THE LAW

IN THE

BOOK OF GALATIANS:
IS IT

THE MORAL LAW,

OR DOES IT REFER TO

THAT SYSTEM OF LAWS PECULIARLY JEWISH?

~~~~~~~~~
BY ELD. G. I. BUTLER
~~~~~~~~~

BATTLE CREEK, MICH.:

REVIEW & HERALD PUBLISHING HOUSE

1886.
 

IN T RODUCTION.

W hat law is the pr inciple subje ct of the apostle’s d is-

c ou r s e i n t he epi s t le t o t he G a l at i a n s ? I s it t he mor a l
law? or the ty pica l remed ia l syst em a nd laws pe cu l ia rly
Jewish? Perhaps there has never been a theolog ical ques-
tion in all the history of our work concerning which there
has been so much d isag reement among ou r mi n istr y a nd
le ad i ng br et h r en a s t h i s . Such d i f fer enc e s h ave ex i st e d
more or less with varying phases, singe the rise of the mes-
sage, and at times have been discussed with more or less
wa rmth. At other per iods they have been tacitly lef t un-
t ouched. G enera l ly, a mutua l forbea ra nce has been exer-
cised, so that bitter ness of feel i ng between breth ren has
been avoided.
L eading brethren have been on both sides of the ques-
tion. In the early histor y of the work, it is probable that
quite a majority of them accepted the view that the moral
law was the main subject of Paul’s consideration in the book
of Ga lati a ns. But there ca me qu it e a cha nge i n th is re -
spect at a later period, when some of our leading brethren,
t o whom ou r pe ople h ave ever lo oked as sa fe c ou nselors
in questions of perplexity, gave up the view that the moral
l aw was ma i n ly u nder d i s cussion , a nd t o ok the p osit ion
t h at it wa s t he c er emon i a l l aw. M a ny ot her s who h ave
come later to act a part in the work, have accepted the latter
view with strong confidence. It would be quite diff icult to
ascer ta i n the compa rative streng th i n numbers on either
side; but to the best of the writer’s judgment (and his op-
portunities of forming a fair opinion have not been meager),
he would say that at the present time at least two thirds
of our ministers hold the latter opinion.
For half a score of years past, the question has lain quite
dorma nt. Not that either of the classes refer red t o have
(3)
4 5
changed thei r opi nion. By no means. But there has
seemed t o be a n avoida nce of the question qu ite la rgely,
and a desire to spare the feelings of those holding an op-
posite v iew as much as possible; so that the law in Gala-
ti a ns has not been dwelt up on i n a r ticles c om i ng before
t he pu bl i c t h r ou g h ou r p e r io d i c a l s a nd pu bl i c at ion s a s
much as it otherwise would have been.
We say this has been the case quite largely until within
a compa ratively br ief ti me. But the w r it er ack nowledges
considerable surprise that during the last year or two the
subject has been made quite prominent in the instructions
given to those at Healdsburg College preparing to labor in
t he c au s e ; a l s o i n t he le s s o n s p a s s i n g t h r ou g h t he I n -
s t r u c t o r, de s i g ne d for ou r S a bb at h- s c ho ol s a l l o ver t he
land, and in numerous argumentative articles in the Signs
of the T imes, our pioneer missionary paper, thus throwing
these views largely before the reading public not acquaint-
ed with our faith. T hus, strong and repeated efforts have
been made to sustai n the v iew that the moral law is the
subje c t of the ap ostle’s d is c ou rse i n the most pr om i nent
texts under discussion in the letter to the Galatians.
Now we are not disposed to find fault with the spirit in
which the articles are written, or to say that the matter has
not been managed ably on the part of those engaged in it.
Indeed, we are free to admit a keen perception, yea, a de-
g r e e of ad m i r at ion , of t he t ac t a nd abi l it y d i spl aye d i n
bring ing this controverted question of long standing, held
i n abeya nce for a ti me, before ou r people i n the ma n ner
mentioned. It shows a deg ree of sh rewd ness i n pla n n i ng
to carry the v iews of the wr iters and actors which, i f ex-
erted in a better way, might be truly commendable.
But we decidedly protest against ths bringing out of con-
troverted v iews in the manner indicated, concerning mat-
t ers upon wh ich ou r people a re not ag reed. It v iolates a
principle well understood in the practice of this body, which
has usually been regarded with respect. It has been taught
by high authority that where such differences exist, at least
on the side of a minority, they should either be held without
giving them much publicity, or be brought before our leading
brethren and acted upon by them. Then it would be time to
publish them, and not before.
But even if it were thought consistent to publish contro-
ver ted v iews to a reasonable deg ree, we should sti ll pro -
test aga i nst doi ng it i n the ma n ner mentioned. It seems
very objectionable to us, to urgently teach v iews not held
by a major ity of our leading brethren, to our college stu-
dents who are preparing to go out and labor in the cause.
We d o n o t b e l i e v e o u r d e n o m i n a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s o f
le a r n i ng wer e e st abl i she d for a ny such pu r p o s e. O u r
work has been noted for u n ity; but u n ity w i l l not be i n-
creased by such methods. T here a re plenty of th i ngs
w h i c h c a n b e t au g h t w i t h o u t g o i n g i n t o c o n t r o v e r t e d
f ield s . We c o n c e i ve t h at t he f a c t t h at s u c h d i f fe r e n c e s
have been made prominent in teaching these young minds,
must tend to g ive them a less favorable impression of the
character of our work than i f an effort had been made to
make our differences as small as possible.
So of the lessons going through the Instructor, in which
those points have been presented. To our personal knowl-
edge, and from the repor ts of leading ministers, in many
places th r oughout the f ield a g reat a mou nt of a rg u ment
and controversy has been indulged in over this question of
t h e l aw i n G a l at i a n s , o f t e n w it h h e at a nd c o nt e nt i o n .
W hen such positions are taken on controverted points, the
fact that they are published in our denominational journals,
and hence a re believed to be the v iews of all our people,
le ave s a n u nju s t i mpr e s s ion i n t he m i nd s of t ho s e who
study the lessons, concer ning the la rger number of those
in the cause who hold opposite v iews. It is taking an un-
fa i r adva ntage. O u r Sabbath-scho ol lessons shou ld t each
only views held by the large body of our people.
T he same principle applies to articles published in our
pione er pap er. T hey shou ld r epr e s ent on ly t he v iews of
the body, and not ventilate views held by any writer, how-
ever strongly he may hold them, when he knows they are
not the v iews of the body, or the pr incipal por tion of our
people. To pu rsue the opposite cou rse wou ld be fa r more
obje c t ion a ble i n ou r pione er p ap er t h a n i n t he R e v i e w,
the orga n of the chu r ch . T he for mer was est abl i shed by
ou r pe ople as a n agency th rough wh ich t o i ntroduce ou r
views to the public, who are supposed to be unacquainted
with them. Ever y one would have the strongest reason to
supp o s e t h at a r t icle s c om i n g f r om t he pione er pap er of
the denomination, established by the, church to teach its
s p e c i a l v i e w s , we r e i nd o r s e d b y t h e b o d y. B ut s u c h i s
not the case with the articles in question. The application
6 7
of texts i n Ga latia ns quoted a nd commented upon i n the
Signs, is not the opinion of the body or a majority of our
people, and has not been for years; and those writing them
cer ta i n ly ought t o k now th is. T he Sig n s is a paper w ith
a large circulation. It comes under the observation of many of
ou r ablest opponents. By th is cou rse of the man-
ager s of the S i g n s, t hey mu st b e c ome awa r e of the f ac t
that there is a difference in our public teaching upon this
subje c t ; a nd t hey w i l l doubt le s s u s e suc h k nowle d g e t o
ou r detr iment. I ndeed , I have k now n it t o be done yea rs
in the past by an able disputant in a debate in Iowa, who
brought out the fact that we teach differently on this sub-
ject.
We cla i m t o be a u n it ed pe ople, a nd t o t each but one
do c t r i ne . It h a s b e en a g r e at c au s e o f r e g r et for ye a r s
a mong ou r best br eth r en th at th i s d i f ferenc e of opi n ion
ex ists a mong us ; a nd the cou rse of the Sig n s must t end
t o ma ke th is d i f ference fa r more prom i nent tha n it ever
has been before ; a nd ma ny outside of ou r ra n ks w i l l be -
c ome acqu a i nt ed w ith the f ac t who never wou ld h ave
k now n it h ad not the ed it ors of the S i g n s repeat ed ly
pressed thei r v iews of th is subject th rough, its columns.
W hatever may be, the opinion entertained concerning this
subject of the law in Galatians, it seems to the writer there
can be but one opinion among the careful, thoughtful be-
l ievers c oncer n i ng the pr opr iet y of publ i sh i ng i n ou r
pione er pap er do c t r i ne s not gener a l ly held by t he l a r ge
majority of our people.
B el iev i ng strongly, as we do, that the law pr i ncipa l ly
c on sider ed i n G a l at i a n s i s t he t y pic a l r emed i a l syst em ,
which passed away at the cross, and is not the moral law,
a nd feel i ng that a n u n fa i r adva ntage has been ta ken i n
urgently teaching the contrary opinion to our young people
pr epa r i ng t o l ab or i n t he c au s e , a nd i n m a k i ng ou r In-
s t r u c t o r le s s on s a nd pi o ne e r p ap e r me d iu m s for t e a c h-
i n g a n opp o sit e v iew, a nd hopi n g t o add s ome i n for m a-
tion which will be valuable upon the subject, we have felt
it not on ly proper but a duty t o br i ng the subject before
the General Conference of our people, the only tribunal in
ou r body where such controver ted questions can be prop-
erly considered and passed upon.
THE SUBJECT CONSIDERED.
T he question before us is one of interpretation. In the
brief letter of the apostle Paul to the Galatian church, we
h ave at t he c om menc ement s ome h i st or ic a l f ac t s g iven
concerning himself and his apostleship, and an arg ument
concerning “the law,” and in the latter part, practical in-
st r uc t ion c oncer n i ng va r ious C h r ist i a n dut ies. Ru n n i ng
all through the epistle are expressions in which the apostle
f inds fault with them for their course of conduct after he
lef t them, caused by Jew ish t eachers who had led them
astray, so that they had really taken positions contrary to
the gospel of Christ. In these censures the apostle makes
c o n s t a nt r e fe r e n c e t o s ome l aw c o n c e r n i n g wh i c h t he
Ga lati a ns had t a ken a w r ong position. A s a pe ople, we
believe that there are two laws, or systems of law : ( 1.)
T he mora l l aw a nd t he pr i nc iple s of mora l dut y wh ich
g r ow out of it ; ( 2 .) T he c er emon i a l l aw, embrac i ng the
ty pica l remed ia l system poi nti ng for wa rd t o Ch r ist, and
the civil laws g rowing out of the special relation existing
b e t we e n G o d a nd t he Jew i s h p e ople t o t he c r o s s . We
hold the former t o be ever bi nd i ng upon ma n, wh i le the
latter passed away.
Our inquiry is now as to which of these laws the apostle
has principally in view in the letter to the Galatians. The
question is an important one, and is therefore well worthy
o f c on s ider at ion . T r ut h , for it s ow n s a ke , i s i mp or t a nt
concerning the meaning and application of any scr ipture;
and the truth concerning the law in Galatians is especially
so, because the apostle’s references to the law in this letter
a r e u s e d by ou r opp onent s a s a st r ong supp or t t o t hei r
A nt i nom i a n do c t r i nes. It i s ev ident th at the p osit ion
which is a truthful exposition of the apostle’s argument is
in every way preferable, and will be easier to defend than
o n e wh i c h i s e r r o n e o u s . I t w i l l e n a bl e u s t o m e e t o u r
opponents more successfully, and thus the great system of
truth which we hold will be streng thened. A ll our people
ought to greatly desire that we come to a unity of position
on this subject.
We hold that the letter to the Galatians was written to
meet one of the greatest difficulties with which the gospel
8 9
had t o contend i n the apostle’s days. T h is d i f f icu lty was
t he opp o s it ion o f Jud a i z i n g t e ac her s a nd d i s c iple s who
st i l l t aught the obl igat ion of the ceremon i a l law, a nd of
c i r c u m c i s i o n a n d t h o s e l aw s c o n n e c t e d w i t h i t w h i c h
s e r v e d t o s e p a r at e b e t w e e n J e w s a n d G e n t i l e s . T h e s e
c o n f u s e d t he m i nd s o f t he d i s c iple s , a nd o b s c u r e d t he
g reat principles of the gospel, v ir tually destroy ing it. We
f ind constant reference to the work of this class of teach-
ers in Paul’s writings and in the Acts of the Apostles, as
we sh a l l se e. I nde ed , it m ay wel l be doubt ed whether a
l a r ge p or t ion of t he e a rly chu r ch who wer e Jews b efor e
conversion ever fully realized the scope and extent of the
g o s p e l i n s e t t i n g a s i d e t h o s e l aw s p e c u l i a r l y J e w i s h .
T hey clung to them, and were zealous for them long after
t hey wer e ab ol i she d at t he c r o s s . To Pau l we a r e i n
debt , t h r oug h t he ble s si n g of G o d , for t he on ly f u l l ex-
planation of the proper relation of these laws to the plan
of s a lvat ion a nd t he g o sp el ; a nd he h i m s el f wa s lo oke d
up on w it h g r e at s u spi c ion by m a ny o f t he Hebr ew c on-
ver ts, be cause he pla i n ly taught the abrogation of ma ny
things which they continued to hold sacred.
Nor is th is t o be wondered at when we ta ke a v iew of
the past history of that people, and the special inf luences
wh i c h h ad b e en at wo rk f o r f i f t e e n c ent u r ie s . We c a n -
not wel l rea l i ze the pe cu l ia r ci r cu msta nces su r rou nd i ng
the ea rly chu r ch , a nd the spe c i a l i n f luences w ith wh ich
they had to contend, without looking at the causes which
le d t o t hem . We w i l l br ie f ly n o t i c e t he s e . B e c au s e t he
mass of mankind had gone into idolatry, and utterly apos-
t at i z e d f r om G o d , t he L or d cho s e A br a h a m a nd h i s de -
scenda nts t o be h is pe cu l ia r pe ople. T hey were such ti l l
the cross. He gave them the rite of circumcision— a circle
cut i n the f lesh — a s a sig n of thei r sepa rat ion f r om the
r e s t o f t h e h u m a n f a m i l y. I n p r o c e s s o f t i m e , a f t e r
s p e c i a l e x p er ien c e s a nd t r a i n i n g , he g ave t hem a l a nd
p e c u l i a rly t hei r ow n , a nd bu i lt a b out t hem , by s p e c i a l
laws, ordinances, rites, and services, a wall of separation,
wh ich has made them a d isti nct people even to the pres-
ent day. T he sig n of ci rcumcision to the Jew implied and
embr ac e d a l l t h i s . It wa s t he one r it e wh ic h s epa r at e d
t he Jews f r om t he G ent i le world . T h i s i s show n by t he
fact that any Gentile could become a proselyte, and be en-
titled to all the privileges of the nation, by being circum-
c i s e d a nd u n it i n g w it h t h em . W it h out t h i s , i n t h e old
economy no ma n cou ld come u nder the prov isions of sa l-
vation; w ith it, a l l the hopes, promises, covena nts, laws,
light, and pr iv ileges of the Israelite were his. Hence ci r-
c u mc i sion i mpl ie s a l l t ho s e pr iv i lege s sp e c i a l ly Jew i sh .
T he t er m wa s u s e d i n t h i s wel l-u nde r s t o o d s en s e . T he
c i r c u mc i s e d wer e G o d ’s p e c u l i a r p e ople . T he u nc i r c u m-
cised were a l l the rest of the world. Hence for a ma n t o
drop circumcision was really to cast aside all the peculiar
blessings and privileges of the Jews, and to lower himself
to a level with the rest of the world he so much despised;
wh i le t o m a i nt a i n it , wa s t o m a i nt a i n a l l h i s supp o s e d
super ior ity. Hence we see what was i nvolved i n the con-
troversies over circumcision in the early gospel church.
Should we inqui re into the reasons why G od thus sep-
a rat ed the descenda nts of A bra ha m f rom the rest of the
world, as the rite of circumcision implied, we may readily
d iscover them. Ever y ef for t of the A lm ighty t o ma i nta i n
a pure people in the earth had in length of time seemed to
fa i l. At the f lood a l l had gone astray save Noa h a nd h is
fam i ly, a nd the destr uction of the mass of the race thus
be ca me ne cessa r y i n order t o sta r t a new. A nother g reat
defe c tion made the destr uc tion of the cities of the pla i n
n e c e s s a r y. S c a r c e a ny b u t A b r a h a m r e m a i n e d t r u e t o
t hei r a l le g i a nt i n h i s t i me . S o G o d now adopt s a mor e
e f fe c t u a l me t ho d . He t a ke s t he p a i n f u l r it e o f c i r c u m-
cision as a separating sig n, and builds a wall around his
people, protecting them in a measure from the inundation
of ev i l c om i n g f r om t he out er he at hen world , t hu s pr e -
ser v i ng a seed , a chu rch , ti l l Messia h shou ld come a nd
i n aug u rat e a mor e ef fe c t ive syst em w ith wh ich t o ble s s
ma n k i nd. T he obje ct was noble, a nd such as was wor thy
of a wise, benevolent Creator.
This people, thus protected, were made the recipients of
nu m b e rl e s s bl e s s i n g s . G o d i nt r u s t e d t o t h e m h i s h o l y
l aw, w i t h h i s h o l y S a b b a t h , — i n e s t i m a bl e bl e s s i n g s ! —
which gave them an in f initely clearer v iew of moral duty
tha n was possess by the most en l ightened nations
a round them. He made r ich prov isions for thei r temporal
go od i n the fer ti le cou ntr y best owed upon them. Had
they been obedient, he would have made them the highest
of the nations. He gave them rich promises,
instructed them by holy prophets, and caused the Messiah
10
t o b e m ade m a n i fe s t t h r ou g h t hei r r ac e . T hey wer e i n-
deed a most favored nation.
B u t t h e s e g r e at bl e s s i n g s , wh i c h s h o u l d h av e m ad e
Israel a humble, g rateful people, full of love to God, they
per verted, and became proud, boastful, supercilious, stiff-
ne c ke d , a nd s el f i sh , lo ok i n g dow n up on a l l ot her s , a nd
feel i ng that they were the on ly ones G od rega rded. T hey
f illed up the measure of their iniquity by crucifying their
l o n g-pr om i s e d M e s s i a h . S o s el f i s h we r e t hey t h at t hey
c ou ld not appr e c i at e t he s pi r it o f l ove t o a l l , wh i c h s o
overf lowed from his precious life.
T hen came the cross, when all their special priv ileges,
w ith ci rcumcision as thei r representative a nd sig n, were
s w e p t aw ay. T h e y h a d f o r f e i t e d t h e m b y d i s o b e d i e n c e
a nd r e b e l l i o n . T h e t i me a nd e v e nt , t he l i m it t o wh i c h
t hey r e ac he d , h ad c ome . T he i r i n iq u it y, i n v iew o f t he
light they had received, was even greater than that of the
nations a rou nd them. T here was no propr iety, therefore,
i n st i l l keepi ng up the wa l l of sepa ration bet ween them
a nd ot her s . T hey a l l s t o o d now up on t he s a me level i n
t h e s i g h t o f G o d . A l l mu s t a p p r o a c h h i m t h r o u g h t h e
Messiah who had come into the world; through him alone
man could be saved.
But d id the Jews ta ke k i nd ly t o th is new order of
th i ngs? — Fa r f r om it . T he th i ng that maddened them
most of all was the intimation that their special privileges
w e r e t a k e n aw a y. T h e s e h a d s e r v e d t o e x a l t t h e m i n
their own eyes, and they had used them for ages to exalt
themselves above others. T hey had been ver y zea lous i n
prosely ting among the nations because of this superiority.
A nd now t o h ave t h i s lowly Na z a r ene a nd h i s p o or, de -
spised fol lowers, who had never been honored as lea r ned
or talented, place them on the same level with others, was
l i ke dest r oy i ng thei r whole st o ck i n t rade. T hei r sacred
privileges and special blessings were the only things they
h ad t o b o a s t o f . T h e y we r e o p p r e s s e d b y t h e R o m a n s ,
a nd despised by the Greeks as bei ng ig nora nt of ph i los-
ophy, a nd not genera l ly l i ke d by the n at ion s be c au se of
their pride and vain glory. To take away their only claim
of bei ng G od’s pecu l ia r people was more tha n they could
endure.
T hei r hatred was especia l ly bitter aga i nst the apostle
Paul, because he, more than any other, clearly defined and
11
demon st rat e d t h i s f ac t . He wa s t he ap o st le t o t he G en-
ti les, wh ich made it necessa r y for h im t o ma ke th is fact
prominent. He pointed them to Christ as their only hope.
T hy h ad noth i ng t o ga i n f r om c i r cu mc i sion a nd the
special pr iv ileges it represented. Hence we see the Juda-
i z i ng t e acher s r epr e s ent i ng t he va r iou s s e c t s of z e a lot s
a mong the Jews a nd the Hebrew d i s c iples who were not
willing to accept the truth as Paul taught it, opposing him,
follow ing h im f rom city to city, persecuting and in many
i nsta nces tr y i ng t o k i l l h i m. T hey were exceed i ngly
zea lous for ci rcumcision a nd the law of the fathers. T he
hardest battle the great apostle had to fight was upon this
very ground.
There were really two leading questions which required
special attention as the gospel went among the Gentiles be-
yond the con f i nes of Juda ism. T he specia l ci rcumsta nces
that had surrounded the Jewish people for ages in the past,
made these questions promi nent, now that the new order
of t h i n g s wa s i nt r o duc e d , a nd Jews a nd G ent i le s s t o o d
alike upon the same basis. One was the binding claims of
the law of God upon all mankind, and the special fact con-
nected with it that the Jews were condemned by that law
as si n ners, a nd hence needed a Sav iou r just as much as
ot her s . T he ot her wa s t he f ac t a l r e ady r efer r e d t o — t he
cessation at the cross, of the types and services pointing to
Christ, with the special privileges granted to Israel as God’s
pe cu l ia r people, sy mbol i zed by ci rcumcision. Unti l these
positions were wel l u nderst o od , a nd the g reat pr i nciples
g row i ng out of them were thorough ly comprehended , the
g o sp el c ou ld never ac o ompl i sh it s de s t i ne d work i n t he
world; the Christian system would be in disorder and con-
fusion. For Jew and Gentile alike to have a Saviour, both
a l i ke mu s t b e s i n n e r s . T hu s b o t h c ou ld c ome i nt o o n e
br ot herho o d , a nd c on s t it ut e one f a m i ly. B ut t h i s c ou ld
not be i f th is midd le wa l l sti l l stood as a sepa ration be-
t w e e n t h e m . H e n c e i t mu s t b e t h o r o u g h l y u n d e r s t o o d
that this was broken down.
B ot h o f t he s e f ac t s wer e u np a l at a ble t o t he Jew. He
g reatly disliked to be reckoned a common sinner with the
hated G enti le. He strenuously contended also for ci rcum-
cision and its attendant privileges. Hence it was necessary
that both of these g reat facts should be fa ith f ul ly devel-
oped , a nd the u nderly i ng reasons g iven for th is new a r-
12
rangement. Paul was the man specially raised up of God to
do this work.
We shall claim that in the epistle to the Romans he fully
c on s ider s t he for mer q ue s t ion , a nd i n t he let t er t o t he
G a l at i a n s , t he l at t e r. We c a n n o t a g r e e w it h s ome wh o
c l a i m t h at t he de s i g n , s c heme , or a r g u ment i n t he t wo
epistles are substantially the same. We freely. admit that
there are expressions alike in both; but we believe that the
main line of argument and the ultimate object in view are
widely different, and that many of the similar expressions
used are to be understood in a different sense, because the
argument of the apostle demands it.
