Your ShelfYour Projects

The Atonement—Part II

4%

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 15, 1863

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 22, No. 16.

Read the full edition

The Atonement—Part II.

By James White

THE DIVINE GOVERNMENT.

(Continued.)
As objections are stronger with some persons than even positive proof, it will not be amiss to notice a few objections urged against the perpetuity of the law of God, by those who would make it void through faith, and pervert the gospel to a system of license.
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."
It is unjustly inferred that the question of the existence of the law is here introduced. The translators saw that the passage was elliptical, but violated the laws of language by inserting the word "were" which does not make the sentence complete; the verb "is" being the antithesis of "were" the word "preached" is redundant. The following must be the correct view. The word or words understood or to be supplied must be antithetical to the words "is preached;" and therefore "were preached" would complete the sentence. The omission of these words prevents tautology, while nothing would require the omission of the word "were" if it alone belonged there. Now no one will claim that the law and the prophets ceased with John: even the ceremonial law remained in force later than the time of his death. Thus it is evident that the subject of the existence or continuance of the law and the prophets is not introduced in this scripture: therefore there is no objection in it.
Rom. vi, 14. "For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law but under grace."
It has been inferred from this that because we are under grace we are under no obligation to keep the law; and that by the introduction of a system of grace the law was abolished. But such an inference is very erroneous; for if the law which condemns (see Rom. iii, 19, 20; v, 13) were abolished by grace, then none can be under the law, and all must be under grace. But sin has the dominion over a majority of mankind, showing that they are not under grace; therefore they are under the law, and therefore the law is not abolished. The Christian was not under grace till he was converted, or till he became a Christian; or was changed from sin to obedience: and was therefore under the law till his conversion. But it says, "Sin shall not have dominion over them." Now sin is the transgression of the law: and it is further said that "to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness." Therefore, we are only under grace when the transgression of the law has no dominion over us; and only in the way of righteousness, when obedient to the law. This text, so far from helping the objector, plainly harmonizes with those scriptures which teach that Jesus came not to destroy the law, but to put away sin, the transgression of the law, from his people. Matt. i, 21; v, 17; 1 John iii, 4–8; Heb. ix, 26.
Rom. x, 4. "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth."
There are three points in this text which claim our attention. 1. Christ is not the end of the law in the sense of abolishing it; for he says himself that he came not to destroy it, and Paul says it is not made void. The word "end" is here used as it is in Jas. v, 11: "Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord," that is, the design or intention of the Lord. See also Rom. xiv, 9. Paul says the commandment was ordained unto life; which agrees with the scriptures I have quoted in reference to the law. But we have merited death by transgression, for "the wages of sin is death." Christ now fulfills the object or design of the law, by granting the forgiveness of sin, and bestowing eternal life.
2. He is the end or object of the law for righteousness. Unrighteousness is sin, and sin is the transgression of the law; this shows righteousness to be the equivalent of obedience. And Christ brings the sinner to obedience, as it is said in Rom. v, 19, "by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous, or obedient." He kept his Father's commandments, and calls upon us to follow him. He said "thy law is within my heart," and promises in the new covenant to write it also in the hearts of his people. Psa. xl, 8; Heb. viii, 10.
3. This is to every one that believeth. He is not the end of the law in any sense to the unbeliever. This proves that it does not mean the abolition of the law; but it shows that the object of the law is not accomplished in the unbeliever.
Gal. iii, 24, 25. "The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster."
This text is parallel with Rom. vi, 14, in noticing which, I have shown that the expression, "not under the law," does not necessarily contemplate its abolition, or a release from its obligation; but rather a release from its condemnation, which is only incurred by sin. In regard to the nature and perpetuity of the law here referred to, notice the following:
It is a law by which the doers will live. Verse 12. Of course life and death are suspended on it.
It is a law that held us under its curse till redeemed therefrom by Christ. Verse 13. This can refer to none but a moral law which curses the transgressor: but a moral law is necessarily perpetual.
It is a law, the curse of which rested upon the Gen-tiles. Verse 14. Of course they had transgressed it. See Rom. iii, 1–19.
It is a law, the curse of which stood between the sinner and the blessing of Abraham; it was not itself against the promises of God, but the curse prevents the blessing. Verses 14, 21. Of course it must be the law referred to in Gen. xxxi, 3–5; 1 Chron. xvi, 15–17; and Deut. iv, 12, 13; and was the basis of the Abrahamic promises or blessings. For, if it was not the basis of the Abrahamic covenant, its curse could no more deprive any of the blessing of Abraham, than the curse of British law could deprive me of American citizenship. But the blessing of Abraham is the blessing of the gospel: therefore the scripture teaches that the transgressor of this law is not entitled to the blessings of the gospel. True, Christ will redeem them if they come to him by faith; but faith will not make void the law, nor will Christ be the minister of sin. Rom. iii, 31; Gal. ii, 17.
