THE LAW OF GOD

THE  LAW  OF  GOD :
(Excerpts taken from original)
 AN EXAMINATION OF THE TESTIMONY OF BOTH TESTAMENTS.
BY J. H. WAGGONER - The Advent Review Office - Rochester, N. Y. - 1854


“Is Christ the end of the law in such manner that we may transgress it? The transgression of the law is sin, or unrighteousness; but it is not said that he is the end of the law for unrighteousness, but for righteousness, or obedience…[Heb. xiii, 7,8; 1 Pet. I, 9; James v, 11]…. Now the law was ordained unto life, because it is a just standard of morals; but transgressors can obtain life only through Christ; and we understand this scripture to mean that the ultimate object or design of the law is accomplished in the person of Christ, who takes away the carnal mind, bestows upon us a moral character, and brings us to obedience.


Many have been made to stumble over the letter to the Romans, supposing that Paul’s reasoning did tend to make void the law through faith. But we trust that the opposite has been shown to the satisfaction of all candid minds -- that  thus far God’s law stands firm on the authority of the New Testament. But the question now arises, Did Paul, in writing to the Romans, contradict what he had written to the Galatians two years before?  We cannot believe that he did; and as he has maintained the perpetuity of the law in his letter to the Romans, in order that the two harmonize, he must also maintain it in that to the Galatians; and in our examination of this epistle, if we “find some things hard to be understood,” let us not wrest them to our own destruction, but compare them with the other scriptures, and thus ascertain the mind of the Spirit.


We have stated our belief that the Saviour and the Apostles spoke of the same law that the Prophets wrote of, because they drew no line of distinction, but regarded it in the same light, as possessed of the same nature, its observance securing the same great reward, and its transgression attended with the same fatal consequences. For the same reason we conclude that the same law is spoken of in Galatians and Romans; that the word law, whenever it is used in the epistle of James, or those to the Galatians and Romans, has reference to the moral law of God, the ten commandments, except when directly qualified, as in Rom. Vii, 23, 25; viii,2; and Gal. vi, 2. But the same term in Hebrews always has reference to the Levitical law; the precepts of the moral code being spoken of in the plural, “laws.” Heb. Viii, 10. That this word [law] is used in reference to more than one law in the New Testament, we have briefly noticed; and an examination of the nature and objects of these two laws must convince all that they cannot be regarded as one and the same, and are never confounded in the sacred writings. As we have dwelt somewhat at length upon the nature of the moral law, we will consider in contrast the nature of the ceremonial or Levitical law.


A moral precept cannot possibly be typical; but is of itself holy, just and good. But the Levitical law was typical. It was a system of types and shadows. The priest under it served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things. Its offerings were remembrances of sin.  Heb. X, 3. The priesthood was instituted that offerings might be made to god through them; and the offerings were made to atone for sin. When an individual brought his offering to the priest, it was an acknowledgment on his part that he had sinned; the victim was slain to signify that he, as a sinner, was worthy of death. Thus it is evident that the whole system was instituted to show the nature and desert of sin, and the method of making an atonement for it. But if no sin existed, no offering would be required; therefore the sin laid back of, or existed before, the offering. But sin is the transgression of the law; hence the law was transgressed before any system of offerings was required; and the Levitical law was instituted because the pre-existing moral law was transgressed. A priest serves as a mediator; but if man were already justified before God, he would require no mediator. Had man kept the law he would have been justified -- he would not have had sin, and of course there would have been no necessity for a sin-offering. Here the ministration of the priest, and the law over which he ministers, are clearly distinct. The sin must be antecedent to the atonement for sin. The Levitical law being typical, pointed to Christ, and the death of Christ must have been determined before the types of his work could be instituted. The necessity of his death arouse from man’s transgression. “He dies for our sins.”  But if there was but one law, and that containing types and shadows, then it is impossible to show what that law was given for; and if the moral law that existed previous to the death of Christ, does not exist now, how can he mediate in the new covenant for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant? Heb. Ix, 15.


