LAW by Eld. E. Goodrich

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Nov 1, 1864

LAW.

By Eld. E. Goodrich

ITS OBJECT—HOW FULFILLED.

BY ELD. E. GOODRICH.

THE term law signifies a rule of action. Generally it is used to signify some rule of action given by some one having authority to enforce obedience. And although the term may with propriety be applied to almost all the varied avocations of life, yet the use the Scriptures make of it, is to signify those religious, those Heaven-ordained rules, that God has given for the training and government of man.

And as the term, even in the Scriptures, does not and cannot always signify the same thing, no more and no less, we may observe that law, whether used in the divine or in human governments, may be divided into three classes.

In the first, we have commandment or precept law; in the second, we have ceremonial law; and in the third, we have penal law.

Before noticing the above-named divisions, it may be remarked that it is the nature of all law to be absolute and inflexible. A law that can, or could be turned one way or the other at the pleasure of the party expounding the same, is an absurdity. The object of all just law is to express, guard, and secure, the rights of all parties concerned. And what expression or security would there be in an indefinite, changeable law?

The office of precept law, is to define those rights and duties that grow out of the relations sustained in the case. It is to command what may, and forbid what may not, be done. As a marked instance of precept law, we may read Gen. ii, 16-17: "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it."

The design of ceremonial law, is to define and witness to certain existing or designed relations. By this law kings are crowned, priests are ordained, the marriage relation is formed, and a thousand other different offices and relations are made known.

The object of penal law, is to restrain the would-be guilty, and to vindicate the majesty of an insulted and offended lawgiver.

The main and central, the all-absorbing object of law in all its different parts, whether considered separately or as a body, is order and harmony. The aggregate misery of this world is but the garnered fruits of discord, or law-breaking; while Heaven itself is but the harvest of holy harmony.

All that we need to labor or pray for is, "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in Heaven." And in turning to the Scriptures to learn what they teach concerning law as concerning any other subject, we should remember that much, if not every thing, depends on a right application of testimony.

Concerning the teachings of the Old-Testament Scriptures on this subject, there is little or no dispute. The burden of controversy is as to what is taught in the New. And here some teach one thing and some another. All cannot be right. And either the Scriptures do not agree in what they teach, (a thought we should not indulge) or else some who read are mistaken in their understanding of it.

One fact that impresses itself upon our minds as we read is, that the subject of law as a distinct question, either its claim upon us, its perpetuity, or its fallibility, is rarely stated in the New Testament. Most of the allusions are to be regarded as incidental: It is not so much taught itself, as used for teaching something else. It is generally used for enforcing something that is taught, or for settling some disputed question. There are, however, exceptions to this general rule, which will receive attention.

As there are different kinds of law referred to in the New Testament, and most of the references are merely incidental, in order to understand the kind or class of law referred to, we need to understand the subject upon which the writer or speaker is treating. And if we would understand the estimate the writer or speaker had of the law to which he referred, we must learn the use he makes of the same.

As an example embracing both sides of the above-mentioned points, both the kind of law referred to, and the estimate the speaker had of said law, we may read the language of John the Baptist to Herod, Mark vi, 18: "It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife." The law referred to in this case is manifestly that law that forbade just such conduct as Herod's. And that John believed in the authority of said law is evident, because he used the same to enforce the reproof; which he would not have done had he believed the law to be dead. Neither can we suppose that Jesus or any of the apostles would make use of a dead law, to give authority to what they taught. In this case the thing preached would be as worthless as the authority by which it was enforced.

As an instance in which different classes of law are understood and implied, we may refer to the case of the woman brought to the Saviour. John viii. As sin, in every case, is the transgression of precept law, and as the crime of which the woman was guilty was plainly stated, the kind of law and even the specific commandment transgressed, is easily understood. It was moral precept law. And as it is the work of penal law to inflict punishment, and we have the expression, verse 5, "Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned," we easily understand that penal law is meant. The manner in which Christ disposed of the question, "But what sayest thou?" shows the estimate that he had of each class of law. The answer to the woman, verse 11, "Go and sin no more," shows that he regarded the law transgressed as binding and sacred. The answer, "Neither do I condemn thee" (doom thee to be stoned), shows that he did not teach the penal law as a present truth.

