The subject of this evening is a question which is prefaced by the following text of Scripture, quoted from the Emphatic Diaglott: "Whosoever of you are justifying yourselves by law are separated from Christ; you are fallen off from the favor of God." (Galatians 5:4)
My question is this: "Was not the Mosaic law written on stone, given alone to the Jews?"
Accompanying this question is a letter giving the position of the questioner, some points of which I will notice. In contrast with the Jews, he says of us: "We who are begotten of the Spirit through the belief of the truth are become new (spiritual) creatures in Christ, and are raised spiritual bodies, like unto His glorious body, for there is a natural body and there is a spiritual body."
This remark contains a very grave error. The "spiritual body" is given in the resurrection. (See 1 Corinthians 15) The Christian is spiritually minded, but has yet a natural, corruptible body, being subject to decay, which the spiritual body will not be. Again he says: "He who undertakes to do the deeds of the law has fallen from grace, as say the Scriptures."
If this assertion be true, I have been in fault in my reading, for I never read any such thing in the Bible. And the Bible has no such saying.
Faith and Works
In regard to justification, we have distinctly avowed that we do not expect it by the law. If there is anybody who seeks or expects to be justified by the law, to him the question will apply: to him this text stands as a reproof. Paul says in Romans 3 that the justification which we receive through faith in Christ, without works, is "for the remission of sins that are past." (Romans 3:25)
But he does not say we can live godly lives, and build up a moral character without works. He exhorts to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." (Philippians 2:12)
For every man will be judged and rewarded according to his works. "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be." (Revelation 22:12) "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and then He shall reward every man according to His works." (Matthew 16:27)
I have before said, in this tent, that all our obedience, our tears, our confessions, our prayers, our repentance, will never remove a single sin we have committed. Remission of past sin is by the blood of Christ through faith alone; not by works at all. But as to the future, when we form character it must be by obedience; then "faith without works is dead." (James 2:20)
It is lifeless, formal, useless. As to the expression, "a new creature," it does not mean another creature. But the "old man" of sin is destroyed. (Romans 6:6) All things--sinful things, worldliness, etc.--have passed away; but the law of God has not passed away.
Mark, the change must all be in man; not in God, nor in His government. Rebellion, sin, does not change God's law, nor does it create the necessity of a change in God's law. It changes our relation to the law, bringing us in opposition to it; and it makes necessary another change in us, a change from sin to obedience; and this is also wrought by faith in Christ, who strengthens us to overcome our sins, and walk in obedience to His Father.
Christ the End of the Law
I am also requested, in this connection, to notice the following: "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness, to every one that believes." (Romans 10:4)
There are three points to be noticed in this text:
1. In What Sense Is Christ the End of the Law?
Not in the sense of abolishing the law, for if that were the meaning, it would apply to all, both to the believer and the unbeliever. If it means the abolition of the law, then we have the anomalous relation of a law abolished to one class, and not to another class. And not only that, but it is abolished to numerous individuals at one period in the experience of each one, and not abolished at another period in his experience!
The word "end" must be used as in: "You have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord." (James 5:11)
Not the abolition of the Lord. "End," in both these texts, means the object or intention. Paul says the law was ordained unto life; it was designed to guide people in obedience to their Creator, that they might live. For to disobey, to sin, is death. Since we are all sinners, and we can no longer obtain life by the law, Christ comes in and meets the design or the "end" of the law and gives us life.
2. This Is "For Righteousness"
We may learn what righteousness is by the inspired definitions given by John. "Unrighteousness is sin," (1 John 5:17) and, "Sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4)
Now if unrighteousness is the transgression of the law, righteousness is obedience to the law. "He that does righteousness is righteous." (1 John 3:7)
3. To Every One That Believes
In the unbeliever the object of the law is not accomplished, for he, as Paul says, has "pleasure in unrighteousness." (2 Thessalonians 2:12)
This text does not teach that the law is no longer of obligation, but it does teach that we are to obey the law through faith in Christ.
Was the Law Only for the Jews?
The question itself, whether the law was given to the Gentiles or the Jews alone, is quickly disposed of. Was there ever a time when it was no sin in the Gentiles to worship idols, to blaspheme the name of God, to dishonor their parents, to kill, to commit adultery, and to steal? If there is any force to the question, if it has any bearing against our position, it is only in the case that these things were not wrong in the Gentiles.