Again, the difference between the two laws is shown in that the ceremonies of the Levitical law were not acceptable while the precepts of the moral law were disregarded. The types pointed to Christ; but Christ came to save his people from their sins, not in their sins, and to cause grace to reign through righteousness, not through unrighteousness. Therefore if those offerings had been accepted of the Lord, while the person who offered them continued to commit the crimes for which he sought forgiveness, then the Levitical law would not have “served to the example and shadow” of Christ’s ministration. The Lord said, “Hear, O earth; Behold I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts; because they have not hearkened unto my word, nor to my law, but rejected it.  To what purpose cometh there to me incense from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far country? Your burnt-offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me.” Jer. Vi, 19, 20. If observing the law consisted in offering sacrifices, then they could not be said to have rejected the law while they made the offerings. The complaint is not that they had not brought sacrifices and offerings, but that they had not hearkened to his law, but rejected it; and for this reason their offerings were not acceptable.


That God’s law was something entirely distinct from these sacrifices, is further shown in Jer. Vii, 22, 23: “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 or sacrifices. But this thing I commanded them, saying, Obey my voice and I will be your God and you shall be my people.”  When they heard his voice a few days after this commandment was given, he spoke the ten commandments in the hearing of all Israel. Ex. Xix, 5, 6; xx, 1-22; Deut. Iv, 12,13.


The Apostle to the Hebrews says that the law had a shadow of good things to come: then that law was certainly typical. Its offerings could not make perfect, because the blood offered by it could not take away sin.  The law of which he here speaks had sacrifices and offerings; but the law of God, the law of moral precepts, does not speak “ concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices.” Thus, by comparison, we find that two different laws are spoken of in the New Testament: one which is not made void through faith in Christ, which he came not to destroy; and another which he blotted out, and nailed to his cross. One a spiritual, holy, just and good law, the doers of which would be justified, by which is the knowledge of sin, of which Paul discourses to the Romans; the other, treated of in the epistle to the Hebrews, weak and unprofitable, carnal, making nothing perfect, containing mere shadows of good things to come. By the same method of comparison, we are led
To the conclusion that one and the same law is spoken of to the Romans and Galatians; and also by the fact that the declarations in Galatians cannot be made to apply to the ceremonial law.


The letter to the Galatians is supposed to have been written about two years before that to the Romans, and on that account might have claimed the first investigation; but many are ready to admit that the Apostle to the Romans reasons concerning the moral law, who will not make the same admission respecting his letter to the Galatians; therefore we have given that our first attention, and proved, we trust, that not a single declaration has been found therein which can be referred to the ceremonial or Levitical law. We are now prepared to examine that to the Galatians, and expect that all will agree with us that this treats solely of the moral law, if an analogy can be shown between the main positions in the two epistles. Two expressions are found in Romans, [Chap. Vii, 23; viii, 2] which do not refer to the ten commandments; nor yet to the Levitical law; but the only place in Galatians where law is used in reference to any thing but the ten commandments, is in Chap. Vi, 2: “the law of Christ.” If this declaration is found to be correct, and it can be shown that the Apostle’s reasoning tends to prove the perpetuity of the law of which it treats, then the epistle to the Galatians may be considered a strong hold by those who “delight in the law of God.”


To whom, and under what circumstances, did the Apostle write this letter? His declaration of what he said to Peter at Antioch, some six years before, shows that they had been troubled with humanizing teachers, who did not understand that justification was obtained wholly through Christ “without the law.” Rom. Iii, 19-23. This is also shown in Gal. iv, 21; v, 1-4, but this does not prove that they were Jews to whom he wrote, or that Judaism was the only error with which they were in danger of being affected. It has been supposed by some that, although this was “written to the churches of Galatia,” these churches were composed of Jewish converts resident in that country; but the expressions of Paul in Chap. I, 13, 14, evidently contradicts this. He told them they had heard of his conversation in times past in “the Jews’ religion.” …


It has also been supposed that Gal. iv, 8-10, refers to the ceremonies of the Levitical law, and must have been written to those who had observed that law --”When ye knew not God,  ye did service to them which by nature are no Gods, “ and in referring again to this service he says, “Ye observe days and months and times and years.” The ceremonies of the Levitical law were never contrary to the knowledge of God; never observed by those who knew not God; nor was their observance indicative of a “service to them which by nature are no gods;” inasmuch  as they were required in the service of the true God under the former dispensation; so that these expressions plainly prove the contrary. But of this we shall speak more at length when we come to an examination of this chapter.