It ought to be observed, however, at this point, as the above case may be used to illustrate New-Testament teaching, that death by stoning was never the full and final punishment of sin. It was only a temporary civil administration of the law of God, whereby he sought to preserve a pure people on the earth unto the coming of Christ. And undoubtedly it embraces the principal idea in the language of Paul. Gal. iii, 19. "Wherefore, then, serveth the law? It was added, because of transgression, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made." And it corresponds with "the ministration of death written and engraven in stones," the glory of which ministration was to be done away by the superabundant glory of the ministration of righteousness by faith. It is

well to have laws to provide for our present good, yet that the law of God has higher contemplations than mere temporal consequences, is a matter too obvious to every Bible reader to need comment. But how can a law exist without a penalty? It cannot. But the final punishment of sin is everlasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of his power; it is the second death. And as the question is often asked, and apparently with triumph, How can a law exist without a penalty? it may be asked, How is it that all the New Testament writers and teachers preach the penalty for sin, if "the law of God is all abolished," "nailed to the cross," "done away?" A living penalty for a dead law is unaccountable. As well talk of a living law that has neither power nor disposition to punish offenders. To suppose that either could be a Bible doctrine would be a great error. Better teach that there is a living law, and a certain and fearful punishment awaiting the finally impenitent.

But whether there is a living or dead law, or no law at all, for this age, we will not now decide. One very important suggestion that ought to have been offered before, but may be made at this point is, that in searching the Scriptures to learn what they teach concerning any matter, the first and perhaps the most important thing is to ascertain the question presented before the mind for consideration. For generally, to mistake the question is to misapply the testimony used.

The necessity of the above caution is evident from several considerations: one is, that even the obvious import of plain language is hardly to be relied upon where the object for which it was originally used differs from the application that we seek to make of it.

Another is, that it is frequently taught that the prophets believed thus and so, and the apostles preached so and so, when the fact is that the question that we seek to have solved by their testimony, was never even stated, much less discussed, by them.

The subject of law, as above noticed, is rarely discussed in the New Testament. It is used as authority for teaching something else. But as we never use a doubtful rule to determine a disputed question, the bare fact that it is thus used is the strongest of arguments that its authority, both in the minds of those who used it, and those to whom it was addressed, was beyond dispute. The usual manner of introducing and referring to law, is that of pointing out what it says, what it does, or what it is, at the same time making a quotation of some language, without telling either where it is to be found, or the class to which it belongs. The style is the same as if one should say, "The poet hath said," then giving the language of some well-known author, without the name. And it corresponds with the manner in which we treat all scripture testimony when we say, "The prophet hath said," or "The apostle teaches;" at the same time quoting the language without the name of the prophet or apostle referred to. The name of the author is known by our familiarity with the language.

And as additional instances, showing that there are specific and different classes of laws referred to on different occasions, and for different purposes, also that we are to understand the kind or particular law referred to by the nature of the question discussed, we may read a few such scriptures as the following:

"And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days, that they might accuse him. And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days." Matt. xii, 10-12.

The object for which law is referred to and used on this occasion is to settle a dispute. The question was not the perpetuity or sacredness of law, nor the sacredness of the Sabbath day; these were not disputed; but the question was concerning what might or might not be done on the Sabbath day. And there is no necessity for supposing that any more or that any other kind of law is referred to, than just that law by which the sacredness of the Sabbath was guarded.

Again, "For, the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually, make the comers thereunto perfect." Heb. x, 1. The above may be regarded as a general reference to that entire class of ceremonial law, including everything necessary to a typical system of worship; all of which, as the apostle in the entire epistle labored to show, ceased when the body which was of Christ, shadowed forth, was reached.

Again, "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 (the Law-giver) 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." The apostle here refers to that class of moral precept law, that specifies our duties to our fellow-men. And as he uses this law to enforce what he taught, there can be no doubt that he believed it binding on all Christians.

But if we wish to investigate the claims of law fully, as presented in the New Testament, the proper place at which to begin is the language of the Saviour. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven." Matt. v, 17, 18, 19. Here the question is plainly stated and discussed, both negatively and positively. And there is nothing lacking, either in time, place, occasion or form of expression, to place the subject in the strongest possible light, and to make it all that argument or interest could. And whether the Saviour wished to teach the supremacy and perpetuity of the law or not, it is certain that had this been his object, he could not have used language better calculated to serve such a purpose. But if it be true, as some modern reformers (?) teach, that the law of God, of which the ten commandments formed the most considerable part, deceased with John, the language of Christ was sadly out of time and place; and it would have been a great deal nearer the truth, if he had said, Think not that I am come to teach the law or the prophets, I came not to teach, but to release men from the teachings of the law and the prophets. For verily I say unto you, the law has "deceased," and the prophets were only until John. Whosoever, therefore, shall follow the letter, though it be of the greatest of these commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be shut up and cursed.

(To be Continued.)