In the other epistles of Paul these facts are adverted to;
but i n none of t hem i s t he a r g u ment a ny wher e ne a r s o
f u l ly develop ed . It do e s not lo ok r e a s on able on the f ac e
of it that the apostle would have principally the same ob-
ject in v iew in two di fferent epistles. T hese were wr itten
by direct inspiration of God, to be the special guidance of
the Christian church. He was bringing out the great prin-
ciples which should serve as the governing inf luence of the
chu r ch for a l l f utu re ages. We therefore bel ieve it t o be
an unreasonable view that both have the same design.
I n the epistle t o the R oma ns, a f ter a few prel im i na r y
remarks, Paul sets before us the condition of the heathen
world, and how they came to forget God, and their terrible
deg r ad at ion . T hey c er t a i n ly ne e de d a S av iou r. Yet t hey
wer e a men a ble t o t he l aw o f G o d ; for it h ad or i g i n a l ly
b e en “ w r it t en i n t he he a r t ” at c r e at ion , a nd s ome r em-
nant of the work of it still remained.
But the Jews had a great advantage, inasmuch as the “ liv-
i ng oracles ” were d i re c tly pl aced i n thei r ke epi ng. T hey
had constant access to them, but had as constantly trans-
g ressed them. T he ap ostle pl a i n ly pr oved a l l of them t o
b e u n d e r s i n . A l l h a d g o n e a s t r ay. N o n e d i d g o o d , n o
not one . He c onc lude s : “ W h at t hen? a r e we [ Jews ] b et -
ter than they?—No, in no wise; for we have before proved
both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin.” Every
mouth was st opped , a nd a l l the world be ca me g u i lt y
b e f o r e G o d . T h e l aw w a s n o t “ m ad e v o i d ,” bu t “ e s t a b -
lished.”
The apostle proceeds in a most lucid and powerful argu-
ment to show the agency of the mora l law i n the plan of
s a lvat ion i n a l l it s va r iou s r el at ion s t o t he si n ner ; t he
13
necessity of faith in Chr ist in order that the law-breaker
may be justified; its agency in the death of the old carnal
ma n; a nd its necessity as a sta nda rd of r ight-doi ng
which the repentant sinner alone can reach by the assist-
ance of Chr ist through the Holy Spi r it. To the Epistle to
the R oma ns we ever lo ok for the most complet e a nd
thor ough ex p o sit ion of the l aw of G o d i n it s r el at ion t o
the plan of salvation and the ultimate justif ication of the
repentant transgressor of it.
But is the scheme of the letter to the Galatians the same?
Does the apostle have in v iew the same object? We think
he had a w idely d i f ferent end i n v iew. I nst ead of tr y i ng
to impress upon Jew and Gentile alike the obligation of the
moral law as his main object, he has constantly in view a
class of Judaizing teachers who had troubled the disciples,
and introduced doctrines which subverted the principles of
the gospel. T he believers had been turned away from the
f a it h by t he s e t e ach i ng s , t o “a not her g o sp el .” T hey h ad
loved the great apostle when they first received the truth,
with a fervency which would have prompted them to pluck
out their eyes for him; but through the inf luence of these
d isturbing teachers, that love had been almost lost. Paul
was g reatly g r ieved at th is sudden cha nge i n thei r feel-
i n g s a n d v i e w s . T h r o u g h o u t t h e wh o l e e p i s t l e h e c o n -
s t a nt ly r e fer s t o it , r epr o ac h i n g t hem for t hei r s udden
cha nge, a nd appea l i ng t o them t o retu r n t o thei r former
position.
W hat was the change in them of which he complains so
s t r o n g l y ? Wa s i t t h at t h e y h ad k e p t t h e m o r a l l aw s o
wel l — had obser ved the Sabbath, ref ra i ned f rom idolatr y,
bl a sphemy, mu r der, ly i n g, s t e a l i n g, et c . — t h at t hey felt
t hey we r e ju s t i f ie d by t he i r g o o d work s , a nd t he r e for e
needed no faith in a crucified Saviour? or was it that they
had accepted circumcision, with all it implied and symbol-
ized, the laws and services which served as a wall of sep-
aration between Jews and Gentiles, and the ordinances of
t he t y pi c a l r eme d i a l s y s t em? We u n he s it at i n g ly a f f i r m
it was the l at t er. I n i ndorsi ng the for mer remed i a l sys -
t e m o f t y p e s a n d s h ad o w s , t h e y v i r t u a l l y d e n i e d t h at
Christ, the substance to which all these types pointed, had
c o m e . He n c e t h e e r r o r w a s a f u nd a m e nt a l o n e i n d o c -
t r i ne , t h ou g h t he y m i g ht n o t r e a l i z e it . T h i s wa s why
Pau l sp oke s o for c ibly, a nd p oi nt ed out thei r er r or w ith
14
such streng th of lang uage. T hei r er ror involved practices
wh i c h we r e s u b v e r s i v e o f t h e p r i n c i pl e s o f t h e g o s p e l .
They were not merely errors of opinion.
Let us notice a few expressions of the apostle, scattered
th rough Ga latia ns, before we come t o a n exam i nation of
the epistle it sel f. T h i s w i l l ser ve t o br i ng out the p oi nt
more clearly:—
“ I ma r vel that ye a re so so on removed f rom h i m that
ca l led you i nto the g race of Ch r ist unto another gospel.”
Chap. 1:6.
“ O fool ish Galatians, who hath bew it ched you, that ye
should not obey the truth? ” Chap. 3:1.
“ But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are
k now n of G od , how t u r n ye aga i n t o the we a k a nd beg-
ga rly elements, whereunto ye desi re again to be in bond-
age? ”
“ I am a f ra id of you, lest I have best owed upon
you labor in vain.” Chap. 4:9, 11.
“ Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised,
Christ shall prof it you nothing. For I testify again to ev-
ery man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the
w h o l e l a w. ” C h a p . 5 : 2 , 3 . “ Ye d i d r u n w e l l ; w h o d i d
hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? ” Verse 7.
“As many as desire to make a fair show in the f lesh, they
constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suf-
fer persecution for the cross of Christ.” Chap. 6:32.
It will be noticed that these texts are selected all through
the epistle. M a ny others of si m i la r i mpor t cou ld a lso be
g iven. T hey relate to the pr incipal theme in the apostle’s
m i nd wh ich caused h i m t o w r it e th is letter t o the Ga la-
t i a n s . H e h ad o n e l e ad i n g o b j e c t i n v i e w ; h e n c e h e i s
constantly referring to it. The errors in the Galatian church
which Paul was so v igorously combating, were not merely
the theoretical view that they were justif ied by their obe-
d ience to the moral law and hence needed not a Sav iour;
but they were pra cti c es wh ich rea l ly u nderm i ned the
tr uth of the gospel , con ne cti ng it w ith ci rcumcision , the
symbol of all those laws peculiarly Jewish.
We do not here quote these texts to make an argument
upon them. We reser ve them for thei r proper con ne ction
when we exa m i ne the epistle poi nt by poi nt. We present
them now as a n i l lustration of what was spe cia l ly o c cu-
py i ng the ap ostle’s thought s f r om one end of the epistle
t o t h e o t h e r. H e a p p a r e n t l y c o u l d n o t k e e p o u t o f h i s
15
mind the fundamental errors into which these children in
.the faith were fallen. T hese er rors of doctr ine he had to
meet wherever he met a Jew. Throughout his whole Chris-
tia n l i fe he had t o f ight them. B ecause of the bitter ness
o f fe el i n g e nt e r t a i ne d by t he Jew s i n s u s t a i n i n g t he i r
claims to superiority because of these separating laws in-
volved in circumcision, Paul had to endure whippings, im-
prisonment, insult, hatred, a long captiv ity, and, worst of
all, see multitudes of those he desired to save, of his own
k i n smen ac c ord i ng t o the f lesh , lost forever. T hei r e a r s
were closed aga i nst h im a nd the precious gospel he
p r e a c h e d . He w o u ld w i l l i n g ly h av e d i e d t o s av e t h e m ;
but thei r ea rs were closed aga i nst the gospel because he
could not sustain those separating laws which served as a
l i n e o f d e m a r c at i o n b e t we e n t h e J e w a nd t h e G e nt i l e .
T h i s quest ion w ith Pau l , therefore, was a live qu e sti on,
one ever before h i m. Hence a l l th rough the bo ok of Ga l-
atians it is constantly brought to v iew. Ci rcumcision and
the remed ia l system con nected w ith the old d ispensation
are constantly in his mind from the commencement in the
first chapter till his close in the last.
There are, no doubt, several references to the moral law
in the epistle. Indeed, we do not see how it could well be
other w ise wh i le d is cussi ng a remed i a l syst em pr ov id i ng
pardon in f ig ure for v iolation of that law. In some places
the apostle uses a rg uments wh ich w i l l embrace that a nd
all systems of law, and which may and do refer to and in-
c l u d e b o t h . B u t we e m p h at i c a l l y d e ny t h at t h e l aw o f
God is the leading subject under consideration in this let-
ter. We now propose to examine the whole epistle consec-
ut ively, h av i ng a rel at ion t o th i s subje c t . To en able the
reader to easi ly fol low us, we w i l l quote the lang uage of
the apostle.
C H A P T E R 1 :1 : “ Pau l , a n ap o s t le , ( n o t o f me n , n e it he r
by men , but by Je su s C h r i s t , a nd G o d t he Fat her, who
raised him from the dead;)
“ 2 . A nd a l l the breth ren wh ich a re w ith me, u nt o the
churches of Galatia:
“ 3 . G r a c e b e y o u , a n d p e a c e , f r o m G o d t h e F a t h e r,
and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
“4. W ho gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver
us f rom th is present ev i l world , ac cord i ng t o the w i l l of
God and our Father:
16
“5. To whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.
“6. I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that
called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
“ 7. W h i c h i s n o t a n o t h e r ; b u t t h e r e b e s o m e t h a t ,
trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
“ 8 . B ut t hou g h we , or a n a n g el f r om he aven , pr e ac h
a ny other gospel u nt o you th a n th at wh ich we h ave
preached unto you, let him be accursed.
“ 9 . A s w e h a v e s a i d b e f o r e , s o s ay I n o w a g a i n , I f
a ny ma n preach a ny other gospel u nt o you tha n that ye
have received, let him be accursed.”
T hese are the introductory words of the epistle. In the
pa renthetica l clause i n verse 1, Pau l especia l ly refers t o
his call to the apostleship, which was high and honorable.
It placed him on an equality of authority with any of the
other apostles. I ndeed, h is ca l l was more especia l ly
ma rked by d iv ine mani festations than any of them, ind i-
cati ng, perhaps, G od’s choice of h i m for the most i mpor-
tant work. He dwells upon this in other places in this let-
ter, because there was a disposition on the part of the Ju-
daizing element to underrate the apostle, and exalt those
whose spe c i a l spher e of l ab or wa s a mong the Jews , a nd
who had never ta ken such strong g rou nd as Pau l had i n
s how i n g t h at a l l n at ion a l d i s t i n c t ion s wer e g one . Pau l
g ive s t hem t o u nde r s t a nd t h at he i s f u l ly pr ep a r e d by
God’s appointment to instruct them in the gospel.
Before he has proceeded a dozen lines in his introduc-
t ion , Pau l bu rst s out i n st r ong l a ng uage c oncer n i ng the
g r e at t heme wh i c h wa s i n h i s m i nd . “ I m a r vel t h at ye
a re so so on removed f rom h i m that ca l led you . . . u nt o
a n o t he r g o s p el .” “ T he r e b e s ome t h at t r ou ble y ou , a nd
wou ld per ver t the gospel pf C h r ist .” I f a ngel or ma n
“ pr e ach a ny ot her g o sp el , … let h i m b e ac c u r s e d .” A nd
to make it doubly emphatic, he repeats this last statement.
T o b e “ a c c u r s e d ” i s t o b e “d o o m e d t o d e s t r u c t i o n . ” I t
is a ver y strong term, i ndeed. W hat is it that has
pr ompt e d t h i s pat ient , me ek , hu mble s er va nt of G o d t o
pou r for th so sudden ly such an outbu rst of holy i nd ig na-
tion. Not a nother lett er of h is ca n be fou nd i n wh ich he
commences with such vehemence and apparent impatience.
A nd we may be su re he wou ld not i ndu lge i n them here
but for great provocation and a clear sense that some very
dangerous doctrine, calculated to greatly mar the Christian
17
s y s t em , wa s b e i n g pr omu l g at e d . T he g o s p e l wa s b e i n g
“ p er ver t ed ” a nd u nder m i ned , a nd other me a n s of sa lva-
tion substituted. Would such lang uage have been in place
if these Jewish teachers had been trying to have them keep
t he t en c om m a nd ment s ver y st r ic t ly, a nd t he G a l at i a n s
were following such instruction closely, neither killing, ly-
ing, committing adultery, nor stealing, thinking thus to be
ju st i f ie d by t hei r g o o d work s? To ou r m i nd such a c on-
clusion wou ld be absu rd. But i f these teachers were tr y-
ing to lead the Galatian brethren to adopt circumcision with
its attendant typical remedial system, virtually doing away
w ith the g reat sacr i f ice on Ca lva r y, then such la ng uage
would be ver y much in place. We must bear in mind also
how Paul was constantly beset by this same class of teach-
er s , a s we sh a l l s e e. T hey c a me ne a r t a k i ng h i s l i fe at
Da ma s cus , when he f i r st bel ieved i n C h r i st . Mu lt it udes
in Jer usalem thi rsted for his blood, and even swore they
wou ld never eat or d r i n k ti l l they had k i l led h i m. T hey
met h im i n ever y city he entered, sti r r i ng up the people
aga i nst h i m. A nd now i n h is absence, w ith thei r Jew ish
notions of circumcision, they had turned away his beloved
ch i ld r en i n the L ord . No wonder the r ight e ous i nd ig n a-
tion of the apostle is aroused!
Verse 10 : “ For do I now persuade men, or G od ? or do
I seek t o please men? for i f I yet pleased men , I shou ld
not be the servant of Christ,
“11. But I cer ti f y you, breth ren, that the gospel which
was preached of me is not after man.
“ 1 2 . Fo r I ne it he r r e c e i ve d it o f m a n , ne it he r wa s I
taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
“13. For ye have heard of my conversation in time past
i n the Jews’ rel ig ion , how that beyond measu re I perse -
cuted the church of God, and wasted it:
“14. A nd prof ited in the Jews’ relig ion above many my
equals i n mi ne own nation, bei ng more exceed i ngly zeal-
ous of the traditions of my fathers.
“15. But when it pleased G od , who sepa rated me f rom
my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,
“16. To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him
a m o n g t h e h e at h e n ; i m m e d i at e l y I c o n f e r r e d n o t w i t h
f lesh and blood:
“ 17. N e i t h e r we nt I up t o J e r u s a l e m t o t h e m wh i c h
were apostles before me; but I went i nto A rabia, and re-
turned again unto Damascus.
18
“18 . T hen a f ter th ree yea rs I went up to Jer usalem to
see Peter and abode with him fifteen days.
“19. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James,
the Lord’s brother.
“20. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, be-
fore God, I lie not.
“ 21. A f t er wa rd s I c a me i nt o the reg ions of Sy r i a a nd
Cilicia;
“ 2 2 . A nd wa s u n k now n by f ac e u nt o t he c hu r c he s of
Judea which were in Christ:
“23. But they had heard only, That he which persecuted
us i n ti mes past now preacheth the fa ith wh ich once he
destroyed.
“24. A nd they glorified God in me.”
In this quotation Paul beg ins by again referring to the
proofs of his divine call to the apostleship, a fact to which
he refers over and over in this letter. Evidently these Ju-
daizing teachers had disparaged him and his position, and
exalted the apostles at Jerusalem far above him, because
he taught that these special Jewish d istinctions were set
aside.
He next refers to his former zeal in the “Jews’ religion,”
or i n “Jud a ism ,” as it i s t ra nsl at ed i n the D i aglot t . “ Ye
h av e h e a r d o f my c o n v e r s at i o n , ” o r c o u r s e o f l i f e , “ i n
time past in Judaism,” and how I “persecuted the church
of G od, and wasted it.” He “prof ited in Judaism”
above h is equals, bei ng ” more exceed i ngly zealous of the
t rad it ion s of h i s f ather s.” W hy do es the ap ostle present
th is str i k i ng reference t o h is former exper ience i n Juda-
ism as a zealot and a persecutor, in his argument with the
Galatian brethren? —Because it was wonderfully in place.
T hese Judaizing teachers were lead ing the brethren back
to the very doctrines Paul had discarded, telling them they
must be circumcised, and keep up the wall of separation,
or they could not be saved, as we shall soon see. But had
not Pau l b e en over a l l t h at g r ou nd b efor e ? H ad he not
prof ited in this kind of relig ion more than any in his na-
t ion? Had he not excel led them a l l i n h is zea l for these
ver y th i ngs they were tr y i ng t o susta i n? C ou ld these
teachers or the brethren they were leading astray hope to
practice or comprehend those doctrines as well as he had,
w it h h i s g r e at a bi l it y, er ud it ion , a nd r em a rk a ble z e a l?
— C e r t a i n l y n o t . B u t wh e n C h r i s t r e v e a l e d h i m s e l f t o
19
Paul, on the road to Damascus, he had seen the utter un-
profitableness of all these peculiar doctrines of Judaism by
wh ich they were now tr y i ng to be saved. T he g reat l ight
of Ch r istia n ity had f u l ly del i neated the pu r pose a nd de -
sign of ail those ordinances for the past. Should they now
g o bac k t o t ho s e t h i n g s wh ich Pau l h ad f u l ly ex plor e d ,
understood, and discarded, and cast aside the glorious light
which he had received by direct revelation from the L ord,
and preached to them? P reposterous! I f they should, they
wou ld be goi ng back f rom l ight i nt o da rk ness. T hese
were considerations wh ich Pau l’s reference t o h is former
e x p e r i e n c e mu s t h av e f a s t e n e d up o n t h e m i n d s o f t h e
Galatian brethren.
But what were these doctr ines of Judaism to which he
refers, and for which he was so zealous before his conver-
sion? Was it a special zeal for the doctr ines of the moral
law which so distinguished him, and led him to persecute
t he c hu r c h? N o S e vent h- d ay A dvent i s t w i l l c l a i m t h at .
No doubt the disciples whom he persecuted, kept that law
much bett er tha n he d id or h is asso ciat es. S o fa r as we
know, the Jews themselves never claim that the principles
of t he t en c om m a nd ment s a r e p e c u l i a r t o t hei r n at ion .
They believe all men are morally bound to keep them, the
Sabbath i ncluded. T hey wel l k now there is noth i ng Jew-
ish about that law. But it was the claims of another law,
i nvolv i ng “ the trad itions of the fathers ” a nd Jew ish su-
periority and exclusiveness, circumcision, and kindred or-
dinances, and salvation through Judaism and its doctrines,
and not through Jesus, which roused Paul to such a pitch
of zea l. H is lead i ng desig n i n w r iti ng th is lett er was t o
set before them the folly of their Judaizing defection.
In the remaining part of this quotation; the apostle con-
tinues the narration of his personal experience, presenting
h i s c ou rse of ac t ion a f t er h i s c onversion . He was c a l led
of G od t o preach C h r ist “a mong the heathen.” He h ad a
divine call to this special work which no other apostle had
t o the same deg ree. He d id not re ceive h is k nowledge of
C h r i st i a n do c t r i ne f r om the chu r ch at Jer usa lem or the
ap ostles , but f r om d i r e c t r evel at ion . A nd though he d id
spend fifteen days with Peter three years after his conver-
sion, yet it was not through him or any human authority that
he r e c eived h i s c om m i s sion . G o d’s pr ov idenc e sepa rat ed
Paul largely from the leading inf luential men in the church,
20
and by special illumination prepa red him to take a lead-
ing position in br ing ing the gospel to the heathen world.
His former experience and education and thorough knowl-
edge of Judaism had prepared his mind to comprehend all
it cou ld ac compl ish for huma n ity. A nd when the l ight of
the gospel was f u l ly revea led t o h i m, he was thorough ly
equ ipped t o meet the opposi ng Jud a i z i ng t eachers fou nd
i n ever y c it y, a nd ex p ose thei r wea k ness , a nd br i ng the
light of the gospel in all its fullness to the Gentile world.
No other apostle was prepa red t o do such a work i n th is
direction as Paul. In this letter to the Galatian believers
he r efer s t o the s e t h i ng s t h at t hey m ay u nder st a nd h i s
t hor ou g h qu a l i f ic at ion a s a n ap o s t le , wh ich t he s e f a l s e
teachers had tried to belittle.
C H A P T E R 2 :1 : “ T h e n f o u r t e e n y e a r s a f t e r I w e n t u p
aga i n t o Jer usa lem w ith B a r nabas , a nd t o ok T itus w ith
me also.
“ 2 . A nd I we nt up by r e v e l at i o n , a nd c om mu n i c at e d
unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles,
but pr ivat ely t o t hem wh ich wer e of r eput at ion , le st by
any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
“3. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek,
was compelled to be circumcised:
“4. A nd that because of false brethren unawares brought
i n , who ca me i n pr iv i ly t o spy out ou r l iber t y wh ich we
have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bond-
age:
“ 5 . To whom we g ave pl ac e by subje c t ion , no, not for
an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with
you.”
We here reach a most interesting point in the considera-
t i o n o f t h e s u b j e c t b e f o r e u s . T h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s me n -
tioned in this connection unmistakably identi fy this v isit
w it h t he one ment ione d i n A c t s 15 . T he q ue s t ion s a g i-
t at i n g t he m i nd s of t he d i s c iple s i n b ot h c a s e s a r e t he
s a me . T he c i r c u m s t a nc e s ment ione d a r e t he s a me . T he
parties or persons referred to are substantially the same.
T he ch ronolog y of both is the same. A nd no other re -
corded v isit of the apostle will harmonize the statements
of the chronology of this visit but the one recorded in Acts
15 . C ony b e a r e a nd Hows on , i n t hei r “ L i fe a nd E pi s t le s
of the Apostle Pau l ,” present a n ex haustive a rg ument i n
f av o r o f t h i s v i e w, i n wh i c h e v e r y o b j e c t i o n t o it e v e r
21
u r g e d , i s c o n s i d e r e d a nd a n s we r e d . T h e y d e c l a r e t h at
“ the majority of the best critics and commentators” ag ree
i n the identity of these v isits. For lack of space we ca n-
not enter into a leng thy arg ument to prove this. It is not
necessar y. Most likely none of our brethren will question
th is ; but those who w ish t o exam i ne th is poi nt f u l ly, we
refer t o the seventh ch apt er of C onybea re a nd Howson’s
v a l u a b l e w o r k . D r. C l a r k e a n d m a n y o t h e r c o m m e n -
tators, and Sr. W hite also, sustain this view.
To obt a i n a c ompr ehen s ive v iew of t h i s v i s it a nd it s
significance, we notice the corresponding facts in Acts 15:
“A nd c er t a i n men wh ic h c a me dow n f r om Jude a t au g ht
the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the
ma n ner of Moses, ye cann ot be saved. W hen therefore
Paul and Barnabas had no small d issension and d isputa-
tion with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas,
a nd c e r t a i n o t h e r o f t h e m , s h o u ld g o up t o J e r u s a l e m
unto the apostles and elders about this question.” Verses
1, 2.
A f t e r r e a c h i n g Je r u s a lem , a nd g i v i n g a n a c c ou nt o f
thei r pa st l ab or s , the r e c ord c ont i nue s : “ But ther e r o s e
up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, say-
ing, T hat it was need ful to circumcise them, and to com-
m a nd t hem t o ke ep t he l aw of Mo s e s . A nd t he ap o st le s
a nd elders c a me t ogether for t o c onsider of th i s mat t er.
A nd when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up,
and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that
a g o o d wh i le a g o G o d m ade c h o i c e a m o n g u s , t h at t he
Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel,
a nd b el ieve . A nd G o d , wh i c h k nowet h t he he a r t s , ba r e
them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did
unto us; and put no di f ference between us and them, pu-
rify ing their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye
G od, to put a yoke upon the neck of the d isciples, wh ich
n e i t h e r o u r f at h e r s n o r we we r e a bl e t o b e a r? B u t we
bel ieve that th r ough the g race of the L ord Jesus C h r ist
we shall be saved, even as they.” Verses 5 -11.