But if these things were sin in the Gentiles-if for these abominations God abhorred the Gentiles-then the law held them, for "Where no law is there is no transgression," (Romans 4:15) and, "Sin is not imputed when there is no law." (Romans 5:13)
This sufficiently refutes the idea which appears to be in the mind of the questioner, as far as the Gentiles are concerned as a class. But the question has a more specific application, not to Gentiles at large, but to the believers in Christ from the Gentiles. What we have before said, especially on Romans 10:4, is to this point; but it must be noticed more particularly.
Justification and Law-Keeping Go Together
Paul says more on the subject of justification than all other writers of the Bible; and he says more about it, argues it more particularly, in the letter to the Romans, than in all his other writings together. And it is a suggestive fact that the first time he speaks of justification in this letter is in connection with doing the law, while he has never connected, in any man, justification and breaking the law. He never recognizes any such relation. "The doers of the law shall be justified." (Romans 2:13)
An objector once said to me, when I quoted that text: "You, then, believe in justification by the law: but I would not like to risk my salvation on your word on that subject." (Romans 2:13)
I replied:
1. You have not my word on the subject. I quoted Paul's words, and if you have any fault to point out, it is with his words.
2. You have nothing to do with this text, for Paul was not there speaking of you, or of any like you. He said the "doers of the law"; but you are not a doer of the law; indeed, you disclaim any intention to do the law. Therefore you have no claim, and personally no interest in that text.
But the text is useful in this: It teaches that justification is in the law, and we would find it there if we had not forfeited it; if we had not transgressed the law. It is a vindication of the morality of the law, and it fully agrees with Solomon's words, that to keep God's commandments "is the whole duty of man." (Ecclesiastes 12:13)
And if man had done his whole duty, if he had never sinned, he would not be condemned; he must then be justified. Some claim to find a contradiction between this text and the following: "By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified." (Romans 3:20)
But there is no contradiction. It may be said that both cannot be true absolutely; one must be qualified to avoid the contradiction. Which shall it be? And the answer generally comes thus: "The first must be qualified, for it is an absolute fact that no one can be justified by the law."
But this answer is made under a misapprehension of the facts, and of the principles underlying them. There is an intermediate statement which makes all plain: let us take the three in connection-they are given in the regular form of an argument:
1. The doers of the law shall be justified.
2. There are no doers; all have gone astray: "there is none that does good, no, not one."
3. Conclusion: "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified."
Thus we see that it is no fault of the law that it does not justify us; it is our own fault; we are sinners and the law would be unworthy of respect as a law if it would justify us. We deserve condemnation, and the law very properly treats us as we deserve.
Why Keep a Law that Cannot Justify?
And then another query is raised. "What is the use of keeping a law which will not justify us?"
But this question shows an unenviable state of mind on the part of the questioner. We should not view the subject altogether in the light of its benefit to ourselves: something is due to the Government of God; His authority is to be recognized, His law to be honored.
But if it is necessary to our salvation that past sin should be forgiven, it is equally necessary that future sin shall be prevented. Sin is odious in the sight of God, whether it be past, present, or future. Obedience is better than sacrifice. If all shall be rewarded according to their works, how necessary that our works should conform to the divine will, which we learn only in His law. "Behold, you are called a Jew, and rest in the law, and make your boast of God, And know His will, and approve the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law; And are confident that you yourself are a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which have the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. You therefore which teach another, do you not teach yourself? you that preach a man should not steal, do you steal? You that say a man should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? you that abhor idols, do you commit sacrilege? You that make your boast of the law, through breaking the law do you dishonor God?" (Romans 2:17-23)
To illustrate this let me relate an incident. It is not "founded on fact;" it is the fact itself. Some years ago I was preaching in Wisconsin, and a man gravely informed me that he had learned that we are not justified by the law. I replied that we had learned the same thing; that we did not expect to be justified by the law; the law had no power to justify a sinner, and we did not keep it with the thought of being justified by it.
And he then began to laugh. Being inquired of for the reason, he said he could not help laughing that anybody should be fool enough to keep a law which cannot justify him. Laying the compliment aside, I proposed to present the case in such a manner that he could appreciate it.