It is declared in Rom. Iii, 23, that all have sinned, and this declaration is based on the authority of the scriptures; and let it be remarked, that in the New Testament dispensation the Apostle quotes from the Old Testament to prove that Jews and Gentiles were alike sinners.  But this scripture could have no bearing on the point, if the Gentiles were not amenable to the law in the Old Testament. Neither would it be in point if the law which existed at the time the scripture was written had passed away before the apostle quoted it; yet he has adduced it as the proof, and we are satisfied to rest it there, and consider them sinners on that authority. As Jews and Gentiles are all sinners, the Jew has no pre-eminence, but must  come to Christ for justification the same as the Gentile. But Peter “was to be blamed,” because he separated himself, and compelled the Gentiles to live as the Jews, thereby building again the distinction which had been destroyed by the manifestation of God’s righteousness through faith in Christ. Rom. Iii, 21-23; Eph. Ii, 13, 14. The remarks respecting the law, in this chapter are parallel with those in Romans. By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. For I through the law am dead to the law that I might live unto God. Gal. ii, 16, 19.  See Rom. Iii, 20; vi, 11; vii, 4, 9.It might be inferred from Gal. iii, 2-5, that he is no longer speaking of the moral law; but we must remember that justification cannot be obtained by a law, however holy and just it may be, after it is transgressed; and those who receive the Spirit or work miracles, must necessarily do so by faith, and not by the works of the law. But this argues nothing against the law, as it does not cease to be holy because it does not justify the transgressor; on the contrary, we could have no regard for a law which had not power to hold the transgressor under condemnation. If the transgressor of the law can justly escape its penalty, then the law itself is unjust, and should not be enforced….[Gal. iii, 7,9, 10, 12]…that the Apostle is here speaking of the moral law, is evident, as it is a law that  not only curses the transgressor, but by observing which a man would live. Verse 12. See Lev. Xviii, 5; Eze. Xx, 11, 21. From the curse of this law Christ has redeemed us being made a curse for us, that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ. Verses 13, 14. Two important points are presented in these verses: (1.) Christ has redeemed the Gentiles from the curse of this law. (2.) the curse of this law, unless removed by Christ, stands between us and the blessing of Abraham. That the work of redemption reaches the Gentiles none will deny; but that it reaches beyond the jurisdiction of this law, cannot be shown. This law holds the Gentiles under the curse, because by it is the knowledge of sin, and by it both Jews and Gentiles are proved sinners. But if the law was not given to the Gentiles, we fail to see how Christ can redeem them from its curse…. 
But God has promised that in Abraham and in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed. Gen. xxii, 18. Christ is the seed referred  to in the promise; [Gal.iii,16;] and he redeems the nations from the curse of the law in order to fulfill the promise, or that the blessing of Abraham may be conferred on them Some have contended that the law itself is a curse, standing between us and the blessing of Abraham; but this view is contradicted by verse 21, which directly declares that the is not against the promises of God. It is not the law that withholds the blessing, but it is the curse of the law; and this falls only on the transgressor; therefore the transgression of the law deprives the transgressor of blessing of Abraham; and this is a strong confirmation of what we have proved from other scriptures; viz., that the law is the condition of the Abrahamic covenant, and that the faithfully obedient secure the promised blessings. And on the supposition that the law stands disconnected from that covenant, or is not the condition on which it was based, it cannot be shown why the transgressor of the law is not entitled to the blessing of the covenant without redemption from the curse of the law.
If this law had been kept by all, none would have been under its curse; and then no mediator would have been needed to secure to man the blessing of God. When the law is transgressed it is not set aside, neither are they who have transgressed it justified by future obedience. Then it becomes necessary to keep, not only the Commandments of God, the great and universal Law-giver, but also the Faith of Jesus, the Mediator between God and man, the Redeemer from the curse of God’s violated law. In order to understand the Apostle’s argument in Galatians, the object of this redemption should be kept in view, which is, that the blessing of Abraham might come on those who are redeemed. The covenant under which these blessings are given, was confirmed in Christ; as he is the seed to whom the promises were made, in whom all nations were to be blessed. Verse 16, 17. This is also shown, in verse 8, to be the gospel covenant. As the promises of the gospel were made to Abraham, he is constituted the father of all believers; and as before shown, the condition being violated, the blessing is conferred on those only who can claim them on the promise of God through faith in the Mediator."












(Excerpts taken from original)  THE LAW OF GOD.
 AN EXAMINATION OF THE TESTIMONY OF BOTH TESTAMENTS.
BY J. H. WAGGONER - The Advent Review Office - Rochester, N. Y. - 1854