Perhaps there never was a g reat er cr isis i n the ea rly
church than this. The cloud had been gathering for years.
Q uestions c oncer n i ng the obl igation of the law of Moses
had been constantly a r ising. T he gospel was now spread-
i ng fa r a nd w ide. Mu lt itudes of G ent i les were be c om i ng
i nt erest ed i n it , a nd ma n h ad embraced it . T hese Jud a-
22
izi ng teachers were ever y where sti r r i ng up trouble. Paul
a n d B a r n a b a s h a d g r e a t “d i s s e n s i o n a n d d i s p u t a t i o n ”
w ith them. T hey fol lowed on the t rack of these ap ostles
who were preach i ng specia l ly t o the G enti les, d istu rbi ng
those conver ted, and unsettling thei r faith in that which
these apostles preached. T hey crept in “priv ily to spy out
the liber ty ” which the disciples had in Christ, constantly
th r usti ng i n thei r Jew ish notions. T hey were determi ned
t o br i ng the bel ievers “ i nt o bond age ” t o thei r notions of
t he o bl i g at ion o f Jew i s h l aws a nd c u s t om s . T he e x t ent
to which they carried their teachings is clearly set forth in
these scr iptu res. T hey sa id : “ E xcept ye be ci r cu mcised ,”
a n d k e e p t h e l aw o f M o s e s , “ y e c a n n o t b e s av e d .” A l l
the G enti le world , then , must be c i r cumcised a nd rea l ly
b e c ome Jews . A l l t ho s e r it e s , s er v i c e s , a nd c u s t om s i n
M o s e s ’ l aw mu s t b e o b e y e d . I n t h i s c a s e t h e g l o r i o u s
light and freedom of the gospel must be circumscr ibed to
the narrow bounds of Jewish bondage.
It is no wonder Pau l decla res, “ We gave place by sub-
j e c t i o n ” t o t h e m , “ n o , n o t f o r a n h o u r. ” H e , s aw, at a
gla nce that the i nteg r ity of the whole gospel system was
at stake. I f these Jewish positions were to stand, and be
genera l ly accepted , Ch r ist cou ld not be the prom ised
Messiah, and his death was in vain. Faith in him was not
t he s av i n g pr i nc iple . T hey wer e t o b e s ave d by c i r c u m-
c i s i o n a nd t he s e r v i c e s o f t he l aw o f M o s e s . T he wel l -
bei ng of the Ch r istian chu rch demanded, and the system
o f f a it h i n C h r i s t wh i c h he t au g ht r e q u i r e d , t h at t h i s
que st ion shou ld b e s et t le d onc e a nd for ever. It wa s t he
tu r n i ng-poi nt i n the h ist or y of the Ch r istian chu rch, be-
tween liberty and bondage, Jewish narrowness and exclu-
siveness a nd the f re edom wh ich i s i n C h r i st Jesus. T he
gospel never cou ld ac compl ish its m ission t o the ends of
the earth with such a burden placed upon it. T he circum-
stances of the case required, and a special revelation from
the L ord d i re ct ed , that th is moment ous question be
brought before the highest tribunal of the church for set-
tlement,— a general con ference of the believers at Jerusa-
lem.
Paul and Barnabas, the special apostles to the Gentiles,
a nd a compa ny of the breth ren went up f rom A ntio ch t o
a t t e n d i t . T h e y t o o k T i t u s w i t h t h e m . H e w a s a n e x-
ample and an illustration of the whole question, an uncir-
23
c u m c i s e d G r e e k , but a de v o t e d C h r i s t i a n . W h at wou ld
the breth ren do w ith h i m? Wou ld they re ceive h i m as a
brother i n the common fa ith? or wou ld they cast h i m
a s id e , a nd r e f u s e t o o w n h i m a s o n e o f t h e m u nt i l h e
shou ld r e c eive th i s old t e st of Jew i sh d i s c iple sh ip — c i r -
c u mc i sion? Wa s t he t e st of C h r i st i a n it y t o be t he s a me
as that of Judaism? or was a heart made pure by faith in
a cruci f ied Sav iour to be the test? Paul could not, in any
possible way, have brought the matter home more forcibly
than he did by taking the devoted Titus with him.
It is impossible for us, after eighteen centuries of Gen-
tile freedom, to realize the intense interest which centered
i n th i s c ont est wh ich was t o be de c ided by the C ou nc i l .
It s e eme d t o t he Hebr ew c onver t s , who h ad b e en s t r ic t
Pharisees, that every thing which they had held sacred in
their past experience was now to be swept away. For cent-
u r ies subsequent to the captiv ity, scattered as they were
among the Gentiles; they had struggled to maintain their
distinctive national characteristics under great difficulties.
T hey h ad b e en h at e d for it , a nd of t en p er s e c ut e d . A nd
now these were all to be swept aside, and they be placed
on a level with the Gentiles, against whom they had guarded
t h e m s e l v e s s o s t r i c t l y. T h e r e a s o n o f t h e i r b l i n d n e s s
was because they failed to discern the vast importance of
the death of Ch r ist. Had they rea l i zed th is as Pau l d id ,
all would have been plain.
No wonder there was much “disputation” and heat mani-
fested as they approached the solution of this g reat ques-
tion. Paul, li ke a wise manager, had held pr ivate consul-
t at i o n s w i t h t h e ap o s t l e s a nd l e ad i n g b r e t h r e n . W h e n
they c a me t o c onsider the subje c t they c ou ld not fa i l t o
see that his position was the only sound one, the only pos-
sible one to take. Peter in the Council rehearsed the facts
connected with the conversion of Cornelius, the first plain
instance of Gentile conversion. .In this case God had given
the witness of the Spirit as a divine evidence of acceptance
w it hout c i r c u m c i s ion . W h at t e s t i m ony c ou ld h ave b e en
stronger than this? A nd large numbers of others had been
c onver t ed , a nd re c eived the sa me ev idenc e. Shou ld they
n o w g o b a c k wa r d , a nd i mp o s e a y oke o f b o nd a g e up o n
these disciples after God had accepted them and given them
the same Spi r it the Hebrew d isciples had received? T h is
would be highly absurd.
24
T hen Pau l a nd B a r n abas re c ou nt ed the wonder f u l i n-
st a nces of d iv i ne p ower at t end i ng thei r m i n ist r y a mong
the G enti les. M a ny had re ceived the gospel , a nd m ighty
miracles had been wrought, g iv ing evidence that God was
with them in their work; no apostle had performed greater
miracles. T hey had not required these Gentiles to be cir-
c u m c i s e d . Wou ld it n o w b e r e a s o n a ble t o s e t a s id e a l l
t he s e ev idenc e s of d iv i ne s a nc t ion a nd r ef u s e t o ac c ept
them as d isciples by erecti ng the old wa l l of sepa ration?
Preposterous!
T hese were a rg u ment s wh ich the Jew ish d is c iples ,
zea lous for Moses’ law, fou nd it ha rd t o a nswer. F i na l ly
Ja me s , t he br ot her of ou r L or d , a r o s e , a m a n of vener -
able appearance and g reat sanctity, usually called “James
the Just.” He was acting as the presiding officer on this oc-
casion. He presents other strong reasons in behal f of the
position of Paul and Barnabas, and then the decision of the
C ou nci l is rendered: “ Forasmuch as we have hea rd , that
c er t a i n wh ich went out f r om u s h ave t r ouble d you w it h
words, subver ting your souls, say ing, Ye must be circum-
c i sed , a nd keep the l aw; t o whom we gave no such c om-
mandment: it seemed good unto us, being assembled with
one accord, to send chosen men unto you, with our beloved
B a r n abas a nd Pau l , men th at h ave h a za rded thei r l ives
f o r t h e n a m e o f o u r L o r d J e s u s C h r i s t . We h av e s e n t
therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same
th i ngs by mouth. For it seemed go od t o the Holy Ghost ,
and to us, to lay upon you no g reater bu rden than these
ne cessa r y th i ngs ; th at ye abst a i n f r om meat s of fered t o
idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from
fornication: from which i f ye keep yourselves, ye shall do
well. Fare ye well.” Verses 24-29.
T hus th is momentous question was settled, and gospel
liberty gained a g reat victory. The Gentile believers could
b e c ome mem b er s o f t he f a m i ly o f C h r i s t Je s u s w it hout
ob e d ienc e t o t he r it u a l l aw. C i r c u mc i sion , t he bad ge of
Jew ish exclusiveness, was set aside. T itus was not “com-
pelled to be circumcised,” and the Jewish zealots were de-
cided ly snubbed. W hat a vast load th is Council li f ted of f
f r o m t h e c hu r c h ! W h at a t e r r i bl e i n c u b u s w o u l d h av e
fa l len upon it had the decision gone the other way! Pau l
must have returned to A ntioch with a light heart.
But what have this Council and its decision to do with
25
t he que st ion we a r e c on sider i ng — t he l aw i n G a l at i a n s?
It has ever y th i ng t o do w ith it. T he ver y sa me question
precisely which came before the Council is the main sub-
ject of the apostles letter to this church. If the moral law
is the mai n subject of the epistle, why d id Paul br i ng i n
the work of the Counci l at Jer usalem? Wi ll any Seventh-
d ay Advent i st cl a i m th at the mora l l aw was the subje c t
considered by that C ou nci l? Was it the mora l law wh ich
Pe t e r c h a r a c t e r i z e s a s “ a y o k e . . . wh i c h n e i t h e r o u r
f at her s nor we wer e able t o b e a r? ” Wer e t he mora l a nd
ceremonial laws all mixed up and confounded in the Coun-
cil? Did the decision of that body set aside the laws against
s t e a l i n g , ly i n g , S a bb at h- br e a k i n g , a nd mu r de r? We a l l
k now b et t er. T he C ou nc i l t o ok no c o g n i z a nc e wh at ever
of t he t en c om m a nd ment s . T her e wa s no d i sput e a b out
thei r u n iversa l obl igat ion . But not s o c oncer n i ng the
J e w i s h l aw. T h a t w a s i n d i s p u t e . P au l , t h e n , i n G a l -
at i a n s , m a k i n g t he subje c t of Mo s e s ’ l aw pr om i nent ,
br i n g s i n t h i s C ou n c i l at Jer u s a lem a s a mo s t for c i ble
ev idenc e of t he w r on g p o s it ion of t he G a l at i a n c hu r c h .
It is the ceremonial and not the moral law that he has in
v iew. To take any other position concerning his reference
to this Council would be to claim that Paul had no proper
ideas of a logical argument; for assuredly if he was trying
t o pr ove t o t he G a l at i a n s t he bi nd i n g obl i g at ion of t he
moral law, and their justification through faith for its trans-
gression, there would be no force whatever in prominently
r efer r i n g t o t he de c i sion of a c ou nc i l wh ic h l i m it e d it s
c on sider at ion t o a n ent i r ely d i f fer ent l aw. T he v iew we
advocate makes Paul’s argument perfectly logical and con-
si st ent th r oughout . T he opp osit e v iew brea k s it up, a nd
renders it illogical.
Ve r s e 6 : “ B ut o f t h o s e wh o s e eme d t o b e s ome wh at ,
wh at s o ever t hey wer e , it m a ket h no m at t er t o me : G o d
a c c e p t e t h n o m a n’s p e r s o n : f o r t he y wh o s e eme d t o b e
somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
“ 7. But contrary wise, when they saw that the gospel of
the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel
of the circumcision was unto Peter;
“ 8 . ( For he t h at w r ou g ht e f fe c t u a l ly i n Pe t e r t o t he
apostlesh ip of ci rcumcision, the same was m ighty i n
me toward the Gentiles;)
“ 9. A nd when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to
26
be pi l l a r s , per c eived the g rac e th at wa s g iven u nt o me,
they gave t o me a nd B a r nabas the r ight ha nd of fel low-
sh ip; that we should go unt o the heathen, and they unto
the circumcision.
“10. Only they would that we should remember the poor;
the same which I also was forward to do.”
In this quotation an interesting fact is presented, which
had an important bearing upon the question Paul was dis-
cussi ng w ith the Ga latia n breth ren. It wou ld seem f rom
this description that the position of Paul’s apostleship, as
t o its relative impor ta nce i n the work of the gospel, was
her e def i ne d a nd s et t le d a s never b efor e. Pau l’s ex p er i-
ence had been peculiar and striking. F irst a bitter perse-
cut or, the worst one the d is c iples had t o meet , ca r r y i ng
t er r or a nd d ismay wherever he went : then , a f t er h is re -
m a rk a ble c onver s ion , wh i c h m a ny m i g ht not h ave b e en
aware of, he became, after a season, a laborer in the gospel.
A f ter h is conversion, he d isappea red i n A rabia for about
th ree yea rs. Many may have thought he had apostatized.
F rom several scriptures it appears there was much suspi-
cion in the church concerning the genuineness of his change;
t i l l B a r n aba s s oug ht h i m out . W hen he b eg a n t o l ab or,
it was for the Gentiles; and the doctrines he taught were
ver y u npa lat able t o the Hebrew c onver ts. Unti l th is
meeting at Jerusalem, he seems not to have been generally
ack nowledged a s h av i ng a n i ndep endent m i ssion . But it
seems likely some thought him “antagonistic to the apos-
t le s at Jer u s a lem ; ot her s , t h at he wa s ent i r ely dep end-
ent upon them.” Such is Conybeare and Howson’s view.
But all was changed at this Council. They fully discerned
h i s m i s s i o n , a n d s aw t h at t h e H o l y S p i r i t h ad pl a c e d
th is work of reach i ng the G enti le world especia l ly under
h is cha rge. T he v iews he h ad t aught were now f u l ly ac -
cept ed by the ap ostles a nd the chu r ch at la rge, at least
i n t h e o r y. P au l a n d B a r n a b a s ’ n o w r e c e i v e d t h e r i g h t
hand of fellowship, sig ni fy ing that their course was fully
approbat ed. T hey were sent on thei r m ission t o “ the
heathen,” while Peter still continued to act a leading part
a m o n g t he He br e w p o r t i o n o f t he c hu r c h . A wo nd e r f u l
v ict or y had been ga i ned for the cause of tr uth taught by
Paul in this g reat crisis. T he prominence of this question
i n the apost ol ic chu r ch may be d is c overed f r om the fac t
th at no other genera l C ou nc i l of l i ke ch a rac t er ever o c -
27
cu r red i n the ea rly chu r ch . F r om th i s t i me onwa rd , the
whole burden of the work of the gospel, as its history is given
in the book of Acts, seems to have been among the Gentiles.
This Council gave great encouragement to the work among
the heathen. T he ma i n i nt erest of the h ist or y of the
c hu r c h c ent e r s i n Pau l ’s l a b or s f r om t h i s p oi nt . T he s e
facts, as cited by the apostle in his letter, must have had
great force with the Galatian brethren, who had now fallen
under the inf luence of these same Judaizing teachers.
We do not see how his argument could be more forcible.
Paul substantially said to them, A re you going back to the
ceremonial law and ci rcumcision, a f ter the g reat Council
at Jerusalem has decided against them, and after the doc-
trines I have taught and my special mission to the Gentile
world have been fully approbated by the apostles at Jerusa-
lem a nd t he whole c hu r c h of b el iever s ? W i l l you fol low
t h e s e f a l s e t e a c h e r s r at h e r t h a n t h e wh o l e c hu r c h ? I t
must have been a most convincing appeal.
Verse 11: “ But when Peter was come to A ntioch, I with-
stood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
“ l 2 . For before th at cer t a i n c a me f r om Ja mes , he d id
eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he with-
d rew a nd sepa rated h imsel f, fea r i ng them wh ich were of
the circumcision.
“13. A nd the other Jews dissembled likewise with him;
insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their
dissimulation.
“14. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly ac-
cording to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before
them all, I f thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of
Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the
Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
“15. We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the
Gentiles,
“16. K nowing that a man is not justi f ied by the works
o f t h e l aw, b u t b y t h e f a i t h o f J e s u s C h r i s t , e v e n w e
have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by
the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by
the works of the law shall no f lesh be justified.
“17. But if, while we seek to be justif ied by Christ, we
ou rselves a lso a re fou nd si n ners, is therefore Ch r ist the
minister of sin? God forbid.
“ 18 . For i f bu i ld aga i n t he t h i ng s wh ich I de st r oye d ,
28
I make myself a transgressor.
“19. For I th rough the law am dead t o the law, that I
might live unto God.
“ 20. I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live; yet
not I , but Ch r ist l iveth i n me ; a nd the l i fe wh ich I now
live in the f lesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who
loved me, and gave himself for me.
“ 21. I do not f r ust rat e the g rac e of G od : for i f r ight -
eousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.”
We have here the thi rd histor ical reference to facts in
Paul’s exper ience hav ing a special bea r ing upon the sub-
ject discussed in his letter, being his public reproof of the
apostle Peter in the presence of others, and the substance
o f t h e r e m a rk s m ad e o n t h i s o c c a s i o n . I t s e e m s Pe t e r
came down to A ntioch soon after the great Council, before
Paul and Barnabas left on their next tour of labor. At first
he lived as Paul did, eating with the Gentiles, and paying
no at t ent ion t o the Jew i sh l aws a nd cust oms. But when
some of the disciples from Jerusalem came down to A nti-
o c h , who wer e s t i l l z e a lou s for a l l t he r e q u i r ement s of
Moses’ law, Peter withdrew, and no longer acted as before.
T he current became so strong in that direction that even
B a r n abas , Pau l’s c ompa n ion , was c a r r ied away w ith the
rest. It took a man of g reat ner ve and stamina and intel-
l igent , conscientious conv ictions, l i ke Pau l, t o w ithsta nd
the pressure of inf luence brought to bear on this occasion.
T h i s shows how st r ong t he fe el i ng wa s i n beh a l f of t he
customs of Judaism in the early church. It is astonishing
th at a f t er the de c i sion s of the C ou nc i l such a n em i nent
man as Peter was in the church, and one who had acted in
the Council with Paul in behalf of the same positions con-
c e r n i n g M o s e s ’ l aw wh i c h Pau l h ad held , s h ou ld b e s o
s o on swept u nder th i s i n f luence. A nd st i l l more s o th at
B a r n aba s , the c ompa n ion of Pau l , who h ad pa r t ic ipat ed
w ith h im i n h is exper ience among the G enti les, a nd
strongly contended for the same positions, should also fall
u nder t he i n f luenc e of t he s e Jud a i z i n g t e acher s . T he s e
wonderful inconsistencies, however, only show the pressure
of i n f luence br ought t o be a r i n beh a l f of these n at ion a l
distinctions at that time in the church, which centered at
Jer usalem. T his in f luence made the call of a g reat coun-
c i l ne c e s sa r y. A nd t houg h t he de c i sion h ad be en whol ly
in favor of the truth as Paul held it, yet the spirit of na-
tiona l caste sti l l rema i ned. Such i n f luences a re the ver y
29
hardest to overcome of any with which poor human nature
has to contend.
We have illustrations of the same principle, in a measure
at least, in our day, in the feelings of many white people
toward those who have been in slavery in the past; and in
I nd ia i n the d isti nctions of cast e. W hen pa r ties f rom
b ot h side s a r e c onver t e d t o C h r i st , it s e em s i mp o s sible
even then to get those in the higher position to associate
socially with those from the lower classes. T his was even
more the fact in the case of Jewish and Gentile converts,
and was especially the case in regard to eating together.
Says Conybea re and Howson, p. 178 : “ T he peculia r cha r-
acter of the relig ion which isolated the Jews was such as
t o place i nsuperable obstacles i n the way of socia l un ion
w ith other men. T hei r ceremon ia l obser va nces pre cluded
the p ossibi l it y of thei r eati ng w ith the G enti les.” A s
Peter said to Cornelius it is “an unlawful thing for a man
t h a t i s a J e w t o k e e p c o m p a n y, o r c o m e u n t o o n e o f
a n o t h e r n a t i o n . ”A c t s l 0 : 2 8 . T h e g r e a t c h a r g e a g a i n s t
him upon his return to Jerusalem was, “ T hou wentest in
t o me n u n c i r c u m c i s e d , a nd d id s t e at w it h t hem .” A c t s
11: 3. A nd though the principles on which the decisions of
the Council were based, would overthrow such views theo-
retically, yet the feeling still existed, and even Peter and
Barnabas had not strength at all times to stand before it.
It m ay wel l b e doubt e d i f t he chu r che s of Jude a a nd
Jer u sa lem ever f u l ly r e c over ed f r om th i s fe el i ng ; for i n
Paul’s last visit the same feelings existed so strongly that
he, w ith Ja mes’ adv ice, gave up t o it i n a measu re, a nd
participated in some of the services of the ceremonial law,
and in consequence was captured in the temple, and su f-
fer e d a lon g i mpr i s on ment . A c t s 21. T he obl i g at ion o f
t h e c e r e m o n i a l l aw w a s r e a l l y i nv o l v e d i n t h i s e at i n g
question just as truly as in the questions concerning cir-
cumcision , wh ich came before the C ou nci l; on ly it was a
little different phase of it.
That Paul should have rebuked the apostle Peter in such
a public manner as he did on this occasion, shows that he
must have considered the issue an exceedingly impor tant
one, involving the integ rity of the system of gospel teach-
i ng wh ich he preached. Simon Peter had long been
a mong t he for emo st of t he ap o st le s . Taug ht by t he
S av i o u r h i m s e l f , t h e “ g o s p e l o f t h e c i r c u m c i s i o n ” h a d
30
been specia l ly “committed” t o h im, as that of the
u n c i r c u m c i s i o n h a d t o P au l . G r e a t m i r a c l e s h a d b e e n
w r oug ht by h i m . T he whole C h r i st i a n chu r ch lo oke d up
to him as rather the leading man in it. Christ had greatly
honored h im. He was doubtless a n older ma n tha n Pau l;
y e t P au l , t h e j u n i o r l a b o r e r, u s u a l l y a v e r y me e k a nd
humble man, publicly reproved this eminent apostle to his
f ac e . We m ay b e su r e t h i s never wou ld h ave b e en done
had not Paul felt very deeply in his soul that the occasion
demanded it because a great principle was to be vindicated.
Pet er “ was t o be bla med .” It was at a n i mpor ta nt
c r i si s , ju st a s t he g r e at pr i nc iple of g o sp el l i b er t y wa s
st r ugg l i ng for t he supr em ac y i n t he chu r ch aga i n st t he
desperate, persistent efforts of those who were determined
t o i mp o s e t he y ok e o f Je w i s h r it u a l b o nd a g e up o n t he
necks of the Gentile converts. Peter, through fear of man,
permitted h imsel f t o be placed on the w rong side of th is
question, dragging Barnabas and nearly all the Jews pres-
ent a l on g w it h h i m . Pau l wa s for c e d by h i s r e g a r d for
tr uth to speak out, even to reprove his breth ren of g reat
inf luence older than himsel f. Paul well knew that i f such
examples as these were t o be fol lowed , the cause of G od
wou ld be h i ndered . I f Jew a nd G ent i le C h r i st i a ns c ou ld
not eat together, how could they ever make one body, one
f a m i ly i n C h r i s t ? It wou ld b e i mp o s s i ble . T h i s r e bu ke
w a s d e s e r v e d . G o d s u s t a i n e d P au l ’s r e p r o o f , a n d h a s
p e r m i t t e d t h i s h i s t o r i c a l f a c t t o s t a nd o n t h e p a g e o f
inspiration, showing the weakness of one of his most emi-
nent s er va nt s . Pet er never at t empt e d t o a n swer, for he
well knew no answer could be given.
W hy does Paul bring up this circumstance in his letter
to the Galatian breth ren? —Because it was a case exactly
i n p oi nt . T hey we r e g o i n g b a c k t o t he s a me pr i n c iple s
a nd pr ac t ic e s for wh ic h Pet er h ad b e en ju st ly r ebu ke d .