Some will not admit that the law of God has any agency in conversion; and therefore think this expression, "to bring us to Christ," refers only to things applicable to an obsolete law. David, in Psa. xix, 7, says, "The law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul." True conversion is not merely emotional; it is a turning from wrong to right. And how shall this be effected if not by being convinced of wrong by the rule of right, and thereby led to embrace the Saviour who only can set us right? But "by the law is the knowledge of sin;" and we must all be instructed by the law in this knowledge before we come to Christ to any purpose.
To those who are inclined to think the law of God is abolished, I will add only this: There can, as I conceive, be but two reasons for its abolition. (1.) Because it was faulty in itself, and not worthy of being perpetuated; but this is a grave reflection on the wisdom of the lawgiver, and a direct contradiction of the scriptures I have quoted on that subject. (2.) Because the circumstances of the transgressors made it necessary. On this I will only refer the reader back to my remarks on the conditions of pardon.
As this law is holy, just, good, and perfect, it must be so in all its parts. No one part of a holy law can be impure, or of a perfect law be imperfect. But the man of sin, the papal power, despite its professions, has sought to corrupt and prevent or change the holy covenant. Dan. vii, 25. To establish the worship of images it has decided that the second commandment is ceremonial, and therefore not proper to be associated with moral laws. To introduce a festival day, the Roman Sun-day, it has decided that the fourth commandment is ceremonial, so far as it relates to the observance of a particular day, notwithstanding God blessed and sanctified the particular day on which he rested, to wit; the seventh day
"The Hebrew verb kadesh, here rendered sanctified, and in the fourth commandment rendered hallowed, is defined by Gesenius, "to pronounce holy, to sanctify: to institute any holy thing, to appoint." (Heb. Lex. p. 914, ed. 1854.) It is repeatedly used in the Old Testament for a public appointment or proclamation. Thus when the cities of refuge were set apart in Israel, it is written: "They appointed [margin, Heb. sanctified] Kadesh in Galilee in mount Naphtali, and Shechem in mount Ephraim." &c. This sanctification, or appointment of the cities of refuge, was by a public
announcement to Israel that these cities were set apart for that purpose. This verb is also used for the appointment of a public fast, and for the gathering of a solemn assembly. Thus it is written: "Sanctify [i. e., appoint] ye a fast, call a solemn assembly, gather the elders and all the inhabitants of the land into the house of the Lord your God." "Blow the trumpet in Zion, sanctify [i. e., appoint] a fast, call a solemn assembly." "And Jehu said, Proclaim [margin, Heb. sanctify] a solemn assembly for Baal." (Josh. xx, 7; Joel i, 14; ii, 15; 2 Kings x, 20, 21; Zeph. i, 7, margin). This appointment for Baal was so public, that all the worshipers of Baal in all Israel were gathered together. These fasts and solemn assemblies, were sanctified or set apart by a public appointment or proclamation of the fact. When therefore God set apart the seventh day to a holy use, it was necessary that he should state that fact to those who had the days of the week to use. Without such announcement the day could not be set apart from the others.
"But the most striking illustration of the meaning of this word, may be found in the record of the sanctification of mount Sinai. Ex. xix, 12, 23. When God was about to speak the ten commandments in the hearing of all Israel, he sent Moses down from the top of mount Sinai to restrain the people from touching the mount. "And Moses said unto the Lord, The people cannot come up to mount Sinai; for thou chargedest us, saying, Set bounds about the mount and sanctify it." Turning back to the verse where God gave this charge to Moses, we read: "And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves that ye go not up into the mount or touch the border of it." Hence to sanctify the mount was to command the people not to touch even the border of it, for God was about to descend in majesty upon it. In other words, to sanctify or set apart to a holy use mount Sinai, was to tell the people, that God would have them treat the mountain as sacred to himself; and thus also to sanctify the rest-day of the Lord was to tell Adam, that he should treat the day as holy to the Lord.
The declaration, "God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it," is not indeed a commandment for the observance of that day; but it is the record that such a precept was given to Adam. For how could the Creator "set apart to a holy use" the day of his rest, when those who were to use the day knew nothing of his will in the case? Let these answer who are able." J. N. Andrews' Hist. of the Sab., pp. 16-18.
In regard to the morality of this commandment, we may place it by comparison with any others, assured that it will be sustained by any argument that will prove their morality. Take the eighth for example. No one can be proved guilty by merely proving that he took and used a certain piece of property: beyond this it must be proved that the property was another's, to which he had no right. Thus this commandment rests upon the right of property; and if this were not recognized it would be a nullity. But surely, no one can prove a clearer right, or put forth a more positive claim to any property, than has the Lord, to the seventh day. Many times in his immutable word, has he told us it is his; that he has hallowed it; and he warns us against desecrating it, or appropriating it to our own use. If it be an immorality to take without license what our neighbor claims as his, how much more so, to take against God's positive prohibition what he claims as his own.
J. H. W.
(To be continued.)