Suppose you were accused of stealing a horse, and were proved guilty, and the Judge thereupon asks if you have anything to say, and you ask and are answered as follows:
Judge, will the law of Wisconsin justify me?
Justify you? No; we do not have a law in Wisconsin that will justify a man stealing horses! The law condemns you, and I am about to pronounce its sentence upon you!
Well, Judge, I am not such a fool as to keep a law which will not justify me, and hereafter I intend to steal all the horses that I can.
And, said the Judge, I will see that you do not have the opportunity very soon to carry your intention into effect, for I shall give you the full time in prison which the law allows.
And then I inquired: Do you not think the Judge would so answer a man who avowed such an intention?
He answered, "Yes," and added, "But nobody would be foolish enough to talk like that!"
I replied, "Of course not; nobody would be foolish enough to treat the law of the State in that manner; but that is exactly the manner in which you have been treating the law of God. If you, and people in general, would grant as much to the law of God as you require for the law of the State, we would have little need to argue the question. No one ever for one moment supposes that a pardon frees any one from obligation to keep the law of the State which condemns him. But there are thousands who refuse to keep the law of God because Jesus Christ has purchased their pardon by His blood!"
Satan is wily, we know; but it is a marvel that he can so blind the minds of people who appear to be otherwise sensible, as to make them believe that pardon absolves them from allegiance to God and His law!
Redeemed from Disobedience Paul says: "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law." (Galatians 3:13)
But the curse comes only by transgression. Had man not sinned, he would not have been cursed, for "the doers of the law shall be justified." (Romans 2:13)
And the curse invariably, in all cases, follows transgression. Christ redeems from the curse, but not from the duty; He redeems from the condemnation, but not from the obligation. We say that the curse follows transgression "in all cases," because it is as true now that "The wages of sin is death," (Romans 6:23) as it was before Christ died, or would have been if Christ had never died. It is a narrow view of the method of redemption which leads one to say that obedience to the law is contrary to free grace.
Not Under the Law
And this calls us to notice one more point in the position of the questioner. It is his claim on: "You are not under the law, but under grace." (Romans 6:14)
But this is only a part of the text. Taken in its connection it clearly teaches that we are not under the law in the sense of being under its condemnation; from this we are released by grace. But it does not teach that we are free from obligation to the law; to the contrary, it teaches that violation of the law is contrary to grace.
Here are two individuals, one a non-professor, and the other a church member, who claim to be released from the obligation of the law. We can more readily represent the position of the latter (which is the position of our questioner) by the way of question and answer.
Q: What is your position?
A: I am not under the law, but under grace.
Q: Were you always under grace?
A: No; I was by nature a child of wrath, even as others.
Q: When did you come under grace?
A: When I was converted.
Q: Then "under grace" is the condition of a converted man. What was your condition before you were converted, and what is the condition of all the unconverted world?
A: Under the law, of course.
Q: Very well; are they who are under the law condemned by the law if they break it?
A: Certainly; they are under its curse, as sinners.
Q: But if the law has power to curse them-if they are under it -then the law cannot be abolished; it is still in force?
A: No, it cannot be abolished, but I am free from it through faith in Christ.
Q: Are you, then, free from all its claims, so that you are not obliged to keep it?
A: I am not under the law; I am entirely free from it, and it has no authority over me.
Q: But when you were under the law you were under obligation to keep it, and therefore it was sin in you to transgress it. Then we are to conclude that it was sin in you to break the law before you were converted, but it is not sin in you to break the law after you were converted. Is that so?
A: Why, there is no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus!
Q: We will waive for the present the subject of forgiveness, or justification. But we must conclude from your declarations that what is sinful in an unconverted man, is not sin in a converted man!
This is the doctrine of the old "perfectionists"--a doctrine which we had hoped had disappeared from the face of the earth. According to this doctrine, if a man feels the restraints of the law and wishes to break it, but dare not for fear of condemnation, he has only to be converted and join the church, and he is at once at full liberty to violate the law! This is making "Christ the minister of sin." (Galatians 2:17)
The way of righteousness is not found in such a sham Christianity as this. Look again at these two men. One professes to be a Christian, and the other is an acknowledged sinner. How do we know that he is a sinner? Because he transgresses the law: "Whosoever commits sin transgresses also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4) "For by the law is the knowledge of sin." (Romans 3:20)
What, then, is the difference between him and the other man? Oh! this other man is a Christian. But neither does he keep the law; he claims that he is not under its obligation.