T heir course had been condemned, even in one so high as
the g reat apostle Peter; a nd he had submitted t o the re-
pro of as just. Shou ld they now, u nder the i n f luence of a
similar troublesome class of Judaizing teachers, continue
in a wrong course which had demanded and received such
a rebuke?— Certainly not.
Question: Did this course of Peter involve the question
of the ten commandments? Had it the sl ightest reference
t o t h e m ? We r e t h e y u n d e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n a ny s e n s e
31
wh at ever i n th i s t ra n sac t ion? — By no me a n s. T he whole
matt er relat ed t o the law of ty pes a nd u nclea n ness, the
obl i g at ion o f t he l aw o f M o s e s . T he mor a l l aw wa s not
involved.
L et us now consider Paul’s remarks to Peter and those
w h o h a d f o l l o w e d h i m . “ I f t h o u , b e i n g a J e w, l i v e s t
after the manner of Gentiles [as he had been doing before
c er t a i n c a me f r om Jer u s a lem ] a nd not a s do t he Jews ,
why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? ”
T h i s , o f c ou r s e , wa s a wonder f u l i nc on s i s t enc y, c au s e d
solely by Peter’s fear of man, lest his inf luence among the
Jew i sh d i s c iple s shou ld b e le s s ene d . He k new he wou ld
likely be called in question for his course when he returned
to Jer usalem. “ We who a re Jews by, nature, and not sin-
ners of the Gentiles [such as Peter, Barnabas, and Paul],
k now i ng that a ma n is not justi f ied by the works of the
l aw, but by t he f a it h of Je su s C h r i st , ev en w e h ave b e -
lieved in Jesus Ch r ist, that we might be justi f ied by the
fa ith of C h r i st , a nd not by the work s of the l aw: for by
the works of the law shall no f lesh be justified.”
We mu st r ememb er, of c ou r s e , t h at t he s e word s wer e
s p ok e n i n r e p r o o f t o t h o s e wh o r e c o g n i z e d t h e J e w i s h
l aws o f u n c le a n ne s s a s s t i l l i n f o r c e . T he s e we r e i nt i-
mat ely asso c i at ed w ith , a nd rea l ly a pa r t of , that g reat
typical remedial system which passed away at the cross.
Pet er a nd B a r n a ba s wel l k new t h at t hou g h a l l t hei r
e a rl i e r l i v e s t h e y h a d r e g a r d e d a n d o b e y e d t h e m , y e t
t h at f ac t d id not a f for d s a lvat ion . T hey t hem s elve s , a l l
of them strict Jews in the past, had to be saved by faith in
C h r i st . How pr ep o st er ou s , t hen , t o s et up t h i s old t y p -
i c a l s t a nd a r d o f c er emon ie s a nd “d iver s wa s h i n g s , a nd
c a r n a l o r d i n a n c e s , i mp o s e d o n t h e m u nt i l t h e t i m e o f
reformation,” for the Gentiles to obey, as in effect they had
be en doi ng at A nt io ch i n r ef u si ng t o e at w ith G ent i les !
I f these old prov isions of Moses’ law would not save such
devout men as Peter, Barnabas, and Paul had been, could
they be any benefit to the Gentiles who had never regarded
them? — Cer ta i n ly not. “ But i f, wh i le we seek t o be
justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is
t her efor e C h r i st t he m i n i st er of si n? G o d forbid . For i f
I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself
a transgressor. For I through the law am dead to the law,
th at I m ight l ive u nt o G od . I a m c r uc i f ied w ith C h r i st :
32
ne ver t hele s s I l ive ; yet not I , but C h r i s t l ivet h i n me :
a nd t he l i fe wh ich I now l ive i n t he f le sh I l ive by t he
faith of the Son of God,” etc.
T hat our explanation of verses 15, 16 is cor rect, these
quotations clea rly prove. Pau l i n h is reproof is refer r i ng
d i rectly to the w rong cou rse of Peter and Ba r nabas, who
v i r t u a l ly ack nowle d ge d t he r e qu i r ement s of t he l aws of
eating and drinking in refusing to eat with the Gentiles.
“ I f I bu i ld a g a i n t he t h i n g s wh ic h I de s t r oye d , I m a ke
mys el f a t r a n sg r e s s or.” Pet er a nd Pau l b ot h h ad show n
that those laws were destroyed, by eating with the Gentile
c onver t s on t er ms of equ a l it y. But Pet er a nd B a r n aba s ,
in refusing to eat w ith the G enti les, had now recog nized
them as still being in force. T herefore by thei r ow n acts
they made themselves “ transg ressors,” literally “ v iolators
of law ” (or ig i na l Greek), i.e., si n ners. W hat ef fect , then,
h ad t hei r f a it h i n C h r i s t h ad up on t hem? A c c or d i n g t o
their course of conduct, they had first recognized the insuf-
f iciency of these ceremon ia l laws to save them by believ-
i ng i n Ch r ist , no longer rega rd i ng those laws wh ich had
p a s s e d away. B ut n ow Pe t e r h ad g o n e b a c k a nd r e c o g-
n i z ed those l aws a s bi nd i ng, a nd c om menced t o obser ve
t hem a g a i n . W h at ef fe c t , t hen , h ad h i s f a it h i n C h r i s t
had upon him? It had simply led him to v iolate a law he
n o w a c k n o wl e d g e d . He n c e t h i s w o u ld m a k e C h r i s t t h e
m i n ister of si n; he wou ld not be su f f icient for sa lvation.
Ch r ist had led him to break a law he now felt obliged to
keep. T h is old law concer n i ng u nclea n ness must be kept
i n order t o sa lvation. A ga i nst such a fa lse position Pau l
ut t er s a n emph at ic , G o d forbi d ! It i s ev ident f r om t h i s
that those Jewish converts felt that they must keep those
laws which were abolished at the cross, in order to be jus-
tified; while Christ was the only source of Paul’s justifica-
tion.
We cannot admit that in these words addressed to Peter,
show i ng h i m the fol ly a nd i nc on si st enc y of the p o sit ion
he had assumed in refusing to eat with the Gentile Chris-
t i a n s , ther e i s the sl ight est r efer enc e t o the mora l l aw.
T hough there a re expressions wh ich a re simi la r to those
used in Romans and other scriptures which in those places
r efer t o the mora l l aw, yet th at pr oves noth i ng cer t a i n .
We a re per fe c tly f ree t o ad m it th at i f some of these ex-
pressions were used where the prem i ses of the ap ostle’s
33
argument had been considering the moral law, they might
pr operly enough apply t o th at . But such i s not the c a se
here, a nd hence si m i la r ity of expression proves noth i ng.
To get the sense of a writer’s thought, the connection must
be considered, the facts upon which the argument is based,
a nd t he obje c t ive p oi nt o f it . We h ave h ad her e ne a rly
two enti re chapters i n th is letter, about one th i rd of the
whole epistle, and hither to we have not had a single ref-
erence to the moral law; but through it all constant refer-
ence is made to the other law, that of Moses. A nd imme-
diately preceding these expressions are the plainest refer-
ences to the subject in his reproof to Peter on the question
of def i lement i n e at i n g. D o e s t he mor a l l aw c over suc h
g r ou nd? H ad Pet er de s t r oye d t h at a nd t hen bu i lt it up
again? W hich of the ten commandments would have been
v iolat ed i n eati ng w ith the G enti les? Were these Jew ish
disciples forcing such a pressure to oblige the Gentiles to
ke ep t he l aws of t he de c a log ue? We a l l k now t h at such
conclusions are perfectly absurd.
To suppose, then, that Paul had reference to the moral
law in the expressions, “ not justif ied by the works of the
l aw,” a nd “ I th r ough the l aw a m de ad t o the l aw,” et c .,
is t o per ver t the whole a rg u ment of the apostle, i m-
ply i n g t h at wh i le a l l t h r ou g h t he G a l at i a n le t t e r t hu s
fa r he had been refer r i ng t o the ceremon ia l law, a nd re-
pr ov i ng Pet er for sust a i n i ng it by ex a mple, he sudden ly
turned away from the subject in hand, and brought in an
enti rely d i f ferent law, wh ich had no relation t o the sub -
ject before him. Such a v iolent assumption is entirely in-
ad m i s s i ble . It i s whol ly u n ne c e s s a r y. T he a r g u ment o f
the apostle as we have presented it, is entirely consistent
with itself, with all the facts thus far brought to v iew in
t he let t er, a nd w it h h i s m a i n obje c t i n w r it i n g t o t h at
chu r ch . Pau l was st renuously c ont end i ng for the l iber t y
of the C h r i st i a n chu r ch aga i nst Jud a i z i ng t eachers who
wanted to again impose the yoke of bondage which neither
he nor his fathers were able te bear.
“ I do not f r ustrat e the g race of G od: for i f r ight e ous-
ness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” These
teachers did frustrate the grace (favor) of God which came
th r ough the death of C h r ist a nd h is pa rdon i ng love. No
law could be g iven through which weak, sinful man could
reach that standard of righteousness which God required.
34
It must be attained through the help of Christ. How fool-
ish, then, were Peter and Barnabas and these Jewish disci-
ples u nder a pressu re t o go back a nd re c og n i ze th is old
yoke of bond age, wh ich they themselves h ad once de -
st r oye d? It h ad a lways b e en “ we a k ,” “ u npr of it able ,”
“ c a r n a l . ” I t c o u l d n e v e r “ t a k e a w a y s i n . ” W h y, t h e n ,
s h o u l d t h e s e m e n r e v i v e i t . P au l ’s a r g u m e n t w a s t r i -
umphant for the occasion, and Peter made, no reply.
A w o r d f u r t h e r c o n c e r n i n g “ j u s t i f i c at i o n . ” We f u l l y
believe the Epistle to the Galatians, as well as the Epistle
to the R omans, proves the necessity of being justi f ied by
faith for our transg ressions of the moral law, and the ab-
solute impossibility of being justi f ied by future obedience
to any law for our sins of the past. But in that age there
were two laws supposed by some to be in force; and there
wer e even mor e who lo oke d t o obe d ienc e t o the c er emo -
nial law, with its ci rcumcision, ty pes, shadows, and mul-
titude of obser vances, for justi f ication, than to the moral
l aw. A nd th is was n atu ra l , for i n it h ad been c ont a i ned
the t y pic a l remedi al s yst em of the past d ispensat ion.
A ll the virtue it possessed was the fact that it pointed to
Christ. Most likely many did not discern this, and thought
ob e d ienc e t o it s pr ov i sion s a lone wou ld t a ke away si n s .
A fter Christ came, and it lost all its virtue, they still looked
to it for justi f ication. To cor rect this er ror was the main
object of Paul’s letter to the Galatians.
T he mistake of our brethren is in tr y ing to prove that
t he G a l at i a n s wer e s e ek i ng ju st i f ic at ion t h r oug h obe d i-
ence t o the mora l law, whereas they were rea l ly seek i ng
it t h r ou g h ob e d ienc e t o t he Mo s a ic l aw. We b el ieve t he
t erm “ works of the l aw ” refers t o the ceremon i a l l aw i n
almost if not every instance where it is used,
C HAPTER 3 :l: “ O fo ol ish Ga latia ns, who hath be -
w it c he d y ou , t h at ye s hou ld n ot o b ey t he t r ut h , b e for e
who s e eye s Je su s C h r i s t h at h b e en ev ident ly s et for t h ,
crucified among you?
“ 2 . T h i s o n ly wou ld I le a r n o f y ou , R e c e i v e d y e t he
Spirit by the works of the 1aw, or by the hearing of faith?
“ 3 . A re ye so fo ol ish? hav i ng beg u n i n the Spi r it , a re
ye now made perfect by the f lesh?
“4 . Have ye su f fered s o ma ny th i ngs i n va i n? i f it be
yet in vain.
“5. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and
35
worketh mi racles among you, doeth he it by the works of
the law, or by the hearing of faith?
“6. Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted
to him for righteousness.
“ 7. K now ye therefore that they which are of faith, the
same are the children of Abraham.
“8. A nd the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify
the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto
Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
“ 9. S o t hen t hey wh ic h a r e of f a it h a r e ble s s e d w it h
faithful Abraham.”
We now reach the commencement of a special argument
o f t he ap o s t le on t he s u bje c t i n h a nd . T her e a r e t h r e e
genera l d iv i sions i n th i s epi stle. T he f i rst t wo ch apt ers
are mainly occupied with historical references to facts in
Paul’s experience which, as we have seen, have an impor-
tant bearing on the subject. T hen follows an arg ument of
the apostle, comprised in the next two chapters and a little
more, while nearly a remaining third of the letter is given
to precious practical instruction in var ious Chr istian du-
t ie s , i nt er sp er s e d w it h a few r efer enc e s c onc er n i n g t he
main subject of the epistle.
We claim that the h istor ical facts wh ich we have thus
fa r noticed , a nd the a rg ument wh ich fol lows i n chapt ers
t h r e e a nd fou r, a r e i nt i m at ely a nd lo g ic a l ly c on ne c t e d ;
are really parts of Paul’s special effort to correct the errors
into which the Galatian church had fallen, and an answer
once and forever to the persistent efforts of these Judaiz-
i ng t eachers t o bi nd the yoke of ceremon ia l obser va nces
up on t he G ent i le c hu r c h . A s one pr o o f o f t h i s we he r e
adduce the conclusion of Paul’s argument in the beginning
of chapter f ive: “ Stand fast therefore i n the l iber ty
wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled
aga i n w ith the yoke of bondage. B ehold , I Pau l say u nt o
y ou , t h at i f ye b e c i r c u m c i s e d , C h r i s t s h a l l pr o f it y ou
nothing. For I testi fy again to ever y man that is circum-
cised , that he is a debt or t o do the whole law. Ch r ist is
become of no ef fect unto you, whosoever of you are justi-
f ied by the l aw; ye a re fa l len f r om g race,” et c. Here we
have the leading conclusion of Paul’s leng thy arg ument in
chapters three and four.
We have quite carefully noticed the first division of his
let t er, w ith th re e h i st or ic a l references : (1.) H i s ac c ou nt
36
o f h i s ow n r el i g iou s e x p er ien c e i n Jud a i sm — how we a k
a nd unprof itable it was, though he excel led a l l others i n
z e a l for a nd pr of ic ienc y i n it ; ( 2 . ) H i s r efer enc e t o t he
C ou nci l at Jer usa lem, a nd its de cisions aga i nst the
p o s it ion t he G a l at i a n br e t h r en h ad t a ken i n r e g a r d t o
c i r cu mc ision ; ( 3 .) H is publ ic repr o of of Pet er for wea k ly
goi ng back t o the ceremon ia l law. A l l these refer whol ly
t o t h a t l a w. T h e n f o l l o w h i s a r g u m e n t a n d t h e c o n -
clusion reached. This last, we see, relates to precisely the
s a me subje c t . “ I f ye b e c i r c u mc i s e d , C h r i st sh a l l pr of it
you not h i n g.” “ E ver y m a n t h at i s c i r c u mc i s e d . . . i s a
d e b t o r t o d o t h e w h o l e l aw. ” “ S t a n d f a s t t h e r e f o r e i n
the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not
enta ngled aga i n w ith the yoke of bondage.” Ca n we con-
clude, w ith the premi ses of the a rg ument relati ng to ci r-
cumcision a nd the ceremon ia l law, a nd the conclu si on of
it rel at i ng t o the sa me th i ngs , th at the a rg u ment it sel f
r e l at e s t o a wh o l l y d i f f e r e nt l aw ? T h at w o u ld b e v e r y
absu rd. T herefore as we ent er upon the a rg ument itsel f,
we have every reason to expect it will be found in perfect
harmony with its premises and conclusion.
T he rev ised version renders the f i rst verse as fol lows:
“ O fo ol ish Ga latia ns, who d id bew it ch you, before whose
eye s Je s u s C h r i s t wa s op e n ly s e t fo r t h c r u c i f ie d? ” t he
clause “ that ye should not obey the truth,” being omitted.
T he D iaglott is substa ntia l ly the same, there bei ng
not h i n g i n t he l it er a l Gr e ek t ex t t o a n swer t o t h at ex-
pression. “ Fool ish Ga latians, who hath bewitched
you? ” l itera l Greek , “m isled by delusive pretenses.”
Here w rong pra ctices seem t o be i ntended. It is not
l i k e l y P au l w o u l d h a v e u s e d s u c h a n e x p r e s s i o n , a n d
spoken i n such cutti ng la ng uage, i f these Ga latia ns had
been making a special point of keeping the ten command-
ments very strictly, thinking that by so doing they would
be just i f ied by thei r go o d work s. He wou ld h ave sp oken
i n m i lder la ng uage i f thei r practice had been r ight , a nd
s i mply t hei r v iews o f do c t r i ne w r on g. B ut how n at u r a l
suc h a n ex pr e s s ion a f t er h i s t h r e efold r efer enc e t o t he
ceremonial law in reprov ing them for going back to those
“ we a k a nd b e g g a rly element s .” Pau l h ad pr e ache d a
c r uc i f ie d S av iou r t o t hem a s t hei r on ly hop e . He m ade
k now n u nt o a l l noth i ng but “ C h r i st a nd h i m c r uc i f ied .”
W hat folly, to go back to the yoke of bondage again!
37
In the second verse and onward, the apostle proceeds to
contrast the work of fa ith i n Ch r ist wh ich had been
pr e ache d t o t hem , w it h the “ work s of the l aw.” D id you
receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or the hearing
of f a it h? A r e ye s o fo ol i sh , h av i ng b eg u n i n t he Spi r it ,
as to now seek to be made perfect by the f lesh? Have all
your sufferings from persecution been in vain, if it be yet
i n v a i n? D o e s he t h at work s m i r ac le s a m on g y ou d o it
b y t h e w o r k s o f t h e l a w, o r b y t h e h e a r i n g o f f a i t h ?
T hose were a l l ver y per t i nent quest ion s. W h at do es the
ap o s t le me a n by t he t er m “ work s o f t he l aw ” ? D o e s he
mean keeping the Sabbath, and refraining from swearing,
ly i ng, st e a l i ng, mu r der, a nd adu lt er y? or do e s he me a n
acts of obed ience t o the ceremon ia l law, wh ich had been
abolished? We all believe there are two separate, distinct
l aws br ou g ht t o v iew i n t he B i ble . Pau l mu st h ave h ad
o n e o r t h e o t h e r i n v i e w. B o t h h ad “ w o r k s ” c o n n e c t e d
w ith them. T he l aw of r it es h ad a n i m men se a mou nt of
these, so that they constituted a “ yoke of bondage ”
g r i e v o u s t o b e b o r n e , w h i c h P au l c l a i m e d h a d p a s s e d
away.
Much turns on the meaning we attach to this expression
“ works of the law,” i n the. d iscussion of the law i n Ga l-
at i a ns. T he sense i n wh ich it is used i n a ny g iven
scripture, must be determined from the connection and the
subject of d iscou rse. None of us ca n deny that there a re
two laws, and that both of them have “works ” connected
with them; and this same apostle in di f ferent places dis-
c ou r s e s up on e ach of t hem . It w i l l not do, t her efor e , t o
conclude that in every case where the term “works of the
law ” o c cu rs, it must needs refer t o obed ience t o the law
o f G o d . We c l a i m t h a t i t u s u a l l y r e f e r s t o t h e o t h e r.
W hich class of works are referred to in these verses? Our
reasons for understanding it to refer to circumcision, etc.,
a r e a s fol lows : l . T h i s h a s b e en Pau l’s subje c t t hu s f a r
i n t h i s l e t t e r. 2 . H e h a s n o t s p o k e n o f t h e m o r a l l aw
prev ious to th is, but has spoken many times of the cere-
mon i a l l aw. 3 . He uses the sa me t er m i n ch ap. 2 :16 , i n
reprov ing Peter, “ because he was to be blamed,” when he
re cog n i zed the laws of def i lement , a few verses prev ious
t o t h i s . T her e t he r e fer en c e t o t he work s o f t he r it u a l
law a re unmistakable. He must use the term here in the
same sense, to be consistent with his own argument. 4. In
38
the question, “ R eceived ye the Spi r it by the works of the
l aw? ” t he l a ng u age wou ld i mply t h at when t hey d id r e -
c eive t he S pi r it , t hey d id not p er for m t he work s of t he
l aw. T h i s wou ld b e a n a b s u r d c o n c lu s i o n i f appl i e d t o
t he mor a l l aw ; for t hey wou ld not h ave r e c eive d t he
Spirit had they not kept it. But the lang uage is perfectly
appr opr i at e when appl ied t o the r it u a l l aw. 5 . It i s ev i-
dent that the term bei ng “made per fect by the f lesh,” i n
verse 3 , is a n expression mea n i ng the same as the term
doi ng the “ works of the law,” fou nd i n verse 2 . But th is
wou ld be improper la ng uage when spea k i ng of obed ience
to the moral law. T he ten commandments are not f leshly.
W it h ou r v i e w, t h e a r g u m e nt i s c o n n e c t e d a nd l o g i c a l
t h r ou g hout . I n ver s e 4 he s p e a k s o f t hei r p er s e c ut ion s
f o r t h e g o s p e l ’s s a k e . I n c h ap . 6 :1 2 we s e e t h e y c o u ld
h ave avoide d t h i s by ob e d ien c e t o t h i s c er emon i a l l aw.
T hen the of fense of the cross would have ceased. I n that
case, i f ci rcumcision was accepted, al l thei r persecutions
had been for naught, and thei r embracing the gospel was
u s ele s s . C i r c u mc i s ion a nd t he c er emon i a l l aw wer e t he
s av i n g o r d i n a n c e s . C h r i s t ’s de at h c ou ld n o t s ave t hem
w i t h o u t t h e s e . S u c h c o n c l u s i o n s P au l s h o w s w e r e t h e
resu lt reached , i f the positions assumed by the Ga latia n
brethren were right.
He nex t refers t o the case of A bra ham, a nd how fa ith
saved him. He did not obtain his r ighteousness by obedi-
e n c e t o a ny s u c h l aw s ; but t h r ou g h f a it h . T he g o s p e l
was preached to him, and he believed in the coming Seed.
We b e c o m e t h e c h i ld r e n o f A b r a h a m b y i m it at i n g , h i s
c o u r s e . H e b e l i e v e d i n H i m t h at w a s t o c o m e . We b e -
lieve in Him that has come. In doing this, God will bless
u s a s he d id f a it h f u l A br a h a m . How fo ol i s h , t hen , t he
cou rse of these Ga latia ns, who were “ bew it ched” by
these Judaizing teachers, to go back to circumcision, and
virtually cast aside their faith in Christ!
Verse 10 : “ For as many as are of the works of the law
are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one
that continueth not in all things which are written in the
book of the law to do them.
“11. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight
of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
“ 1 2 . A nd t he l aw i s n o t o f f a it h : but , T he m a n t h at
doeth them shall live in them.
39
“13. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law,
being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every
one that hangeth on a tree.
“14 . T hat the blessi ng of A bra ham m ight come on the
Gentiles through Jesus Chr ist; that we might receive the
promise of the Spirit through faith.”
“ For a s m a ny a s a r e of t he l aw [ t h at i s , a s m a ny a s
look to the works of the law concerning which he is speak-
ing, for their justi f ication, as these Galatians were doing
by accepting circumcision and all that it implied] are un-
der the curse: for it is w r itten, Cursed is ever y one that
continueth not in all things which are written in the book
of the law to do them.” T h is cu rse is found i n Deuteron-
omy only 27:26. The “ book of the law ” which was placed “in
the side of the ark,” or at the side of it, contained both the
mora l a nd ceremon ia l laws. T he la ng uage is not, Cu rsed
be he that continueth not in all things written in the ten
c om m a nd ment s t o do t hem , a s it dou bt le s s wou ld h ave
been , had Pau l had on ly the mora l law i n v iew. But the
curse applied to any and all violations of the ceremonial law
as wel l; for that was w r itten i n the bo ok. I ndeed a ver y
l a r g e p a r t o f t he “ b o ok o f t he l aw ” wa s devot e d t o t he
ceremonial por tion and to the civ il law of the Jews. It is
impossible to circumscribe this language to the transgres-
sion s of t he mor a l l aw a lone ; for we k now t he “ b o ok of
t h e l aw ” c o nt a i n e d m o r e . We h av e n o o b j e c t i o n t o t h e
claim that the heav iest par t of the curse would fall upon
the v iolat or of the mora l law. But wh i le the whole “ book
of the law ” remained in force, the curse would also apply
t o v iolations of that. T herefore it was proper for Paul t o
refer to this in his argument. If these Galatians were go-
i ng to reestabl ish the whole Jew ish system, wh ich would
be the logical result of their action in adopting circumcis-
ion , they mu st ther eby br i ng themselve s u nder a c u r se.
