The Perpetuity of the Royal
Law Pt. 1
Or, The Ten Commandments Not Abolished. Advent
and Sabbath Tract, No. 4.
By J. N. ANDREWS
IT is
painful to witness the various inconsistent and self-contradictory positions
resorted to by those who reject the Sabbath of the Lord. But of all the
positions adopted, none seem so dangerous, or fraught with such alarming
consequences, as the view that the law of God, by which the Sabbath is
enforced, has been abolished, and that we are, therefore, under no obligation
to remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy. The question whether God has
abolished his law or not, is, indeed, the main point at issue in the Sabbath
controversy; for when it is shown that law still exists, and that its
perpetuity is clearly taught in the New Testament, the question is most
conclusively settled, that the Sabbath is binding on us, and upon all men.
The
Sabbath of the Lord is embodied in the fourth commandment of the Decalogue.
This commandment stands in the midst of nine moral precepts which Jehovah,
after uttering with his own voice, wrote with his own finger on the tables of
stone. These nine commandments stand around the Sabbath of the Lord, an
impregnable bulwark, which all the enemies of that sacred institution in vain
attempt to destroy. It is evident that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment
cannot be set aside unless the Decalogue can be destroyed. Hence the enemies of
the Sabbatic institution have brought their heaviest artillery to bear upon the
law of the Most High: calculating that when they had destroyed this strong
hold, the Sabbath would fall an easy prey to their attack. We invite attention
then to the law and to the testimony. By the unerring word of God we wish to
settle this question; and this we believe can be done in the most satisfactory
manner.
That the
hand-writing of ordinances containing the feasts, new moons and the associated
annual sabbaths of the Jews, has been abolished and taken out of the way, we do
not doubt. This was not the moral law of God; but was merely the shadow of good
things to come. But the royal law in which are the ten commandments of God is
the subject of this investigation, and it is the perpetuity and immutability of
this law that we affirm. If the law of God has been destroyed, the act must
have been accomplished by one of three things; viz., 1. By the teachings of the
Lord Jesus;
or 2. By his death; or 3. By the apostles. We believe that all
will agree to this statement.
1. Was the law of God abolished by the teachings of our Lord Jesus
Christ? Let us listen to his own words.
"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.
5:17-19.
Our Lord here testifies that he did not come to destroy the law or
the prophets. Then it is a fact that he did not destroy either. But what is it
to destroy the law? We answer, that it can only signify to abolish, or to annul
it. And thus Campbell renders the word:- "Think not that I am come to
subvert the law." Whiting renders it:- "Think not that I am come to
annul the law." It is therefore certain that our Lord did not come to
subvert, annul, or destroy, the law of God. Hence it follows that the law of
God was not annulled or abrogated by him. He adds, that instead of coming to
destroy, he came to fulfill. If this was the object of the Saviour's mission,
did he not by this act do away the law, set is aside, and relieve us from obligation
to keep its precepts? Let us see. As Campbell renders the text, it reads,
"I am not come to subvert, but to ratify." That is, I am not come to
abolish the law, but to confirm, and render still more sacred, its just
demands. If that was the object of our Lord's mission, it follows that he did
not lessen our obligation to obey the law of his Father.
But let us return to the word "fulfill." Christ came to
fulfill the law, hence he did fulfill it. What is it to fulfill a law? Let the
apostle James answer: "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." James2:8,9. It is evident that James here places the
transgression of the law in contrast with, or in opposition to, the fulfillment
of the law; therefore it follows that the fulfillment of the law is the reverse
of its violation. In other words, it is its observance. To fulfill the law in
the manner that James enjoins, is to render complete obedience to its divine
requirements.
But it may be contended that to fulfill the law in the
sense of our Lord's declaration, accomplishes its purpose, and takes it out of
the way. To show the absurdity of this view, let us take another of Christ's
sayings which is of the same character, precisely. When John refused to baptize
the Saviour, Jesus said, "Suffer it to be so now;
for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness." Matt.3:15. Did the
Saviour, by fulfilling all righteousness, weaken, take out of the way, or
destroy all righteousness? Certainly not. No one will claim that he lessened
our obligation to fulfill all righteousness also.
But how
did Christ fulfill the law of his Father? There is but one way in which this
could be accomplished, and that is to answer its just demands. What were those
demands? We answer: first, the law of God demands perfect obedience. The
justice of this, none will deny. But when the law has been violated, it demands
the death of the transgressor. Sin is the transgression of the law."
1John3:4. "The wages of sin is death." Rom.6:23. "The soul that
sinneth it shall die. Eze.18:4. When Christ came to fulfill the law, he came to
do this, not for himself, but in behalf of our race. He came to fulfill the law
as the Messiah: an office or character which no other being ever possessed. He
came to undertake for fallen men, and in a certain sense placed himself in
their situation. What then was the relation which our race sustained to the law
of God? We answer: all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. The law
of God stopped every mouth, and showed all men sinners in the sight of God.
Rom.3.
Then, when
the Saviour took upon himself our nature, and came to fulfill the law of his
Father, that law not only demanded perfect obedience; but it also justly
demanded the death of our race; for all were its transgressors. The work of the
Saviour, therefore, in fulfilling the law of his Father, was of a twofold
character. He must first render perfect obedience to all its precepts, and then
offer up his own life as a ransom for guilty man. To fulfill the law as the Messiah, Christ must perform all this.