So, then, one breaks the law, and he is therefore a sinner; the other breaks the law also, yet he is a Christian! And the only real difference between them is that one professes religion and has his name on the church book! Both are sinners according to every authorized definition of sin.
Does Grace Nullify the Law?
We have here a subject worthy of our earnest consideration. It cannot be too strongly enforced. The idea of the objector is that the law is not now binding; that we are released from its authority by grace. But if that be so, then there is no distinction of classes, for none can be under an abolished law in any sense, and all are under grace. That will answer for Universalists, but Paul says: "For sin shall not have dominion over you; for you are not under the law, but under grace." (Romans 6:14)
Therefore his words will not apply to all the world, but to those only who are not under the dominion of sin. But as long as we transgress the law, so long has sin dominion over us. Sin brings condemnation, no matter when or where it is found. And therefore the apostle's question and answer in the next verses: "What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law but under grace? God forbid. Know you not, that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are to whom you obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" (Romans 6:15-16)
This is a plain declaration that if we sin, or violate the law, after we are justified, or under grace, we again come under the dominion of sin, and the result is death. And the same is shown in the first verses of the chapter. "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?" (Romans 6:1)
Some say we shall; they affirm that we deny grace if we keep the law, or abstain from sin. But the apostle says, "God forbid." (Romans 6:1)
And he continues: "How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein? Know you not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into His death?" (Romans 6:2-3)
Here is an important lesson. That we are dead is proved by our having been buried--in baptism. Dead to what? to sin. But if we live in it--if we still transgress the law--we are not dead to it. Then we are not under grace, but under the law--under condemnation.
Prejudice Against Preaching the Law
That there is a popular prejudice against preaching the law, we are well aware. And we regret that preachers themselves are strengthening this prejudice by conforming to the popular feeling, and moving in this popular current.
I was once requested to put away exclusiveness and unite with another in holding revival meetings; and was told that I must not talk so much about the law; that people did not want to hear it!
Now I believe in union as much as any do, and am willing to unite on the same terms that they require. They will unite with me if I will yield my faith and adopt theirs. And, in like manner, I am ready to unite with everybody who will yield the peculiarities of his faith and adopt mine. I am just as liberal as they are. But my inquiry was this:
Q: If I drop the law, what shall I preach?
A: Why, preach repentance; nobody has any prejudice against that.
What an idea, that the minister must conform his preaching to people's prejudices!
Q: But, if somebody asks me of what he shall repent, what reply shall I give?
A: Tell him, of course, to repent of sin.
Q: Just so; and then if he asks me what is sin, what shall I say?
In a hesitating manner he replied:
A: Why, the apostle says, sin is the transgression of the law.
But I thought you were going to set me on a track to get rid of the law, and you have me in the same difficulty still, and yet you tell me I must not preach the law. It thus appears that you think the law is not of sufficient consequence to be preached.
But if the law is of no consequence, the transgression of it is of no consequence; and if sin is of no consequence, repentance is of no consequence; and if repentance is of no consequence, then your preaching is of no consequence! This is the logical result of depreciating the law. With such preaching I have no desire to unite.
Genuine Religion or Fanaticism
We believe that the great God is displeased with this easy style of religion which ignores His law which He has so highly honored. It is made void by preachers and by people. Either in whole or in part it is set aside boldly, publicly. And yet the Lord has shown that: "He who offends in one point is guilty of all," (James 2:10) for the law is a unit; if we break one commandment we are law-breakers, doers of iniquity. Men will even profess "holiness," entire freedom from sin, and yet transgress the law continually!
• What definition of sin will they give us?
• By what rule shall we be made to believe that God approves their course?
• How shall we determined that their religion is genuine, and not rank fanaticism?
We have a message, which says: "Here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." (Revelation 14:12)
Paul says that we do not make void the law through faith. "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." (Romans 3:31)
The law and faith are united in true moral and Christian character. And before our High Priest closes His work, there must be a reform; the commandments of God must be honored, and kept, even as the faith of Jesus.--Signs of the Times, August 21, 1884--A sermon delivered in the tent at Oakland, Cal., August 5, 1884.