T hey wel l k new t hey h ad n o t a lway s c o nt i nue d “ i n a l l
things . . . written in the book of the law to do them.” In-
stead of obtaining a blessing in their new departure from
the faith of the gospel, they were bringing upon themselves
a curse by going back to that ritual law.
“ But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of
God, it is ev ident: for, T he just shall live by faith” Justi-
f ic at ion by the l aw i s here used i n the sa le sense as i n
chap. 2 :16 , where Pau l is reprov i ng Pet er for not eati ng
40
with the Gentiles, thus raising up again what he had for-
merly t h r ow n dow n . A l s o i n ch ap. 5 : 3 , 4 : “ For I t e st i f y
again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor
to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you,
whos o ever of you a re just i f ied by the l aw; ye a re fa l len
f r om g r ac e .” T he c on ne c t ion i n b ot h t he s e c a s e s s hows
what law he was talking about. T hese Galatians were go-
ing back to the old, abolished remedial system for justifica-
t ion . T he Jud a i z i n g t e ac her s h ad t old t hem t hey c ou ld
n o t b e s ave d by C h r i s t w it hout it . T hey v i r t u a l ly c a s t
a s i d e C h r i s t a s t h e i r S av i o u r. T h e y we r e “ f a l l e n f r o m
g r ac e.” But Pau l t aug ht t he fol ly of t h i s . T her e wa s no
l aw i n t he u n iver s e ever g iven wh ic h wou ld ju st i f y t he
b r e a k e r o f i t . “ T h e l aw i s n o t o f f a i t h : b u t , T h e m a n
that doeth them sha l l l ive i n them.” A ny law enacted by
c ompet ent author ity, dema nds per fe c t obed ience wh i le it
remains in force. T his principle is true of moral, ceremo-
nial, and civil laws alike. But as this has never been fully
done, another prov ision must be made. G od has prov ided
it in justification by faith. The ceremonial law and the re-
medial system connected with it never did present adequate
prov isions for pardon and justif ication. T he blood of bulls
and goats could never take away sin. A ll the multitude of
ser v ices, ceremon ies , “d ivers wash i ngs, a nd ca r na l ord i-
n a nc e s ” wer e i mp o s e d on ly “ u nt i l t he t i me of r efor m a-
t ion .” How fo ol i sh , then , for these G a l at i a n s t o go back
aga i n a nd set up th at ab ol i shed l aw by wh ich t o obt a i n
justification! This seems to be the reasoning of the apostle.
“C hr i st h at h r e de eme d u s f r om t he c u r s e of t he l aw,
being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every
one that ha ngeth on a tree.” T he or ig i na l word rendered
“ r e d e e m ,” m e a n s t o “ b u y f r o m , r e d e e m , o r s e t f r e e .” —
Greenf i eld. ( He quot es th is t ex t as a n i l lustration.) We
ac c ept t h i s st at ement t o it s f u l le s t ex t ent . O u r f r iend s
who claim that the moral law is the subject of Paul’s dis-
cussion in this epistle, make their strongest argument, we
think, upon this text. We wish to go with them as far as
we c a n c on s i s t ent ly. We a r e p e r fe c t ly w i l l i n g t o ad m it
th at the cu rse br ought t o v iew i n th i s t ex t , f r om wh ich
Christ redeems his people, principally includes transg res-
sions of the moral law; and that the words, “ Depart from
me, ye cu rsed , i nt o everl ast i ng f i re ” ( M at t . 2 6 :41) refer
to the time when the curse of God will fall upon the sin-
41
ner who fails to exercise faith in Christ and be thus “re-
d e e m e d ” f r o m t h i s c u r s e . B ut h o w f a r d o e s t h i s g o i n
setting aside our position upon the law in Galatians?—Not
far, we think.
In order to have a clear, connected view of the apostle’s
a rg ument , we must keep before us a l l the ci rcumsta nces
of time and place. He stood at the time of transition from
the old d ispensation t o the new. But ver y few up t o th is
t i me h ad r e a l i z e d t h at t her e wa s a ny g r e at t r a n s it ion .
T hey d id not comprehend that those laws wh ich had d is-
tinguished God’s people for nearly two thousand years were
t o pa s s out of ex i s t enc e . T hei r fe el i n g s r evolt e d at t he
thought . It t o ok a long t i me for the bu l k of the Hebrew
church to take in this thought. T hey supposed these laws
were sti l l bid i ng. T hey d id not c omprehend a l l that was
c o nt a i ne d i n t he de at h o f C h r i s t . G o d h ad t o r a i s e up
Paul as a special instr ument, and inspi re h im especially
w ith l ight to ma ke th is subject clea r. To them Paul’s a r-
g u ment s ou nded ver y d i f ferent th a n it do es t o us , a f t er
eight e en cent u r ies of G ent i le i n f luences. T hey wou ld be
likely to understand that the curse of the law would also
apply t o t ho s e who d id not ob ey t he l aw of Mo s e s . A nd
who will dare say that the curse would not apply to viola-
t or s of t he l aw of Mo s e s c ont a i ne d i n t he “b o ok,” whil e
th at law wa s in force ? It most assu red ly wou ld. But
“Ch r ist hath redeemed us [ literally, set us free] from the
curse of the law ” by being made a curse himself by hang-
i ng “on a t re e.” W h at for ce wou ld th i s h ave t o the G a l-
at i a n c hu r c h ? —Ve r y g r e at f o r c e . T h e y, we r e t r y i n g t o
r em o ve t he c u r s e o f c ondem n at ion f r om t hem s elve s , s o
t hey c ou ld b e “s ave d ” by b ei n g c i r c u mc i s e d , a nd g oi n g
back to the abolished law of Moses for their justi f ication.
Pau l t old them , a nd pr oved it , t o o, f r om the S cr iptu res,
that the death of Christ alone furnishes redemption. They
wer e ent i r ely w r ong i n thei r a nt ic ipat ion s. T h i s c onclu-
sion is in perfect harmony with Paul’s whole argument.
Ve m 14 . A b r a h a m r e c e i v e d a g r e at bl e s s i n g t h r o u g h
his faith in the promised Seed. We receive the same bless-
ing by imitating his conduct; by believing on Him that has
come, who demonstrated his Messiahship by ful f illing all
t he c ond it ion s s et b efor e h i m i n t he S c r ipt u r e s . We r e -
ceive the Spi r it by accepti ng h im. T he Ga latians d id not
obt a i n t he Spi r it t h r oug h t hei r ob e d ienc e t o t he l aw of
42
Moses. They received it when faith in Christ as their only
Saviour was cherished.
Verse15 : “ Breth ren , I spea k a f t er the ma n ner of men;
Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed,
no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
“16 . Now t o A bra ha m a nd h is seed were the prom ises
made. He sa ith not , A nd t o seeds, as of ma ny; but as of
one, A nd to thy seed, which is Christ.
“ 17. A nd th i s I s ay, t h at t he c oven a nt , th at wa s c on-
f i rmed before of G od i n C h r ist , the law, wh ich was fou r
hu nd red a nd th i r ty yea rs a f ter, ca n not d isa n nu l, that it
should make the promise of none effect.
“18. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of
promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
“ 1 9 . W h e r e f o r e t h e n s e r v e t h t h e l aw ? I t w a s a d d e d
b e c au s e of t r a n s g r e s s ion s , t i l l t he s e e d shou ld c ome t o
whom the pr om i se was made ; a nd it was ord a i ned by
angels in the hand of a mediator.”
The apostle first speaks of the sacredness of a covenant,
c o m p a c t , o r p r o m i s e . E v e n a m a n ’s c o v e n a n t , i f c o n -
f irmed, is sacred, and cannot be set aside. He then refers
to the promises to Abraham, and bases an argument upon
the fact that in making the promise God uses the singular
number instead of the plural, when he brings to v iew the
ex p e c t ed se ed . T he pr om i se wa s not t o “se ed s ” ( plu ra l),
but t o h i s “ s e e d ” ( s i n g u l a r) , s how i n g t h at t he pr om i s e
was not ful f illed in all of Abraham’s descendants accord-
ing to the f lesh, but that it was to be met in the one de-
scendant, Christ the heir. A nd this promise, properly con-
f i r med by G o d , c a n not be s et a side by a l aw g iven fou r
hundred and thirty years after. T he promise has the pre-
cedence in time and impor tance. A nd this promise of the
“seed,” Christ, is the foundation of our hope of the future
inheritance. Our hope of that does not originate with this
law made fou r hund red a nd th i r ty yea rs later. How fool-
ish , then , that the Ga latia ns shou ld ig nore the prom ise,
and go back to that law for their hope of salvation, thus virtu-
ally setting aside Christ, the real foundation of their hopes
for f utu re good. T he g reat fact that G od gave the i n her-
it a n c e by pr om i s e t o A br a h a m t h r ou g h t h i s S e e d , fou r
hu nd r e d a nd t h i r t y ye a r s b e for e t h i s l aw wa s g iven t o
wh i c h t hey l o oke d f o r j u s t i f i c at i o n , c o n c lu s i vely s h ow s
their folly in basing their hopes upon this law.
43
“ W herefore then ser veth the law? ” that is, th is law of
wh i c h he i s s p e a k i n g , wh at wa s it s o b j e c t o r pu r p o s e ?
W h at u s e d id it s er ve? “ It wa s adde d b e c au s e of t r a n s -
g ressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise
was made: and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a
mediator.” This verse is a great central illuminator in the
ap ostle’s a rg u ment . He here g ives us the desig n of th at
law of wh ich he was spea k i ng, the time when g iven, the
poi nt t o wh ich it extended, the agencies by wh ich it was
brought into existence, and the reasons why it was g iven.
I f t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s r e a s o n a b ly, n a t u r a l ly a p p ly t o t h e
mora l law, then ou r f r iends who hold that v iew concer n-
ing the law in Galatians should have the benefit of the evi-
d e n c e . L e t u s e x a m i n e t h i s s c r i p t u r e c a r e f u l l y. W h a t
law is intended by these expressions?
1. It is reasonable to suppose that this reference to the
law will be in harmony with Paul’s arg ument in the pre-
ceding part of the letter, which clearly brings to view the
ceremonial law and not the moral law.
2 . T h i s l aw wa s g iven fou r hu nd red a nd th i r t y ye a r s
after the promise to Abraham. Could it, therefore, be the
sa me as “my comma nd ments, my statut es, a nd my laws ”
wh i c h A b r a h a m k e p t ? G e n . 2 6 : 5 . T h e y we r e e v i d e n t l y
the moral law; hence this is not.
3 . T h i s l aw w a s “ a d d e d b e c a u s e o f t r a n s g r e s s i o n s . ”
T he or ig inal word sig ni f ies “ to pass by or over; to trans-
g r e s s or v iol at e .” T h i s l aw, t hen , h ad b e en “adde d ” b e -
c a u s e s o m e o t h e r l a w h a d b e e n “ p a s s e d b y, ” “ t r a n s -
g r e s s e d ,” or “ v iol at e d .” It wa s not “adde d ” t o it s el f b e -
c au s e it s el f h ad b e en “ v iol at e d .” T h i s wou ld b e a b s u r d
if applied to the moral law; for none of us claim there was
any more of the moral law really in existence after the ten
comma nd ments were spoken tha n there had been before.
They all existed before, though Israel may have been igno-
r a nt o f p or t ion s o f t hem . I f t he wor d r ender e d “adde d ”
i n b o t h t h e o ld a nd r e v i s e d v e r s i o n s b e r e nd e r e d “ ap -
poi nted ,” as some do render it , the conclusion is equa l ly
c le a r. It c ou ld not pr op erly b e s a id t h at t he mor a l l aw
wa s “app oi nt e d fou r hu nd r e d a nd t h i r t y ye a r s a f t er
Abraham, when we see that it existed and he fully kept it
at that time. It would be absurd to suppose this law was
“ a d d e d ” t o i t s e l f . I t d o e s a p pl y r e a s o n a bl y t o a n o t h e r
l aw, br ought i n be c ause the one prev iously ex ist i ng h ad
44
been “ v iolated.” A law ca n not be tra nsg ressed u n less it
exists; for “where no law is, there is no transgression.” !
4 . T he law “added be cause of tra nsg ressions ” u n m is-
t a k ably p oi nt s t o a rem e di a l s yst em, t emp or a r y i n du r -
at ion , “ t i l l the se ed shou ld c ome.” T he mora l l aw i s r e -
fer r e d t o a s the one t ra n sg r e s s e d . But the “added ” l aw,
of which Paul is speaking, made provision for the forg ive-
ness of these transgressions in figure, till the real, Sacrifice
should be offered.
5 . “ T i l l the se ed shou ld c ome,” l i m it s the du rat ion of
th is remed ia l system, beyond a l l question. T he word
“ ti l l,” or “ unti l,” ever has that sig ni f ication. T he
“added ” l aw, then , wa s t o ex i st no longer th a n “ t i l l the
se ed shou ld c ome.” T h i s the l a ng u age u n m i st a k ably de -
clares. Did the moral law extend no farther than the full
development of t he Me s s i a h? N o S event h- d ay A dvent i s t
will admit that. But this was precisely the case with the
other law.
6 . T h e “ a d d e d ” l aw w a s “ o r d a i n e d b y a n g e l s i n t h e
ha nd of a med iat or.” A l l ag ree that th is “med iat or ” was
Moses, who went between G od a nd the people. T he or ig-
i n a l w o r d f o r “ o r d a i n e d ” i s r e n d e r e d “ p r o mu l g a t e ” b y
Green f ield, who cites th is text as a n i l lustration. Was it
tr ue that the ten comma ndments were “ordai ned, or pro -
mu lgat e d ,” “ by a ngel s ” i n or by the h a nd of Mo se s?
God himself spoke them with a voice that shook the earth,
and wrote them with his own f inger on the stone tablets.
But the other law was g iven th rough angels, and wr itten
i n a “ b o o k ” b y t h e “ h a n d o f M o s e s .” I f t h e r e ad e r d e -
sires to see some of the instances where the same expres-
sion substa ntia l ly is used when spea k i ng of the “ law of
Moses,” we refer him to Lev. 26 :46 ; Num. 4:37; 15:22, 23 ;
a nd e s p e c i a l ly N e h . 9 :13 , 14 , wh e r e t h e d i s t i n c t i o n i s
clea rly made between the laws wh ich G od spoke a nd the
“ pr e c ept s , st at ut e s , a nd l aws ” g iven “ by t he h a nd of
Moses.” Many others might be cited.
T hese reasons seem ver y clea rly to prove that the law
c onc er n i ng wh ich t he ap o st le i s sp e a k i ng, i s t he l aw of
Moses w r itten i n a book , especia l ly the ty pica l remed ia l
system.
Our friends who hold the view that it is the moral law,
of course make ever y ef for t possible to avoid this conclu-
sion. T hey cla i m th at the t y pic a l l aw was a lso i n ex ist -
45
ence long before the law was g iven on Si na i; that it was
r e c og n i z e d when t he pat r i a r ch s of fer e d s ac r i f ic e s , even
f rom the time of A bel, and that it would be as proper to
spea k of the “orda i n i ng ” of the mora l law at Si na i as of
the ceremonial, since both had a prev ious existence; that
the principles of both laws had been lost sight of through
si n and the captiv ity i n Eg y pt. We k now th is is measu r-
ably true. But there remains this difference: the language
unmista kably refers to a remed ial system. “ It was added
be cause of tra nsg ressions.” A prev ious law ex ist ed t o be
tra nsg ressed , a nd th is added law was t o pr ov ide a t em-
pora l remedy “ ti l l the seed shou ld come.” T h is la ng uage
can never reasonably apply to the moral law; but it does ap-
ply to the ceremonial. No matter whether added at Sinai
or as soon as man sinned in the Garden of Eden, it remains
true of the typical remedial system that it was “added be-
cause of transgressions,” but is not true of the moral law.
We a lso contend that the ty pica l remed ia l system was
not real ly “ordai ned” before Si nai and understood by the
people in any such sense as the moral law was. We admit
they did make offerings of beasts in sacrifice, and knew of
some other services afterward incorporated into the law of
Moses. But as a system it was not known to any such de-
g ree as were the principles of the ten commandments. We
can f ind constant references to these, where persons well
u nderst o od thei r ex ist ence. Ca i n k new ver y wel l he had
br oke n G o d ’s l aw a nd wa s g u i lt y. A br a h a m kep t t he s e
statutes, commandments, and laws. The antediluvians and
Sodomites were destroyed as “sinners; ” i.e., transg ressors
of them. Joseph understood as well as we the wickedness
of adultery, and would not commit this “great wickedness,
a nd s i n a g a i n s t G o d .” E n o c h a nd N o a h we r e “ p e r fe c t ”
men a nd “ wa l ked w ith G od.” T hey must , therefore, have
been well acquainted with the principles of the moral law.
But by far the largest portion of the typical remedial sys-
t em owe d it s va r y ex i s t enc e t o t he t i me o f M o s e s . T he
passover, the new moons, the sanctuary services other than
offerings, the day of atonement, the pentecost, the special
l aws c onc er n i n g u nc le a n ne s s , t he fe a s t . of t ab er n ac le s ,
var ious death penalties, the immense number of ordinan-
ces, etc, growing out of the priesthood work of the Levites
and the civ il laws of the Jewish nation, the special offer-
ings connected with the scape-goat, and many other things
46
too numerous to mention here connected with that system,
were never hea rd of, i ndeed had no ex istence, before the
b o ok of t he l aw wa s g iven . T hey wer e “or d a i ne d ” at
that time, as Paul indicates.
A nother a rg u ment , a ver y l at e i nvent ion , desig ned t o
avoid the c onclusion th at the “added ” law t erm i nat ed at
the cross, we brief ly notice. It is the claim that “the seed”
has not yet come, and will not come till the second advent
of Christ. It would be hard for the writer to really think
that any believer in Chr ist would take that position, had
we not read it in ou r own beloved Signs of the T imes, of
July 29,1886. It is ser iously arg ued through two or three
columns that the expression “ till the seed should come to
whom the promise was made ” ca n not be f ul f i l led ti l l the
promises made to the Seed a re f ul f i l led. A la rge number
of these are cited.
But does the language indicate this? The coming of the
Seed is one thing, and the fulfillment of the promises made
to that Seed quite another thing. If the Seed never comes
till the promises made to hin are fulf illed, we shall have
t o wa it a long time for the comi ng of the Seed; for some
o f t h e m r e a c h t h r o u g h e t e r n i t y. “ F o r u n t o u s a c h i l d
i s b or n [ t he bi r t h o f t h i s c h i ld by t he wom a n , a nd h i s
development unti l an of fer i ng for the si ns of men is pro -
v ided, is the coming of the Seed], unto us a son is g iven:
a nd the gover n ment sha l l be upon h is shou lder: a nd h is
n a me sh a l l be c a l led Wonder f u l , C ou n selor, T he m ight y
G od, T he everlasting Father, T he P r ince of Peace. Of the
increase of his government and peace there shall be no end,
upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order
it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from
h e n c e f o r t h e v e n f o r e v e r.” I s a . 9 : 6 , 7. T h e p r o m i s e s t o
this Seed, many of them, reach beyond the second advent,
— as does th is one, — even i nt o et er n ity. S o, ac cord i ng t o
this reasoning, we may wait to all eternity for the Seed to
come. But the apostle, i n the expressions used , does not
s ay p r o m i s e s , b u t “ p r o m i s e , ” r e f e r r i n g d i r e c t l y t o t h e
pr om i s e m ade t o A br a h a m . But i n t he pr om i s e m ade t o
A br a h a m ( G en . 1 2 : l-7; 17: l- 8 ; b ot h pr om i s e s a r e r e a l ly
one), he agrees to make him and his seed a blessing to all
t h e n at i o n s o f t h e e a r t h , a n d t o g i v e h i m t h e l a n d o f
Canaan, which Paul, in R om. 4:13, enlarges to include all
the “world.”
47
Shall we conclude that a part of this promise is not al-
ready in process of fulfillment? A re not the nations of the
earth already being greatly blessed in that seed by virtue
o f t he way o f s a l v at i o n b e i n g o p e n e d t o t hem a l l , a nd
b e c au s e o f t he pr e c i ou s i n f lu e n c e s o f t he g o s p e l ? W h o
d a re deny it? I f a pa r t of these pr om i ses a re bei ng
f u l f i l l e d i n t h i s p r e s e nt s t at e , t h e n a c c o r d i n g t o t h at
w r i t e r ’s o w n r e a s o n i n g t h e S e e d h a s a l r e ad y c o m e . I f
w e mu s t w a i t t i l l a l l t h a t p r o m i s e m a d e t o A b r a h a m
i s f u l f i l le d b e for e we l o ok for t he S e e d , t hen t he S e e d
cannot come till the end of the one thousand years; for the
land is not inherited by Abraham till that time. The earth
is a waste, a howling w i lder ness, for one thousand yea rs
after Christ comes. We can but regard such a position as
this as utterly untenable and absurd.
T he c om i ng of the S e ed i s one th i ng, a nd the f u l f i l l-
ment of the promises after the Seed comes, quite another.
Indeed, of necessity the Seed must come before any of the
pr om i ses made t o the S e ed c ou ld be f u l f i l led . A p or t ion
of them are already being fulfilled; hence the Seed has al-
r e a d y c o m e . P a u l s a y s ( v e r s e 16 ) , “A n d t o t h y s e e d ,
wh ic h i s C h r i s t .” T he “s e e d ” a nd C h r i s t , t hen , a r e one
and the same. T herefore i f the “seed” has not come,
Christ has not come, in which case we are all in our sins,
lost , w ithout hope. To such preposterous conclusions
does this position in the Signs lead.
Again, if the Seed does not come till the second advent,
a s t he ex i s t enc e of t he l aw wa s t o t er m i n at e when t he
S eed came, i f that law is the mora l law, we must of ne -
cessity conclude that God’s law ceases when Christ comes
the second time —a conclusion but little less erroneous than
the one wh ich teaches its abrogation at the f i rst advent.
But why are such astonishing and er roneous positions as
t h i s t a k e n ? —T o e s c a p e i n s o m e w ay t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f
Ga l. 3 :19, that th is “added” law was t o term i nate at the
c r o s s . T he S e e d h a s c ome , b o r n o f a wom a n , t he G o d -
m a n , pa r t a k i n g of ou r n at u r e . He c a n never b e c ome t o
all eter nity any more “ the seed of the woman” the prom-
i s e d “ s e e d of A br a h a m ,” t h a n he i s a l r e ady. We s hou ld
like to have any one tell us how Christ becomes any more
like the seed of Abraham” at the second advent than he was
at the first? Is he to be born again of another descendant
of t he g r e at pat r i a r ch? T he whole ide a i s pr ep o st er ou s .
48
T his promised Seed made his g reat sacrif ice for the race,
by wh ich t hey a r e b ei n g ble s s e d , a nd t her e t h i s “adde d
law ” terminated.
Ver s e 2 0 : “ Now a me d i at or i s not a me d i at or of one ,
but God is one.
“ 21. Is the law then against the promises of G od? G od
forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have
g iven l i fe, ver i ly r ight e ousness shou ld have been by the
law.
“ 2 2 . But t he S c r ipt u r e h at h c onclude d a l l u nder si n ,
that the promise by faith of Jesus Ch r ist might be g iven
to them that believe.
“23. But before faith came, we were kept under the law,
s hut up u nt o t he f a it h wh i c h s hou ld a f t er wa r d s b e r e -
vealed.
“ 24. W herefore the law was our school-master to br ing
us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
“ 25. But after that faith is come, we are no longer un-
der a school-master.
