 gives us to understand that certain persons desired to be under the law. Certainly Paul does not intend to be understood that these persons desired to be condemned by the ten commandments. But if they constitute the law spoken of, this is his meaning. It is much more rational to suppose that they desired to obey the ceremonial law and thus be justified from their past transgressions of the ten commandments.
5. Gal. v, 1-4. "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, 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. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace."
Here Christ has freed them from something that Paul calls a yoke of bondage. As to what the yoke of bondage is may be seen by turning to Acts xv, where you will find that some of the Pharisees thought it was needful to "command the disciples to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses." See verse 5. But the disciples thought it was a yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear. Verse 10. Again, Paul is opposing circumcision, a thing not commanded in the ten commandments. But it is commanded in the ceremonial law, although it was instituted before that law. Verse 3 says that "every man that is circumcised is a debtor to do the whole law." But surely circumcision does not make it necessary to obey the law of ten commandments, which are binding upon all, whether they are circumcised or not. See Rom. iii, 19; 1 Cor. vii, 19. Other arguments might be given upon this point, but this must suffice.
(To be Continued.)