Did he thus do? He kept his Father's commandments. John15:10. In him there was
no transgression of the law. 1John3:4,5. He was the Lamb of God without spot,
[1Pet.1:19.] in whom the Father was well pleased. Matt.3:17. And this was not
all; he took upon himself the sin of the world. Isa.3:6; John1:29. He bore our
sin in his own body upon the tree. 1Pet.2:24. He died the just for the unjust,
giving his own life a ransom for many. 1Pet.3:18; Matt.20:28. God can now be
just, and yet justify him that believeth in Jesus. Rom.3:25,26. Thus Christ
lived our example and died our sacrifice.
Did this
work of the Messiah, in rendering perfect obedience to all the law of God, and
then offering up himself as a ransom for its transgressors, weaken that law, or
lessen our obligation to obey it? Never. It shows in the most striking light,
its perpetuity and immutability. The law of God condemned our race. Jehovah
would open the way for man's salvation. He could not destroy his own moral law;
but he could give his own beloved and only Son to die for its transgressors.
This evinces the estimate which the Father placed upon his own law. Isaiah
predicted that Christ should magnify the law, and make it honorable. Isa.42:21.
The record of Christ's life and death shows the fulfillment of this
prediction.
But Christ
adds a solemn affirmation. "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. What is a jot and a tittle? A jot is the smallest letter of the
Hebrew alphabet. A tittle is a small point by which some of those letters are
distinguished from others. Our Lord therefore solemnly affirms that the
minutest point shall not pass from the law till all be fulfilled. Then it is
certain that a part will not be destroyed and the remainder of the law be left
in force. Consequently as long as a part of the original
precepts continue, all of them abide without one jot or tittle being destroyed.
Further than this, Christ has plainly marked the point of time before which no
part of the law of God shall pass. "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or
one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Has
heaven and earth passed away? Let those answer who teach the abolition of the
law of God. When will heaven and earth pass? Let the beloved disciple answer:
"And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face
the earth and heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them." If
the fulfillment of the law of God destroys it, that destruction cannot take
place before the final conflagration of the heavens and the earth. 2.Pet.3.
Prior to that time the minutest point shall not be destroyed. If therefore one
jot or one tittle shall on no account
pass from the law, till all be fulfilled; and if the point before which this
shall not be accomplished is the passing of the heavens and the earth, it
follows that the Lord Jesus not only designed that the law should be fulfilled
by himself for the brief period of his sojourn on earth, but also, that the
righteousness of the law should be fulfilled in his church; or as Whiting
renders Rom.8:4, "that the precept
of the law might be fulfilled by us, who walk not according to the flesh, but
according to the Spirit." The next verse establishes this view.
"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."
Let us carefully consider this verse. The word "whosoever" takes up
all persons through all coming time. The word "therefore" shows that
this verse is the conclusion drawn from the premises which the Saviour had just
laid down, which were these: 1. "Think not that I am come to destroy the
law." 2. "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in
no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled." As not a single particle
of this holy law was to be destroyed, it was fitting that the Lord Jesus should
speak with distinctness respecting its observance and its violation. This is
what he now utters.
"Shall
break one of these least commandments." Then we have here the opposite of
fulfilling the law; viz. the breaking of the commandments. We may also learn
that the law in verses 17,18, means the commandments.
"One
of these least." Christ had said that not one jot or one tittle should
pass from the law till all be fulfilled, so that there could be no excuse for
those who teach that a part of the law has been destroyed, and that the
remainder is yet in force. But Christ did not leave the subject thus. He now
tells what shall be the fate of those who violate the least of the
commandments. Those who select nine of them, and omit one of the commandments,
which they think not worth their notice, are the very persons that Christ here
reproves.
"And
shall teach men so." Who are they that teach men to violate the
commandments? Those who teach men that they have all been abolished go far
beyond the crime that Christ has here noted. The Saviour spoke of those who
should violate the least one. Some at the present day teach men that all of
them are abolished. This is the grand and effectual method to teach men to
violate the law of God. But those who make any one of the commandments void,
that they may keep in its place a tradition of the elders, are doing exactly
the work that our Lord has here solemnly warned men against.
"He
shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven;" or, as Campbell
renders, "shall be of no esteem in the reign of heaven." This is,
doubtless, the idea of the Saviour. This is the penalty of a violation of the
least precept of the law of God. But how much more fearful must it be to break
the commandments and to teach men that they have all been abolished!
"But
whosoever shall do and teach them." Here we may learn what it is to
fulfill the law of God. It is to do and to teach the commandments. "The
same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Or, as rendered by
Campbell, "shall be highly esteemed in the reign of heaven." Here is
the ample commission; here is the vast reward of those who teach and keep the
commandments of God. Surely, no man ever enjoined obedience to the law of God
with such force as did our Lord Jesus Christ. Let us hear his words
again:-
"But
he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of
God by your tradition? For God commanded saying, Honor thy father and mother;
and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say,
Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever
thou mightest be profited by me; and honor not his father or his mother, he
shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your
tradition." Matt.15:3-6.
These
words disclose to us the sacredness of God's commandments in the mind of the
Lord Jesus. He did not deny that he violated the traditions of the Jews, but he
boldly arraigned their traditions, and condemned them as worthless in the sight
of God. And not only as worthless, but also as sinful, inasmuch as they
contradict and make void the commandments of God. The tradition in question was
very venerable with the Jews, inasmuch as they supposed that it had been handed
down from Moses; thus being equally ancient and sacred in their estimation with
the commandment which it so effectually made void. On such authority the Jews
thought themselves fully justified in an open violation of the fifth
commandment. Nay, they even supposed that the observance of this tradition was
more acceptable to God then the observance of the commandment itself.
To be
continued…..
No comments:
Post a Comment