“26. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ
Jesus.
“ 2 7. Fo r a s m a ny o f y ou a s h ave b e e n b apt i z e d i nt o
Christ have put on Christ.
“ 2 8 . T here is neither Jew nor Gre ek , there is neither
bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are
all one in Christ Jesus.
“ 29. A nd if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed,
and heirs according to the promise.”
I n t he s e ver s e s t he ap o st le c ont i nue s t o d i s c u s s t h i s
“added” law with special reference to the object it was to
ac compl ish. It was not aga i nst the prom ises of G od , but
rather designed to provide a temporary help to the people
ti l l i n the “ f u l l ness of ti me,” when the “seed shou ld
come,” and the promises through the Seed should begin to
be fulf illed. During all this time preceding the coming of
t he S e e d , t h i s pr om i s e o f t he S e e d wa s t he g r e at hop e
o f t h e p e o pl e . T h e l aw g i v e n f o u r hu n d r e d a n d t h i r t y
ye a r s a f t er, by the sa me G o d who m ade the pr om i se, of
course would not stand in the way of, or set aside, a most
glor ious prom ise g iven by a G od who cou ld not l ie. T h is
“added” law would conduce to the same end by prepa r ing
the minds of the people for the full f r uition of the prom-
ise. The promise that all the nations of the earth shall be
49
ble s s e d i n t h i s S e e d t he g r e at e s t hop e ever vouc h s a fe d
t o the race. T h is law was se conda r y t o the prom ise, not
“aga i n st ” it . It was i mp ossible, i n the n at u re of th i ngs ,
for a law to be given which could give life to a race of sin-
ners who had violated the divine law, the great moral rule
wh ich h ad ever been i n for ce. T he hope of the promi sed
Seed, a more ef f icient agency than any law that could be
g iven was provided by inf inite wisdom to meet that want.
D ou b t le s s m a ny Je w s b e l i e v e d t h at “ l i fe ” c ou ld b e o b -
ta i ned by obed ience t o the “added” law of ty pes, ceremo -
nies, offered beasts, and blood streaming down the altars.
But they d id not see clea rly the obje ct of th is law. T hey
did not realize that it was only a temporary arrangement,
shadow i ng for th da rk ly i n f ig u res, ty pes, a nd a l legor ies,
the coming of the Seed and his g reat sacr i f ice. A nd even
after Christ had come and died, many did not comprehend
it who professed t o bel ieve on h i m. T hey sti l l sa id , “ E x-
c e p t y e b e c i r c u m c i s e d ,” a nd “ ke e p t he l aw o f M o s e s ,”
“ye cannot be saved.”
T his kind of teaching followed Paul wherever he went.
G od had ra ised h i m up w ith spe cia l reference t o clea rly
expla i n i ng th is g reat tra nsition f rom the old t o the new
dispensation. A nd now he presents the matter to these Gal-
atian brethren who had been bewitched by this Judaizing
t e a c h i n g . “ I f t h e r e h a d b e e n a l aw g i v e n wh i c h c o u l d
have g iven li fe, ver ily r ighteousness should have been by
t h e l aw ; ” a nd t h e t e r r i bl e s a c r i f i c e o f t h e S o n o f G o d
w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n n e c e s s a r y. T h e s e G a l a t i a n s h a d
taken the contradictory position of believing in Christ, and
at the same time going back for salvation to services which,
i f i n for c e , wou ld m a ke h i s de at h u n ne c e s s a r y ; lo ok i n g
f o r s a l v at i o n t o o b e d i e n c e t o a l aw wh o s e m a i n o b j e c t
had been to point out Christ’s great sacrifice for sin.
“ But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the
promise by fa ith of Jesus Ch r ist might be g iven t o them
th at bel ieve.” T he r ev i sed ver sion a nd the D i aglot t say,
“shut up” all under sin. T h is is the meaning of the or ig-
inal Greek word. A ll a re si nners, Jew and G enti le ali ke.
A l l n e e d a S a v i o u r. T h o u g h t h e J e w s h a d k e p t t h i s
“added ” law, a nd taught it t o the G enti les as necessa r y
to salvation, yet they needed a SAviour just as much as did
t he G ent i le s . How i nc on si st ent , t hen , for t he G a l at i a n s
t o go back t o a law wh ich would not save those who had
50
kept it ! “ But before fa ith ca me, we were kept u nder the
law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be re-
vea led .” Is th is t ex t spea k i ng of i nd iv idua ls prev ious t o
conversion, under the condemnation of the moral law ti l l
faith in Christ dawns upon their hearts? or does it speak
of Paul’s nation, the Jews, under g ua rd ianship as wards,
under a provisional temporary system until Christ should
c ome ? Much t u r n s up on wh ic h of t he s e p o sit ion s i s t he
t r u e o n e . We t a k e t h e l at t e r v i e w u n h e s it at i n g ly. T h e
rev ised version reads : “ But before fa ith ca me [th e faith,
m a r g i n ] , we wer e kept i n wa r d u nder t he l aw, s hut up
unto the faith which should a f ter wa rds be revealed.” B e-
ing “ in ward,” Webster def ines as “ the state of being un-
der g uard, or g uardianship,” “ the condition of a child un-
d e r c u s t o dy.” T he D i a g l o t t r e nd e r s it , “A nd b e f o r e t he
c o m i n g o f t h a t f a i t h , we we r e g u a r d e d u n d e r l aw, b e -
i ng shut up t ogether for the fa ith bei ng ab out t o be re -
vealed.”
There can be no question but that the text brings to view
a p e c u l i a r pr o v i s i o n a l a r r a n g eme nt , a “ g u a r d i n g ” o f a
b o dy o f p e ople , a “ s hut t i n g t hem up t o g e t he r,” a n “ en -
closing of them,” as the original Greek word signifies, un-
til a certain time is reached when “that faith” will be re-
v e a l e d . We c o n f i d e n t l y a s s e r t t h a t t h e w o r d “ f a i t h ”
here is not used in the sense of a person’s indiv idual be-
lief in Christ as a means of personal pardon for his sins,
but is used in the sense of that g reat system of truth de-
vised by God for the salvation of man—the belief in a cru-
cified Saviour and kindred truths growing out of this cen-
t r a l f a c t . J u d e w r i t e s o f t h e “ c o m m o n s a l v at i o n , ” a n d
t h at we “ s h o u l d e a r n e s t l y c o nt e n d f o r t h e f a i t h wh i c h
wa s onc e del iver e d u nt o t he s a i nt s .” Ver s e 3 . We sp e a k
of ke epi n g “ th e fa ith of Je su s .” Pau l , i n h i s c lo si n g
wo r d s , s a id he h ad “ ke p t t h e f a i t h.” A nd i n t h i s s a me
epistle t o the Ga latia ns he spea ks of th e faith wh ich he
pr e a c he d ( c h ap. 1 : 2 3 ) , a nd o f t he “ h ou s ehold o f f a it h .”
Chap. 6 :10. Indeed, in a large number of instances where
t he wor d “ f a it h” i s u s e d i n t he N ew Te s t a ment , it h a s
this sense, as any one can see by taking his Concordance.
The Jewish people and all proselytes who had any regard
for the God of the Hebrews, were thus kept under this pro-
v i s i o n a l s y s t e m o f t h e “ ad d e d ” l aw, “ s hu t up , ” h e d g e d
about by national barriers of distinction, from the rest of
51
the world. T hey could not eat w ith them or associate i n-
timately w ith them. A “m idd le wa l l of pa r tition” d iv ided
them f rom others. T hey were “enclosed ,” g ua rded on
the r ight h a nd a nd on the lef t , t i l l the g r e at syst em of
faith in a cruci f ied Sav iour was “a fter wards revealed” by
the coming of the promised “seed.”
We w o u ld b e mu c h pl e a s e d t o h av e o u r f r i e nd s wh o
hold t h at t h i s “adde d ” l aw wa s t he t en c om m a nd ment s ,
t el l u s h ow t he l aw a g a i n s t bl a s phemy, mu r de r, ly i n g ,
s t e a l i n g , e t c . , “ s hut i nd i v idu a l s up ,” “ g u a r d ” t hem “ i n
wa r d ,” i n t he r el at i o n o f a “ c h i ld t o a g u a r d i a n ,” t o a
“ r evel at ion” t o b e m ade “a f t er wa r d s .” But it i s t hou g ht
that in this verse the expression “under the law,” must re-
fer to the sinner under the condemnation of the moral law.
L en g t hy a r g u ment s h ave b e en m ade i n supp or t of t h i s ;
but we f a i l t o s e e e v id e n c e t o p r o v e t h i s p o s it i o n . We
claim that this expression “under the law ” has two signi-
f ications : (1.) P r i ma r i ly mea n i ng u nder the author it y of
t he l aw, or u nde r o bl i g at i on t o ke ep it ; ( 2 . ) Unde r t he
condemnation of the law, with its penalty impending over
us, or already suffering it. T he expression itsel f does not
de cide wh ich of these mea n i ngs is t o be u nderst o od; the
connection must decide that.
T he Greek word rendered “ u nder,” is hup o. It is used
a great many times in the New Testament, and in the great
m aj or it y of i n s t a nc e s i s r ender e d . “ of ,” “ w it h ,” or “ by,”
as the reader will see by examining his Greek Concordance.
Greenfield gives a variety of definitions, such as the sense
i n ma ny places requ i res, one of wh ich is, “ O f subje ction
t o a l aw,” et c. He g ives no i n st a nce where it i s used i n
the sense of being subject to the condemnation of the law;
yet we are free to grant that it sometimes has that sense.
But that is not the primary meaning of the term.
We r e a d i n M a t t . 8 : 9 o f “ a m a n u n d e r a u t h o r i t y,
hav ing sold iers under ” him; i.e., author ity was over him,
and he was in authority over the soldiers, and each was to
o b e y ; n o t t h a t h e w a s u n d e r t h e c o n d e m n a t i o n o f au -
thor it y or the sold iers u nder h is c ondem nat ion. “ Under ”
i n both cases is f rom the sa me word hupo. I n R om. 13 :l
we read: “ T he powers that be a re orda i ned of G od.” “ O f,
is f rom hupo; i.e. u nder the author ity of G od. I n Ga l. 4 :
2 we r e ad o f t he c h i ld l iv i n g “ u nder [ hup o ] t ut or s a nd
g over nor s ; ” i .e ., t hey h ave aut hor it y over t he ch i ld , not
52
th at it i s u nder thei r c ondem n at ion . O ther i l lust rat ion s
m i g ht be g iven of t he s a me s en s e. I nde ed , the ver y n a-
ture of the expression itself signifies this, “under the law”
simply mea n i ng the law bei ng above or hav i ng author ity
over the persons who were under it. T his is the pr imar y,
simplest meaning of this term; and unless strong reasons
can be adduced to the contrary, we should always give the
expression this sig ni f ication. W here reasons can be g iven
to show that the sense requires us to understand it to mean
the condemnation of the law, then we w i ll so understand
it, and not before. But evidently in the text we are now ex-
a m i n i n g it me a n s s i mply t h at t he Jews wer e “ s hut up ”
under the authority of that typical remedial system, with its
barriers, walls of separation, etc., till the system of faith
should be revealed under which they could find salvation.
“ W herefore the law was ou r school-master t o br i ng us
unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” “ W here-
for e ” “ex pr e s s e s a c on s e q uenc e ” f r om h i s pr e c e d i n g r e -
asoning. The original Greek word requires this, as Green-
f ield s t at e s . T he l aw “ wa s [ r e v i s e d ver s ion , h a th b e e n ]
ou r paid a gogos ” ( l it era l Greek), or pedagog ue. T he word
occurs but three times in the New Testament, twice in this
c o n ne c t i o n a nd o n c e whe r e it i s r e nde r e d “ i n s t r u c t o r.”
Greenfield defines it as follows: “A person, usually a slave
or f r e ed m a n , t o whom the c a r e of the b oys of a f a m i ly
wa s c om m it t e d , who t r a i ne d t hem up a nd for me d t hei r
m a n ner s , at t ende d t hem at t hei r pl ay, le d t hem t o a nd
f r om t he publ ic s cho ol , a nd , when t hey wer e g r ow n up,
b e c a me thei r c ompa n ion s , n ot e d for th eir imp er i ou sn e s s
an d s ever ity; i n t he New Te st a ment , d i r e c t or, g over nor,
i n s t r uc t or, le ader. 1 C or. 4 :15 ; t r opic a l ly sp o k e n of th e
Mosaic law. Gal. 3:24,25.”
We have no person in our domestic or educational sys-
tem in this age answering to this term. It is not properly
a “school-master ” or an “instructor ” in the sense in which
we wou ld u nder s t a nd t ho s e t er m s . T h i s p er s on le d t he
b oys t o s cho ol t o b e i n st r uc t e d by ot her s . T hey d id not
c ont i nue t o o c c upy t h i s r el at ion t o t hem a f t er t he b oys
wer e g r ow n t o m a n ho o d . T hey mer ely held a t emp ora r y
position, to pass away when the boys were fully developed.
T hey wer e “ not e d for t hei r imp er i ou sn e s s a nd s ev er ity.”
T hey h ad the boys espe c i a l ly u nder thei r ch a rge merely
for a season. Does the holy eter na l law of G od, the “ law
53
of liber ty,” occupy such a position as this? Is its relation
t o ma n that of a slave, a n i n fer ior, i n a ny per iod of h is
life? Is it severe, “imperious,” because endued with a little
t empora r y author ity? Is its position merely a t empora r y
one, lasting till the Christian is developed, and then ceas-
i n g i t s c l a i m s ? Wa s i t t h e o f f i c e o f t h e “ p a i d a g o g o s ”
after he got the boys to school, to then turn around and be-
come their instructor, their supreme authority, ever after?
Such v iews of the relation of G od’s law t o the si n ner or
any body else, would be manifestly absurd.
But th is relation em i nently f its i f we apply it t o that
provisional temporary system of law in which the Jew and
prosely te were “shut up,” “ in ward,” till the “middle wall
of pa r t it ion” wa s “ br oken dow n .” It wa s a “s ev e re ” s y s -
t em , “ yoke of b ond a g e ” wh ic h t hey c ou ld not b e a r,
“against” them, and “contrary to” them.
Pau l d r aws h i s c onc lu s ion f r om h i s r e a s on i n g i n t he
prev ious verses, which we have examined. T he moral law
never led a ma n t o Ch r ist a nd lef t h i m. It a lways stays
w it h h i m . We m ay b e del iver e d f r om it s c ondem n at ion ;
but its supreme authority must be regarded then as before.
It s cl a i m s never le ave u s . T her e i s not h i ng i n t h at l aw
about Christ, not a hint. A ll the law does, is to condemn
those who break it, and justify those who keep it. It is the
sense of guilt in the man’s conscience which is acted upon
by the Spirit of God, which makes him go to Christ, not any-
t h i n g i n t he mor a l l aw it s el f . But t h i s “adde d ” l aw d id
lead to Christ. Every type, every sacrifice, every feast day,
h o l y d ay, n e w m o o n , a nd a n nu a l S a b b at h , a nd a l l t h e
priestly offerings and services pointed out something in the
work of Christ. They were as a body “shut up,” “guarded,”
u nder the control of th is “severe,” “ i mper ious ” peda-
gog ue, ti l l the g reat system of justi f ication by fa ith was
reached at the cross of Christ. Mr. Greenf ield could read-
ily see that this pedagogue must be used as an illustration
of the “ Mosaic law.” It is strange that all others cannot see
the same. “ But after that faith is come, we are no longer
u nder a [ p e d ag og ue , or ] s cho ol-m a st er.” T he c om i ng of
“that faith” is the full development of the g reat system of
faith or truth growing out of the death of Christ. “ We are
no longer under a” “ pedagog ue,” i.e., no longer under h is
author ity; his author ity is no longer over us, because his
of f ice ceased when the“seed ” ca me. T hen a l l that ac cept
54
C h r i st i n h i s t r ue ch a rac t er, a r e ch i ld r en of G o d . T hey
are “ baptized into Christ,” and hence “ have put on Christ.”
W hat, now, does Paul conclude from these grand truths?
— “ T here is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond
nor f ree, there is neither ma le nor female; for ye a re al l
on e in Chr i st Je su s.” A l l nat iona l so c i a l ba r r iers a re
broken down in presence of the liberty which is in Christ
Jesus ; that is, a l l sta nd on a level before G od. T he
proud Jew must come to God through Christ, the same as
the despised ba rba r ia n. T he fema les a re no longer t o be
d iv ided of f i nt o d i f ferent worsh ipi ng assembl ies by a
special court because God looks upon a man with so much
more favor than upon a woman. T he poor slave can come
to the blessed Saviour just as freely as can the lordly mas-
ter who pretends t o ow n h im. A l l G od now requ i res is a
humble hea r t , repenta nce a nd con fession of si n , fa ith i n
the precious blood of Christ, and a determination to serve
G od and obey al l h is requi rements; and G od rega rds one
class as well as another.
This may seem to us, eighteen centuries after these na-
tional and social distinctions have been swept away, as so
plain a truth that it need not be demonstrated by an argu-
ment. But when Paul proclaimed it, it stirred up a bitter-
ness in the minds of the supercilious Jews, of which we can
sca rcely conceive. T hey fol lowed h i m ever y where, th i rst-
i ng for h is blo od. T he Jew had no thought of su r render-
ing the preeminence he had so long held. T he Greeks and
R omans also exalted themselves as highly favored people.
T h is g reat tr uth needed then , a nd has ever si nce, t o be
made plain to keep down pride, caste, and all social exclu-
siveness.
T his forcible statement of the equity of all before God,
is clearly a conclusion of the apostle’s arg ument. To deny
this, would be to charge the apostle with bring ing in for-
eign matter in no wise related to his subject. But will our
fr iends explain to us how this conclusion would g row out
of h is a rg ument i f it concer ned the mora l law? D id that
law, in its relation to the sinner, create national distinctions
b et we en t he Jew a nd Gr e ek , b ond or f r e e , m a le a nd fe -
m a l e ? — C e r t a i n l y n o t . B u t t h e c e r e m o n i a l l aw d i d . I t
was the ver y agency wh ich created them i n ci rcumcision
and what it represented.
“ If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs
55
ac c ord i ng t o the pr om ise.” Here we have a nother of
Paul’s important sub-conclusions, growing out of his argu-
ment . T he s e p o or G a l at i a n s h ad b e en m ade t o b el ie ve ,
and myriads of others have been in the same danger, that
they “mu st be circumci sed,” a nd “ keep the law of
M o s e s ,” i n or der t o b e “A br a h a m’s s e e d .” S o t he s e h ad
b e en t u r ne d away t o “a not her g o sp el .” B ut Pau l h ad
shown by this very process of reasoning that faith in Christ,
the promised “seed ” of A braham, would ma ke them
heirs of Abraham such as the promise really had in view.
Henc e c i r c u mc i sion a nd t he “ l aw of Mo s e s ” wa s a l l u n-
necessary. They were no longer “under” them.
C H A P T E R 4 :1 : “ N o w I s ay, T h a t t h e h e i r, a s l o n g a s
he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he
be lord of all;
“2. But is under tutors and governors, until the time ap-
pointed of the father,
“ 3 . Even so we, when we were ch i ld ren, were i n bond-
age under the elements of the world;
“4 . But when the f u l l ness of ti me was come, G od sent
forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.
“ 5. To redeem them that were u nder the law, that we
might receive the adoption of sons.
“ 6 . A nd be cause ye a re sons, G od hath sent for th the
Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
“ 7. W herefore, thou a r t no more a ser va nt , but a son;
and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
“8. Howbeit, then, when ye knew not God, ye did ser v-
ice unto them which by nature are no gods.
“ 9. But now, a f t er that ye have k now n G od , or rather
are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beg-
garly elements, whereunto ye desi re again to be in bond-
age?
“10. Ye observe days, and months, and times, aud years.
“11. I am a fraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you
labor in vain.”
In the f i rst verses of this quotation, the apostle again
brings to view the provisional nature of this added law, as
he d id i n the s cr iptu res re cently not iced . He i l lust rat es
the subject by the case of an heir, who, as long as be re-
maineth a child, is really in the same condition as a serv-
a nt . He i s u nder t ut or s a nd g over nor s u nt i l he r e ache s
the age of matur ity, when he is an independent freeman,
56
t o go for th and per form work suitable t o those who have
r e ache d t he st age of m a n ho o d . He “ i s un d er t ut or s a nd
g over nor s , u nt i l t he t i me app oi nt e d of t he f at her. E ven
so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the
e leme nt s o f t he wo rld .” T h i s c o nt i nue d u nt i l a c e r t a i n
time was reached, “ the fullness of time,” when “ G od sent
for th h is S on, made of a woman, made under the law, to
redeem them that were und er the law.” Here a re cer ta i n
expressions wh ich have a ver y i mpor ta nt bea r i ng on the
a r g u m e n t c o n c e r n i n g t h e l aw i n G a l a t i a n s . I n P au l ’s
illustration we see the Jewish people were “under the ele-
ments of the world,” even as the minor was “under tutors
a nd gover nors,” ti l l “ the f u l l ness of ti me was come.”
This point of time is the very same as that when Christ was
made “under the law, to redeem them that were under the
l a w ” s p o k e n o f i n t h e p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r. I t i s p l a i n ,
ther efore, th at bei ng u nder the “element s of the world ,”
a nd “ u nder the l aw,” here a re pre c i sely the sa me th i ng.
T he u s e t he ap o s t le m a ke s of t he pr onou n “ we ” i s a l s o
sig ni f icant, ev idently refer r i ng to h imsel f and his people
pr ev iou s t o t he c om i n g of “ t he f u l l ne s s of t i me .” W hen
h e c o m e s t o s p e a k o f t h e G a l a t i a n s , h e s ay s “ y e , ” i n
e ach c a se. T hose whom he sp e a k s of a s “ we ,” wer e i n a
s t at e o f m i nor it y, c h i ld r en , “ u nder t he element s o f t he
wo rld ,” t i l l “ t he f u l l ne s s o f t i me wa s c ome ,” t h at “ w e
m i g ht r e c eive t he adopt ion of s on s .” T hey c ou ld not r e -
ceive th is f u l l “adoption ” ti l l the promised “seed” came.
T hen when they became Ch r ist ’s, they were adopted as a
part of Abraham’s seed.
W hat are these “elements ” which the apostle speaks of,
i n wh ich they wer e i n b ond age u nt i l G od sent for th h i s
S o n m ade u nde r t he l aw? A r e t hey t he c om m a nd ment s
of G od, the law of liber ty, that holy, pure law which will
be the r u le i n the Judg ment? We th i n k th i s wou ld be a
c onclusion most absu rd . We cl a i m w ith g reat c on f idence
that these “elements” refer to a different system. The orig-
inal word is def ined by Green f ield: “ Elementary instruc-
tion, f i rst pr inciples, the lowest r ud iments in knowledge,
s c ience, et c.” T he word is t ra nsl at ed “ r ud i ments ” i n the
r ev i s ed ver sion a nd i n t he D i ag lot t . T he sa me word o c -
c u r s i n C o l . 2 : 2 0 , wh e r e i t i s t r a n s l at e d “ r ud i m e nt s : ”
“ W herefore i f ye be dead with Chr ist from the rudiments
of the world , why, as though l iv i ng i n the world , a re ye
57
subject t o, ord i na nces, ( Touch not; taste not; ha nd le
not),” et c. T hese words o c cu r just a f t er he had been
spea k i ng of “ blot t i ng out the h a ndw r it i ng of ord i na nces
that was against us, which was contrary to us, and” tak-
ing “it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;” saying also,
“ L et no ma n therefore judge you i n meat , or i n d r i n k or
i n r e sp e c t of a holy d ay, or of t he new mo on , or of t he
sabbath days; which a re a shadow of things to come; but
the body is of Chr ist.” It is ver y plain therefore that the
apostle in Colossians, is speaking of the rudiments of the
world , — the sa me ex pression pre cisely i n the or ig i na l as
we have i n Ga latia ns, — refers t o matters con nected w ith
the ceremonial law. He also states that their being under
these “elements,” or r ud iments, brought them into “ bond-
age.”
How plain it is that these “elements ” are the same as
t he l aw o f wh i c h Pau l s p e a k s i n G a l . 5 :1 : “ S t a nd f a s t
therefore i n the l iber t y wherew ith C h r i st h ath made us
free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
B ehold , I Pau l s ay u nt o you , t h at i f ye b e c i r c u mc i s e d ,
Ch r ist sha l l prof it you noth i ng ” ! A lso as the law spoken
of by the apostle Peter in Acts l5:10, in the famous Coun-
c i l : “ Now t her efor e why t empt ye G o d , t o put a yoke
upon the ne ck of the d isciples wh ich neither ou r fathers
nor we were able to bear? ” referring, as every one knows,
to the law of Moses, circumcision, etc.; also to that men-
t i o n e d i n C o l 2 : 14 : “ B l o t t i n g o u t t h e h a n d w r i t i n g o f
ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us.”
In all of these scriptures, the reference is unmistakably to
a l aw of t emp ora r y du rat ion , oner ou s , bu rden s ome , a nd
different from the gospel of free salvation through Christ,
the ritual law and not the moral.
The parallel condition under these rudiments cannot re-
fer to the indiv idual experience of persons but must refer
to the cond ition i n wh ich al l were placed unti l “ the f ul l-
ness of the time was come when G od sent for th h is S on.
It would be preposterous to say of each indiv idual person
i n a c ond it ion of si n f u l ne ss , u nder the c ondem n at ion of
t he mor a l l aw, t h at he shou ld r em a i n i n t h at c ond it ion
u nt i l “ t he f u l n e s s o f t he t i me ” wa s r e a c he d whe n G o d
should send for th h is S on, made under the law. T hat ex-
pr ession r efer s t o the f u l l development of C h r i st a s the
Me s si a h ; but it i s em i nent ly appl ic able when sp oken of
58
the I srael it es before C h r ist ’s gospel was preached . T hey
were i n the position of ch i ld ren under mere r ud imenta r y
instruction, awaiting the fullness of time when God should
send for th h i s S on w ith g r e at ef f u lgence of l ight . T hei r
i nstr uction was i n shadows a nd ceremon ies, a l l poi nti ng
forward to the time when God should send forth his Son.
T h i s s c r ipt u r e we u nder st a nd t o b e pa ra l lel i n m a ny
r e s p e c t s w it h t h e s t at e m e nt i n t h e pr e c e d i n g c h ap t e r,
where the added law is spoken of, which was to last “ till
the seed should come; ” a nd w ith that statement i n verse
23 of chapter 3, where they were “shut up [ kept in ward]
u nt o the fa ith wh ich shou ld a f t er wa rd s be revea led .”
W hen these tempora r y prov isions had reached thei r con-
summation , a nd the f u l l ness of ti me had come, then the
t emp ora r y gave pl ace t o the per ma nent , the sh adow y t o
the substance, the cond ition of child hood to that of man-
ho od; a nd the m idd le wa l l of pa r tition passi ng away, a l l
cou ld now become one i n Ch r ist Jesus, a ch i ld of G od of
t he s e e d of A br a h a m , who h ad r e c eive d t he adopt ion of
sons of God, God giving them special witness in the pour-
ing out of his Spirit. T hey were no longer ser vants under
a temporary arrangement, but heirs of God through Christ.
In verse 4, where Paul speaks of God’s sending forth his
S o n , m ad e o f a w o m a n , we h av e t h e e x pr e s s i o n “ m ad e
u nder t he l aw.” We h ave a l r e ady c on s ider e d t he me a n-
ing of this term, “under the law,” and have clearly shown
that it does not a lways mea n u nder the condem nation of
the law, but rather under the authority of the law, or under
obl igation t o keep it. T he term ev idently has th is mea n-
ing here. Both the revised version and the Diaglott trans-
l a t e “ m a d e u n d e r t h e l a w , ” “ b o r n u n d e r t h e l a w. ”
Green f ield , i n the def i n ition of the or ig i na l word , wh ich
has a great variety of significations, quotes its use in this
f o u r t h v e r s e w i t h t h e d e f i n i t i o n , “ s u b j e c t t o t h e l aw.”
T h is ev idently is the cor rect sense i n wh ich it should be
used. It is not tr ue that our Sav iour was born under the
c o nd e m n at i o n o f t h e l aw o f G o d . T h i s w o u ld b e m a n i -
festly absurd. That he did voluntarily take the sins of the
world upon him i n h is g reat sacr i f ice upon the cross, we
ad m it ; but he wa s not b or n u nder it s c ondem n at ion . O f
him that was pure, and had never committed a sin in his
l i fe, it wou ld be a n ast on ish i ng per version of a l l proper
t he olog y t o say he wa s b or n u nder t he c ondem n at ion of
God’s law.
59
But how clearly and forcibly this applies to the facts in
his life; if we understand it as referring to his being sub-
je c t t o t he Mo s a ic l aw. He wa s b or n a s a Jew, wa s c i r -
c u mc i s e d when ei g ht d ays old , a nd h i s pa r ent s went
through the accustomed days of purif ication, according to
the law of Moses. T hey presented the child as their f irst-
born, as the law required, and offered as a sacrifice a pair
of tu r tle doves or two you ng pigeons. He l ived u nder a l l
the ceremon ies a nd obser va nces of the law of Moses the
s a me a s d id t he o t he r Je w s . T hu s he wa s “ b o r n u nde r
the law,” and subject to it. A ll his life be was careful not
to break any of its provisions, and he never permitted his
disciples to do it to the day of his death. He even refused
to labor especially for the Gentiles, because he was sent to
“ t he lo s t she ep of t he hou s e of I s r ael .” How pl a i n ly we
s e e , t h e n , t h at h e wa s “ m ad e u nd e r t h e l aw ; ” t h at i s ,
subject to the law the same as others, that he might “re-
deem them that were u nder the law.” “ He came u nt o h is
ow n [the Jew ish people] , a nd h is ow n received h im not.”
A nd we ca n not doubt that had they re ceived h i m, a way
wou ld h av e b e e n pr o v id e d by wh i c h t h at n at i o n wou ld
h ave b e en g r e at ly honor e d , a nd a l l t he G ent i le s wou ld
h ave c ome t o t he i r k n owle d g e o f C h r i s t t h r ou g h G o d ’s
adopted people. But they rejected him, and this made the
way to the Gentiles still more free than it would have been.
So we see g reat force in this expression of Christ’s being
under the law; that is, subject to its requirements.
God had honored the Hebrew nation by separating them
out from the world by those peculiar institutions of which
circumcision was the sign, and ordained that the true chil-
dren of Christ should come through them, and gave them
the g reatest light of all others, that they might have no
excuse, but be honored of G od , i f they wou ld ac cept the
Messiah. His great desire was to redeem them from sin those
who were u nder or subject t o that law. T h is was the de -
sire of Paul also, and he would have been willing to g ive
even h is l i fe i f he could but save h is own nation. But i n
their stubbornness, exclusiveness, and supercilious ideas of
t h e m s e l v e s a s t h e o n l y p e o pl e wh o m G o d c o u l d h o n o r,
they lost the blessing which they might have obtained by
hu mbly ac c ept i n g C h r i st . A l l t he s e “element s ,” or r ud i-
ments, of knowledge which they obtained by means of the
typical system, pointed them forward to the precious bless-
60
i ngs wh ich c a me th r ough the k nowledge a nd ac cept a nce
of the Son of God.
This expression “under the law ” in verse 4, is evidently
u s e d i n pr e c i s ely t he s a me s en s e a s “ u nder t ut or s a nd
gover nors,” i n verse 2 . “ Under tut ors a nd gover nors ”
does not mean under their condemnation, or frown, or rod
o f pu n i s h me nt ; n o , n o t by a ny me a n s ; but u nde r t he i r
protection, g uidance, author ity, etc. S o Ch r ist was made,
or born, under the law (that is, subject to it) in the same
sense that they were under tutors and governors. T his is
in the same sense as the word is used in chap. 3:23: “ Be-
for e f a it h c a me , we we r e kept u nde r t he l aw ; ” t h at i s ,
subject to it, shut up with it, until the time when Christ
shou ld c ome. T he ap ostle’s i l lust rat ion of thei r prev ious
cond ition under the ceremon ia l law, as a ch i ld under tu-
t ors a nd gover nors , i s a most for c ible ev idence th at ou r
position is correct that the law in Galatians refers to the
ceremonial system, and cannot possibly refer to the moral
l aw. T he l a ng u age c onc er n i ng “element s of the world ” —
t he s e “ we a k a nd b e g g a rly e leme nt s ” t o wh i c h t hey de -
sired to return, under which they had been in servitude —
i t i s ut t e rly i n c o n s i s t e nt t o appl y t o t h e l aw wh i c h i s
“spiritual,” “ holy, just, and good.”
A fter having spoken in the first verse of the chapter of
t he c ond it ion of G o d ’s p e ople pr ev iou s t o t he c om i n g of
Christ, in verse 6 he makes his argument applicable to the
G a l at i a n s , t o wh o m h e w a s w r i t i n g . T h e y h ad b e c o m e
c o nv e r t e d , h ad b e c o m e “ s o n s .” G o d h ad s e nt f o r t h h i s
Spirit into their hear ts, so they could cry, “Abba Father.”
Now they were no longer ser va nts t o go back t o that old
pr ov i sion a l sy s t em ; henc e t hei r c ou r s e i n fol low i n g t he
t each i ngs of these Jews was a l l out of place. T hey were
hei rs of G od th rough Ch r ist when they received the gos-
pel. I n verses 3 -11 we have a n i nteresti ng poi nt noticed,
as fol lows : “ Howbeit then , when ye k new not G od , ye
d id ser v ice u nt o them wh ich by natu re a re no gods ; but
now, a f ter that ye have known G od, or rather a re known
of G od, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly ele-
ment s , wher eu nt o ye de si r e ag a i n t o b e i n b ond age? Ye
o b s er ve d ay s , a nd m ont h s , a nd t i me s , a nd ye a r s . I a m
afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain.”
We claim this language to be a very strong evidence of the
tr uth f u l ness of ou r position , a nd therefore whol ly i ncon-
61
sistent with the position that our friends take that this law
is the law of God. But to avoid this conclusion, they even
arg ue that the “weak and beggarly elements” and the ob-
s er va nc e of “d ay s , a nd mont h s , a nd t i me s , a nd ye a r s ”
h a s r e f e r e n c e t o h e at h e n c u s t o m s a n d n o t t o t h o s e o f
t he c e r em on i a l l aw. We c a n n o t a c c ept t h i s v iew o f t he
subject; for we feel sure it is not the truth. T he language
cle a rly shows t h at t he p er s on s r efer r e d t o h ad i n s ome
p er io d of t hei r l ive s b e en t he wor sh ip er s of ot her g o d s .
T his we admit. We also admit that some of the Galatians
wer e of t h i s c l a s s . B ut t he s e ad m i s sion s do not by a ny
means necessitate the conclusion ou r f r iends would d raw
from this scripture.
Our position is, that these persons referred to here were
pr osely t es. We present a br ief a rg u ment on th i s subje c t
to make our position clea r. No intelligent student of his-
tory will deny that at the time of Christ’s advent, and for
a generation preceding that event, there were most earnest
ef for t s made by the Jew i sh pe ople t o pr osely t e G ent i les
to their faith. F rom the time of the Babylonian captiv ity,
t hey h ad b e en l a r g ely s c at t er e d a m on g a l l t he n at ion s
a r ou nd ab out Pa le st i ne. T hey wer e a n ent er pr i si ng a nd
c om mer c i a l p e ople , a s t hey a lway s h ave b e en . S c a r c ely
any nation could have stood the persecution and hatred that
have followed them, and yet maintained themselves as a dis-
tinct people, as the Jews have in almost every part of the
earth. Comparatively few of the nation ever returned from
captivity to Judea to make it their home. Vast multitudes
would come from nea rly ever y pa r t of the R oman Empi re
on the feast days, so much so that even more than a mill-
ion would often be in and encamped around the holy city.
There was scarcely a nation of any importance with whom
the Jews did not trade and carry on the avocations of life.
T hei r sy nagog ues were establ ished i n the lead i ng cities.
A ny one who has read the Acts of the Apostles knows that
in every prominent place where Paul went to labor, he en-
tered the sy nagog ue of the Jews f i rst. T hese sy nagog ues
were, of course, established in the midst of an idolatrous
p opu l at i o n wh o s e r el i g i ou s s y s t em s we r e u n r e a s o n a ble
a nd a b s u r d . M a ny o f t he m o r e s e n s i ble p e o ple b e c a me
attached to these Jew ish sy nagog ues, and attended them
to learn of the true God.
T h is is ev idently one g reat reason why G od permitted
62
his people to be scattered in all these countries. He placed
them in the land of Palestine, which was like a bridge, or
o p e n p at hway, t h r ou g h wh i c h t he n at i o n s o f t he e a r t h
traveled to and fro between Eg ypt, Assyria, and the other
n at ion s of the e a r th . T h i s wa s done th at h i s l aw m ight
en l i g ht en t he p e ople o f t he world . W hen t he I s r ael it e s
went i nto captiv ity, and saw that thei r idolatr y and neg-
lect of G od’s law had brought h is f row n upon them, they
be ca me more zea lous, so they never lapsed i nt o idolatr y
again; and, being scattered throughout the nations of the
world, they prepared the way for the advent of the Messiah.
T hat the Jews had a disposition to proselyte, there can
b e no que st ion . O u r S av iou r s a id of t hem , “ Ye c ompa s s
s e a a nd l a nd t o m a ke one pr o s ely t e.” M at t . 2 3 :15 . T h i s
lang uage shows the intense interest they had in the work
of ma k i ng people favorable t o thei r v iews. T he reason of
this can be seen at a glance, when we consider that they
were scattered among the different nations, and their voca-
t i o n s i n l i fe we r e at t h e me r c y o f t he he at he n a r ou nd
t hem ; t hey wou ld n at u r a l ly de si r e t o h ave t hem t a ke a
favorable v iew of thei r rel ig ion , a nd be i nt erest ed i n it .
S ome of them m ight pr osely t e for the pu r p ose of sav i ng
their souls; but selfish motives evidently actuated these of
whom our Sav iour speaks, for they made them even more
t he c h i ld r e n o f hel l t h a n t hem s el ve s . T he i r s u c c e s s i n
pr o s ely t i ng i s ev ident f r om m a ny s c r ipt u r e s ; even s ome
eminent persons like the queen of Sheba in the Old Testa-
me nt , a nd C a nd a c e i n t he N ew Te s t a ment ( A c t s 8 : 2 7 ) ,
a nd K i n g I z at e s , w it h h i s que en , Helen a , a s ment ione d
by Jo s ephu s , a r e r oy a l r epr e s ent at ive s . C ony b e a r e a nd
Howson, in thei r “ L i fe and Epistles of the Apostle Paul,”
spea k concer n i ng the ex t ent of th is work of prosely ti ng,
as follows:—
“ D u r i ng the ti me of the M ac cabees, some a l ien tr ibes
wer e for c ibly i nc or p or at e d w it h t he Jews . T h i s wa s t he
case w ith the Itu rea ns, a nd probably w ith the Moabites,
and, above all, with the Edomites, with whose name that of the
Herodian family is historically connected. How
far Judaism extended among the vague collection of tribes
called A rabians, we can only conjecture from the cur ious
h i s t or y of t he Homer it e s , a nd f r om t he ac t ion s of suc h
ch ief ta i ns as A retas (2 C or. 11:32 ). But as we travel t o -
ward the west and north, into countries better known, we
63
f i nd no lack of ev idence of the mora l ef fe ct of the sy na-
gog ues, w ith thei r worsh ip of Jehova h a nd thei r prophe -
cies of the Messiah.” There are numerous instances in the
Acts of the Aposties where we see that these views are in-
dicated.
Nichol a s of A nt io ch , one of the s even de ac on s , wa s a
prosely te. Acts 6 :5. T here were vast multitudes of Greeks
attending worship at Jerusalem, many of whom were ev i-
dently prosely tes. I n Acts 13 : 5 0 we read: “ But the
Jews stirred up the devout and honorable women, and the
chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul
a nd B a r n abas.” T hese were ev idently of the sa me cl ass.
T imothy was really a prosely te, and it cannot be doubted
that the way the apostle gained access to the Gentiles, was
largely through the interest many of them had in the wor-
ship of the synagogues. This was the case in nearly every
c it y i nt o wh i c h t hey ent er e d . T he s e pr o s ely t e s wer e o f
two classes, as any one may see by examining the Diction-
a r ie s , or C r uden’s l a r ge C onc or d a nc e. O ne cl a s s , c a l le d
the “ prosely tes of justice,” were those who f ully accepted
the teachings of the Jews, being circumcised, offering sac-
r i f i c e s , e t c . , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e l aw o f M o s e s . B ut a f a r
la rger class were cal led “ prosely tes of the gate; ” that is,
t ho s e who r e g a r de d G o d a nd t he B i ble , a nd ob eye d t he
mora l pr i nc iples of it s t each i ngs , sepa rat i ng themselves
from the Gentile heathen customs, and worshiping the true
G od. Such men as C or nel ius, the centu r ion , a nd vast
numbers of others in all parts of the Gentile world where
the Jewish religion was known, were of this class.
Sm ith , h i s Un abr idged D ic t ion a r y of the Bible, C ony-
bea re a nd Howson , B a r nes, i n h is Not es, a nd others a l l
agree that a large number of Jews settled in Galatia a cent-
u r y or t wo e a rl ier t h a n Pau l ’s t i me , s o t h at t he whole
countr y became familiar with Jewish ideas and the Bible
religion. Having the same disposition to proselyte as their
breth ren i n other pa r ts of the countr y, we ca n not doubt ,
t h e r e f o r e , b u t t h at a l a r g e nu m b e r o f t h i s c l a s s w e r e
“prosely tes of the gate,” and were ready for the labors of
Pau l , a nd wer e of t h at nu mb er who r e c eive d t he g o sp el
w it h g r e at joy. T hey h ad b e en , a s ver s e 8 i nd ic at e s , at
one time those who “did ser v ice unto them which by nat-
u re a re no gods ; ”that is, had k now n someth i ng of
the true God, but had not fully identified themselves with
64
t he Jew i sh c u st om s . T hey h ad r e g a r de d t hei r r it e s a nd
ceremonies with respect, and had in a measure separated
t hem s elve s f r om idol at r y. C ony b e a r e a nd Hows on s t at e
that there were la rge numbers of th is class of prosely tes
scattered all through the Roman Empire, especially in the
c ou nt r ie s a r ou nd Sy r i a , et c . T hey say : “ Under th i s
term we include at present all those who were attracted in
va r ious deg rees of i ntensity t owa rd Judaism — f rom those
who by c i r c u mc i sion h ad obt a i ne d f u l l ac c e s s t o a l l the
pr iv i leges of the temple worsh ip, t o those who, on ly pro -
fessed a genera l respe ct for the Mosa ic rel ig ion, a nd at-
t e nde d a s he a r e r s i n t he s y n a g o g ue s . M a ny pr o s ely t e s
were at t ached t o the Jew ish c om mu n ities wherever they
were d i spersed .” — Pa ge 28. D r. C l a rke, i n h i s c om ment s
on Galatians, in several places speaks of there being many
p r o s e l y t e s a m o n g t h e d i s c i pl e s . H e s ay s : “ T h e J e w i s h
relig ion was general in the reg ion of Galatia, and it was
respected, as it appears that the principal inhabitants were
either Jews or prosely tes.” A ga i n, “Judaism was popula r,
and the more conver ts the false teachers could make, the
more o ccasion for glor y i ng they had. T hey w ished t o get
these Ch r istia n c onver ts who had been before proselyt es
of the gate, to receive ci rcumcision that they might glor y
i n t hei r f le s h . ‘ B ehold my c onver t s ! ’ T hu s t hey g lor ie d
or boasted, not that the people were converted to God, but
t h a t t h e y w e r e c i r c u m c i s e d . ” L a r g e nu m b e r s o f t h e s e
proselytes no doubt received the gospel from Paul, and en-
joyed it s l iber t y, a nd the Spi r it of G od en abled them t o
cry, “Abba, Father.”
But after he went away, those Judaizing teachers came
w ith thei r usua l bu rden — “ E xcept ye be ci rcumcised ,”
a nd “ ke ep t he l aw of Mo s e s ,” “ ye c a n not b e s ave d .”
T h i s f i l le d Pau l ’s he a r t w it h g r e at s ad ne s s ; for, a s we ,
have seen, he had met this thing ever since his conversion,
and nearly lost his life several times because of this bitter,
exclusive spirit. So he writes this letter to the Galatians;
a nd ca l l i ng thei r attention t o these facts, he says: “ How
turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, where-
unto ye desire again to be in bondage? ”
Our friends will struggle hard to escape the conclusion
that these “weak and beggarly elements” refer to the cere-
monial law; but in reason we can come to no other conclu-
s i o n . T h e y a r e e v i d e nt l y t h e s a m e a s t h e “ r ud i m e nt s ”
65
u nde r wh i c h G o d ’s p e ople we r e held , me nt i o ne d i n t he
t h i rd ver s e. T hey br oug ht t hem i nt o t he s a me b ond age ,
as brought to view in the f ifth chapter, where the apostle
ple ad s w it h t hem n o t t o b e “ e nt a n g le d a g a i n w it h t he
yoke of bondage,” as they wou ld be i f they were ci rcum-
cised, in which case Christ would profit them nothing.
T h is is ev idently the sa me “ yoke ” wh ich Pet er spea ks
of in the 15th chapter of Acts, when the same subject was
u nder c on siderat ion . I n th i s epi stle the ap o stle h ad not
been say i ng one word about G enti le cust oms , or G enti le
obser vances, or heathen, worship or ser v ices, or any thing
of t he s or t ; he h ad s i mply m ade r efer enc e i n t he ver s e
ab ove t o t he f ac t t h at t hey h ad b e en at a c er t a i n t i me
he athen . T h i s , of c ou r se, wa s t r ue i n thei r c a se, se ei ng
t h e y h ad b e c o m e p r o s e ly t e s . B ut h e c o n s t a nt ly r e f e r s ,
from the beginning to the end of this epistle, to the Mosaic
system, circumcision, etc.; and we cannot believe that Paul
wa s s o p o or a log ic i a n th at he wou ld st r i ke of f her e on
something entirely foreig n to the subject he was bring ing
before the Galatians.
T he ident i f ic at ion of t he s e “element s of t he world ” —
these “ I weak and beggarly elements” into which the Gala-
tians desired to return into bondage —with the ceremonial
law, is an important link in this arg ument. T here can be
no question but that our position on this point is correct.
D r. S cha f f , i n h is c om ments on these “r u diment s,” says :
“A c c o r d i n g t o my v i e w, t h e e x p r e s s i o n a p p l i e s i n a ny
c a s e on ly t o Jud a i sm , e sp e c i a l ly t o t he l aw (a n ap o st le
Paul could not possibly comprehend heathenism and Juda-
ism under one idea, regarding them thus as virtually equiv-
a l e nt ) .” We t r u s t o u r f r i e nd s wh o s o m e t i m e s e nd e av o r
t o apply these “ r ud i ments ” pa r tia l ly t o heathen ism, w i l l
consider this well.
D r. C l a r k e s ay s , “ O n r u d i m e n t s o f t h e w o rl d , ” “ t h e
r ud iments or pr i nciples of the Jew ish rel ig ion.” He says,
also, that the “weak and beggarly elements were the cere-
monies of the Mosaic law.” Dr. Scott takes the same posi-
tion. It would certainly be little better than blasphemy to
apply such terms to that law which God has said is “per-
f e c t , ” “ s p i r i t u a l , ” “ h o l y, j u s t , a n d g o o d . ” A n d b y n o
consistent reasoning can they be made to apply to the Gen-
tile idolatry, as that is not the subject of the apostle’s rea-
s on i n g i n t h i s epi s t le . B ut t he s e ex pr e s s ion s a r e ever y
66
way c on si st ent w it h h i s l a ng u age when sp e a k i ng of the
ceremonial law.
“ Ye obser ve days, a nd months, a nd ti mes, a nd yea rs.”
These are precisely the things Paul refers to in Col. 2 :16,
j u s t b e f o r e he s p e a k s o f t he “ r ud i me nt s ,” i n v e r s e 2 0 .
“ L et no man therefore judge you in meat, or in d r ink, or
i n r e sp e c t of a holy d ay, or of t he new mo on , or of t he
sabbath d ays ,” et c. T hese Ga l at i a ns u nder thei r Jud a i z-
i ng t eachers were be c om i ng a l l absorbed i n these old
shadows poi nti ng for wa rd t o Ch r ist , a f t er the substa nce
h ad c ome, thus rea l ly deny i ng C h r i st ; for i f the sh adow
was to be observed, certainly the substance had not come.
No wonder he says , “ I a m a f ra id of you , lest I h ave be -
stowed upon you labor in vain.” We claim that this is the
only logical, reasonable view of this argument of Paul’s.
But how could we apply these expressions to the moral
l aw? C ou ld we say th at the se d ays wh ich they obser ved
were seventh-day Sabbaths, which made the apostle fear-
f u l of them. T h is wou ld be excel lent for ou r A nti nom ia n
friends; for it is just such texts as these that they try to
refer t o the t en c om ma nd ment s. O u r f r iends wou ld thus
g ive them g reat a id a nd c om for t . A re the “ wea k a nd
b e g g a rly eleme nt s ” he r e pr e s e nt e d t he t e r m s by wh i c h
Paul describes the moral law? It is evident that the Gala-
tians desired to go back into obedience to something, and
t hu s pl ac e t hem s elve s u nder b ond age . Wa s it ob e d ienc e
t o t h e l aw o f G o d ? T h e y o b s e r v e d s o m e t h i n g , t h at i s ,
rendered obedience to it — “ days, and months, and times,
a nd yea rs.” Su rely th is do es not refer t o the mora l law.
We know our friends will undertake to apply these to the
heathen rites and ceremonies, and thus throw the apostle’s
a r g u m e nt a l l o u t o f c o n n e c t i o n w i t h h i s wh o l e t h e m e ;
but t h i s we h ave s e en i s i n ad m i s sible. He c ompl a i n s of
these persons for obedi en c e t o someth i ng wh ich they
ought not t o obey. He i s not spea k i ng about thei r bei ng
ju s t i f ie d by t hei r g o o d work s b e c au s e t hey d id not l ie ,
stea l, mu rder, et c. ; that is not h is subject at a l l; but it
c er t a i n ly i s ab out g oi n g bac k t o a l aw wh ich wa s ab ol-
ished.
Verse 12 : “ Breth ren , I bese e ch you , be as I a m; for I
am as ye are: ye have not injured me at all.
“ 1 3 . Ye k n o w h o w t h r o u g h i n f i r m i t y o f t h e f l e s h I
preached the gospe1 unto you at the first.
67
“14 . A nd my temptation wh ich was i n my f lesh ye de -
spised not , nor reje c t ed ; but re ceived me as a n a ngel of
God, even as Christ Jesus.
“15 . W here is then the blessed ness ye spa ke of ? for I
be a r you r e c ord , th at , i f it h ad be en p o s sible , ye wou ld
have plucked out you r own eyes, and have g iven them to
me.
“16. A m I therefore become you r enemy, because I tel l
you the truth?
“17. T hey zea lously a f fect you, but not wel l; yea, they
would exclude you, that ye might affect them.
“18 . But it is go od t o be zea lously a f fe c t ed a lways i n
a good thing, and not only when I am present with you.
“19. My little children, of whom I travail in birth again
until Christ be formed in you,
“20. I desire to be present with you now, and to change
my voice; for I stand in doubt of you.”
Pau l now g ives a n a f fe c tionat e tu r n t o h is a rg u ment ,
setting before them his in f irmities, temptations, devotion
to their interests, and faithfulness in laboring in their be-
half. He talks to them from a personal stand-point, plead-
i n g w it h t hem a f fe c t ion at ely, t o obt a i n onc e mor e t hei r
s y mp at h ie s a g a i n s t t ho s e Jud a i z i n g t e ac her s who wer e
per ver ting the tr uth in thei r midst. T hey had once loved
h im so that they would have even plucked out thei r eyes
for h i m ; but th r ough the se t e acher s they h ad lo st thei r
interest for him. He refers to these Judaizing teachers in
ver s e 17: “ T hey z e a lou s ly a f fe c t you , but not wel l ; ” or,
as the D iaglott has it , “ T hey show a f fection t owa rd you,
but not honorably.” The thought is plainly this, that these
teachers by ma k i ng a g reat show of love by f latter y a nd
pr et en se , w i shed t o d raw the a f fe c t ion s of the d i s c iples
towa rd themselves, and shut Paul out of thei r a f fections;
a n d e v i d e n t l y t h e y h a d s u c c e e d e d . B u t P au l r e a s o n e d
w it h t hem t o show t hem how muc h he h ad su f fer e d for
t h e m , a n d e n d e av o r e d t o c a l l t h e m b a c k a g a i n t o t h e
t r u t h — a l l t h o s e wh o m h e h ad b r o u g h t o u t w i t h g r e at
s el f- s ac r i f i c e . T hey h ad on c e b e en w i l l i n g t o pluc k out
thei r eyes for him; but now they almost regarded him as
an enemy, through the miserable inf luence of these Juda-
i z i n g t e ac her s , who h ad fol lowe d Pau l ever y wher e w it h
t he s a me o b j e c t , a nd adde d bit t e r ne s s t o h i s l i fe . C a n
we believe that these hypocritical teachers were intensely
68
interested to get these Galatians to refrain, from murder,
Sabbath-brea k i ng, adulter y, covet ousness, et c.? T h is con-
c l u s i o n , o f c o u r s e , i s t o o p r e p o s t e r o u s f o r a ny o n e t o
believe; but they ev idently were try ing to get them to do,
something. It was not merely to have a mental v iew that
they were justified by obeying the ten commandments that
they were t each i ng them about . T here is no h i nt i n a ny
part of the Bible that these teachers had any such a pur-
pose as this. But they were try ing to exalt that exclusive
Mosaic system that had made them a peculiar people, that
y o k e o f b o n d a g e w h i c h h a d p a s s e d aw ay at t h e c r o s s .
Paul was in g reat per plex ity in rega rd to these Galatian
d i s c iples , t o k now wh at they were goi ng t o do. H i s s ou l
t rava i led w ith a n a n x iou s bu rden i n thei r beh a l f , u nt i l
C h r i st shou ld be aga i n f u l ly ac cept ed , a nd the sh adow y
system of types be left behind.
Verse 21: “ Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law,
do ye not hear the law?
“ 22. For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the
one by a bond maid, the other by a free woman.
“ 23. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after
the f lesh; but he of the free woman was by promise.
“ 2 4 . W h ich t h i n g s a r e a n a l le g or y ; for t he s e a r e t he
two c ovena nts : the one f r om the Mou nt Si na i , wh ich
gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
“ 2 5. For th is A ga r is Mou nt Si na i i n A rabia , a nd a n-
s wer et h t o Jer u s a lem wh i c h n ow i s , a nd i s i n b ond a g e
with her children.
“ 26. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the
mother of us all.
“ 27. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest
not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the
desolate hath many more child ren than she which hath a
husband.
“ 28 . Now we, breth ren, as Isaac was, a re the ch i ld ren
of promise.
“29. But as then he that was born after the f lesh perse-
cuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
“ 3 0. Never thele s s wh at s a it h t he S c r ipt u r e? Ca st out
the bondwoma n a nd her son: for the son of the bond-
woman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman.
“31. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond-
woman, but of the free.”
69
C HAPTER 5 :1 “ St a nd fast therefore i n the l iber t y
wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled
again with the yoke of bondage.
“ 2 . B ehold , I Pau l say u nt o you, that i f ye be ci rcum-
cised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
“3. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised,
that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
“4. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of
you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
“5. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of right-
eousness by faith.”
“ Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not
he a r t he l aw? ” Her e we h ave t he ex pr e s sion “ u nder
t he l aw ” r ep e at e d onc e mor e. We h ave a l r e ady dwelt at
some leng th upon th is ph rase, and have claimed that its
uses in the letter to the Galatians referred to being subject
t o t he l aw, u nder it s aut hor it y. B ut one o f ou r f r iend s
who is enthusiastic i n h is devotion t o the v iew that the
law in Gaiatians is the moral law, goes so far as to claim
that in every case where this expression is used, it sig ni-
f ies “ bei ng i n a st at e of si n or c ondem nation ; ” i .e., i n a
p o s it ion wher e t he p en a lt y of t he l aw h a n g s over one ’s
h e ad . T h at p e n a l t y i s t h e “ s e c o nd d e at h” i n “ t h e l a k e
o f f i r e .” We h ave , t he n . , a c c o r d i n g t o t h at v iew, t he s e
Galatian brethren desiring to be in a state of guilt, which
wou ld expose them t o the la ke of f i re. “ Tel l me, ye that
desi re to be under the law,” w ith th is equivalent expres-
sion subst it ut ed , wou ld r e ad , Tel l me , ye th at desi r e t o
be u nder the c ondem n at ion of the l aw—Tel l me, ye th at
de s i r e t he c o ndem n at i o n o f t he s e c o nd de at h . We h ave
k now n men t o desi re ma ny stra nge th i ngs, but we never
before k new one t o desi re the se c ond death . But i f th at
v iew of the subje ct is cor re ct , a nd th is law is the mora l
l aw, a n d a l l t h e s e e x p r e s s i o n s “ u n d e r t h e l aw ” m e a n
under its condemnation, then we have no possible escape
f rom th is conclusion. But t o th i n k of these new, zea lous
converts to Christianity desiring to go into a state of con-
demnation exposed to such a doom is too preposterous for
a m o m e n t ’s c o n s i d e r a t i o n . B u t t o s u c h a b s u r d i t i e s d o
these positions drive us.
The true position, that these Galatians desired to go back
a nd pl ace themselves u nder obl igat ion t o ke ep the cere -
mon ia l law, i nvolves no such conclusion. It is ma n i festly
in harmony with all the apostle’s reasoning.
70
“ Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not
he a r t he l aw? ” H av i n g not ic e d t he f i r st pa r t of t he ex-
pression, we a lso notice the latter pa r t — “do ye not hea r
t he l aw? ” He t hen quot e s f r om t he b o ok of G ene si s t he
s t o r y o f A b r a h a m , S a r a h , a n d H a g a r a s a n a l l e g o r y.
Here the word “ law ” is used t o i nclude the book of G en-
e s i s . C er t a i n ly t h i s c ou ld not me a n t he mor a l l aw, but
mu s t i n c l u d e t h a t b o o k o f t h e l aw c o n t a i n i n g a l l t h e
r e q u i r eme nt s o f t he M o s a i c d i s p e n s at i o n . T he o r i g i n a l
law of ci rcumcision constantly refer red to in this epistle,
stands in close connection with this story of Hagar in this
b o o k o f G e n e s i s . T h e t e r m “ t h e l aw ” a m o n g t h e J e w s
generally included the f ive hooks of Moses, thus including
the whole syst em , mora l , r itua l , t y pic a l , a nd c iv i l. T h is
syst em these Jud a i z i ng t eachers desi red t o ma i nta i n.
C i r c u m c i s ion wa s a s i g n o f t he whole . We b el ie ve t h at
so fa r as bei ng obl igator y upon Ch r istians, all was abol-
i s he d exc ept t he t en c om m a nd ment s a nd t he pr i nc iple s
w h i c h g r e w o u t o f t h e m . W h e n P a u l s a y s , “ Ye t h a t
de si r e t o be u nder t he l aw, do ye not he a r the l aw? ” i s
not the law they were t o h e ar the sa me as the one they
d e s i r e d t o b e u n d e r ? B u t t h e l aw t h e y we r e t o “ h e a r ”
was not the ten commandments, but that which embraced
the whole Mosa ic syst em. T he l aw here refer red t o c a n-
not therefore be the moral law.
A s a nother i l lustration of h is a rg u ment , he now ca l ls
attention to the facts connected with Abraham’s two mar-
r iages w ith Sa rah and Haga r. He tel ls us this histor y is
a n “a l legor y,” i.e., as Cla rke says, “more bei ng i ntended ,
i n t he ac c ou nt t h a n me et s t he eye .” T he or i g i n a l wor d
has just th is mea n i ng. W hat, then, is th is h idden mean-
ing which the inspired apostle has discovered in this sim-
ple na r rative? —T hat Haga r a nd Sa ra h spi r itua l ly repre -
s ent e d t he t wo c oven a nt s . “ T he one f r om M ou nt S i n a i ,
wh i c h g ende r e t h t o b ond a g e , wh i c h i s A g a r.” T h i s
“answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage
with her children.” T his covenant must embrace all those
p e c u l i a r s epa r at i n g or d i n a nc e s embr ac e d i n t he m idd le
wa l l of pa r t it ion . It mu st h ave sp e c i a l r efer enc e t o t he
“adde d ” l aw c onc er n i n g wh ich he h a s b e en a l l t he t i me
spea k i ng, else he would enti rely d iverge f rom h is l i ne of
a rg ument , a nd h is conclusions be i l log ica l , d iscon ne ct ed
f rom h is prem ises. “ Tel l me, ye that desi re t o he u nder
71
t he l aw, do ye not he a r t he l aw? ” T hen i m me d i at ely he
i ntr oduces th i s i l lustration of the t wo c ovena nt s. It has
d i r e c t r efer enc e t o t he c onclu sion i n t he f i r st ver s e s of
ch apt er 5 . T hose i n th at c ovena nt were “ i n bond age ”
w it h . t hei r c h i ld r en . T he c oven a nt it s el f “ g ender et h t o
b ond age ,” i .e ., “ br i ng i ng for t h” or “ b e a r i ng ch i ld r en
for ser v itude or bondage ” (rev ised version a nd Dia-
glott). Hence the conclusion of h is a rg ument , “ Sta nd
fast therefore in the liber ty wherewith Ch r ist hath made
us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bond-
age,” — the “ yoke ” wh ich Pet er says “ neither ou r fathers
n o r w e we r e a ble t o b e a r.” We c a n but c o n c lude , t he n ,
that this covenant which brings forth children to bondage
embraces the law of ci rcumcision a nd a l l it represent ed.
T he s er v i c e s c on ne c t e d w it h t h i s c o ven a nt c ent er e d at
J e r u s a l e m . A l l i t s s a c r i f i c e s mu s t b e m a d e t h e r e . I t s
feasts were obser ved there. Ever y Jew consta ntly prayed
with his face toward that city, and his wailings and long-
ings, pilgrimages and devotions, all pivot on old Jerusalem,
e v e n u nt i l t h i s d ay. A l l t h i s i s s h ad o we d f o r t h i n t h e
covenant represented in Hagar. But Sarah, the true wi fe,
represents the glor ious freedom and precious blessings of
t he new c oven a nt . T he New Jer u s a lem i s ou r holy c it y.
T h i s i s “ a b o v e , ” a n d i t i s “ t h e m o t h e r o f u s a l l . ” We
a re the ch i ld ren of the “ prom ise ” i f we have come u nder
the new covenant even as lsaac was.
T he pr om i s e o f t he “ s e e d ” wa s t h r ou g h I s r ael . S ome
of ou r go o d br eth r en th i n k the pr om i se of the “se ed ” i s
sti l l f utu re, that the “seed ” has not c ome yet . I f the
prom ise of the “seed” is not f u l f i l led yet , then the cove -
nant of liberty represented by Sarah, which this promised
“seed” was to make, has certainly not yet gone into force.
S o ou r f r iends, we suppose, a re sti l l u nder the old cove -
n a nt of b ond age , r epr e s ent e d by H ag a r. We shou ld pit y
t hem g r e at ly i f t hei r ow n t he or y wa s t r ue . B ut we a r e
t h a n k f u l we h ave g l ad t id i n g s for t hem . T he S e e d h a s
c o m e . We , a n d w e t r u s t t h e y, a r e t h e c h i l d r e n o f t h e
New Jer u s a lem . We hop e t o s ave t hem i n spit e of t hei r
theor ies. Is it possible anyone can believe that this cove-
n a nt wh ich i s r epr e s ent e d by H ag a r, a nd “gender et h t o
b o n d a g e ,” i s a p r o p e r i l lu s t r at i o n G o d ’s h o l y l aw ?
D oes it “a nswer t o Jer usa lem” wh ich is i n bondage w ith
her children?
72
Then comes the grand conclusion of the argument of the
apostle, not on ly of the i mmed iate con nection, but of a l l
he h a s s a id i n t he whole epi s t le t hu s f a r. We h ave r e -
fer red t o it severa l t i mes , but we a re su re it w i l l be i n
pl ace aga i n. “ St a nd fast th erefore i n the liber ty where -
w i t h C h r i s t h at h m a d e u s f r e e , a n d b e n o t e n t a n g l e d
aga i n w ith the yoke of bondage. B ehold , I Pau l say u nt o
y o u , t h at i f y e b e c i r c u m c i s e d , C h r i s t s h a l l p r o f i t y o u
nothing. For I testi f y again to ever y man that is ci rcum-
cised, that, he is a debtor to do the whole law. Ch r ist is
become of no ef fect unto you, whosoever of you are justi-
f i e d b y t h e l aw ; y e a r e f a l l e n f r o m g r a c e . ” T h e s e a r e
strong, emphatic, most power f u l words. T hey wou ld
never have been ca l led out f rom the meek apostle except
a g reat cr isis ex ist ed. T he ver y fou ndation of the gospel
syst em was i nvolved i n th i s quest ion of c i r cu mc ision. I f
they were ci rcumcised , they were debt ors “ t o do the
w h o l e l a w. ” C i r c u m c i s i o n w a s t h e s i g n o f t h e w h o l e
M o s a i c s y s t em . T h e y mu s t o f f e r s a c r i f i c e s , r e g a r d t h e
s p e c i a l l aws c on c e r n i n g u n c le a n ne s s , m a i nt a i n t he old
wall of separation between themselves and all the rest of
mankind, making the prog ress of the gospel in its benef i-
cent m ission of blessi ng a l l the nations of the ea r th ex-
c e s s ively h a r d , a nd v i r t u a l ly deny i n g t he g o sp el it s el f .
For when they d id a l l these th i ngs , they v i r tua l ly sa id :
“ C h r ist has not c ome ; ” for it wou ld be i mpossible t o do,
the work prophecy had said his coming would accomplish,
i f th is fea r f ul dead weight were hung to the gospel. A nd
above a l l , i f sa lvation was t o be obta i ned th rough these
old abrogated laws, then the death of Christ was not suf-
ficient to save men who might repent and believe on him.
T h e s e f a l s e t e a c h e r s s a i d : “ Ye c a n n o t b e s av e d ” “ e x-
c e p t y e b e c i r c u m c i s e d ” a n d “ k e e p t h e l aw o f M o s e s . ”
So circumcision and the law of Moses was the real saviour,
and not the death of Christ.
It is not to be supposed that these proselytes in Galatia
realized all the consequences of their action until Paul ex-
pla i ned it t o them, nor d id thousa nds of others t o whom
these Judaizing teachers had access. T his made it neces-
sary for God to raise up Paul, whose education, early life,
thorough understanding of Judaism, conversion, and won-
der ful spi r itual illumination fully equipped him to be an
apostle to the Gentiles. Years passed after Christ’s death
73
before the gospel had made much impression on the heathen
world . T he i n f luences cent er i ng i n Jer usa lem seemed t o
stand in the way of the Gentile branch of the work. Such
la rge numbers of Jew ish conver ts seem t o have been a f-
fe c t e d w it h Jew i sh pr ejud ic e s , t h at it r e qu i r e d a cle a r -
headed, strong man to undertake this g igantic task. T hey
fol lowed h i m i n ever y pl ace t o i nt r oduce thei r exclusive
notions. C h r isti a ns i n that age c ou ld see a nd feel these
things as we cannot now.
The reason why our brethren err in their application of
the law in Galatians, is because they fail to grasp the tre-
me nd ou s i mp o r t a n c e o f t he i s s ue i nv ol ve d i n ap o s t ol i c
t i me s i n Jud a i sm a nd t he q ue s t ion s g r ow i n g out o f it .
T hey reason f r om the sta ndpoi nt of cer ta i n questions of
t he pr e s ent d ay : But t he s e c onclud i ng word s of t he
apostle’s a rg ument show how impor tant he rega rded th is
que st ion . T he l a n g u age u n m i st a k ably r efer s t o t he Mo -
saic law, and cannot by any possibility be twisted to refer
t o t h e m o r a l l aw. “ I f y e b e c i r c u m c i s e d , C h r i s t s h a l l
p r o f i t y o u n o t h i n g . ” Ye a r e d e b t o r s “ t o d o t h e w h o l e
l aw. ” “ B e n o t e n t a n g l e d a g a i n w i t h t h e y o k e o f b o n d -
a ge.” “ Ch r ist is be come of no ef fe ct u nt o you, whosoever
of you a r e just i f ied by the l aw; ye are fall en f rom
grace.”
The apostle’s intense interest in this question, is not only
shown by these expressions, but by others in the epistle,
as we have seen, referring to the same subject: “ I mar vel
that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into
the g race of C h r ist u nt o a nother gospel.” T hose th at
“ trouble ” you “ wou ld pervert the gospel of Ch r ist.”
“ O h f o ol i s h G a l at i a n s , wh o h at h b ew it c he d y ou? ” “A r e
ye s o fo ol i sh? ” “A re ye now made per fe c t by the f lesh? ”
“ I wou ld they were even cut of f wh ich trouble you.”
S ome t r y t o ma ke th i s ex pression me a n s ometh i ng ver y
mild, and fail to sense the intense feelings of the apostle
i n v i e w o f t h e e v i l t h e y we r e d o i n g . T h e y we r e “ f a l s e
b r e t h r e n , ” wh o “ c a m e i n . p r i v i l y, ” i n a s e c r e t , u n d e r -
h a nde d m a n ner, t o de s t r oy t hei r l i b er t y a nd br i n g t he
whole g o sp el sy st em i nt o “ b ond a g e .” Pau l s ay s of t ho s e
who preach a nother gospel , L et them “ be ac cu rsed.”
T hei r c ou r s e wa s r u i nou s t o s ou l s , de st r oy i n g t he ver y
w ay o f s a l v a t i o n t h r o u g h C h r i s t , p u t t i n g a s i d e G o d ’s
mer c i f u l pr ov i sions for the blessi ng of the n at ions of
74
t he e a r t h , t o hold t hem i n t hei r n a r r ow, e x c lu s ive c i r -
c le , a nd ex a lt t he s el f i sh , sup er c i l iou s Jew i sh spi r it t o
br i n g a l l me n t o a c k n o wl e d g e t h e s up e r i o r it y o f t he s e
J e w s wh o i n t h e i r s e l f i s h e g o t i s m h ad f o r f e i t e d G o d ’s
favor by stubbornness, rebellion, and putting to death his
Son.
Pau l fou nd ma ny ev i ls t o compla i n of i n the d i f ferent
c hu r c h e s . A m o n g t h e C o r i n t h i a n s h e f o u n d g r e a t i m -
m or a l it ie s a nd v a r iou s for m s o f e r r or wh i c h wer e ver y
ser ious. S o of other chu r ches. But not one of them ca l ls
forth such words of condemnation as this, and so many of
them i n the sa me space. W hy i s th i s? — B e c ause, though
the evils in the other churches were serious, yet, they did
not so fully undermine the very principles of the gospel as
d id the positions wh ich Pau l here combat ed. T hese were
radical, fundamental errors.
Paul’s grand conclusion of his argument in these verses
must have maddened the whole force of Juda izi ng teach-
ers, a nd made thei r work much more d i f f icu lt. W herever
these words were read , these teachers wou ld not be able
t o i n f luenc e t he G ent i le d i s c iple s a s b efor e. We b el ieve
this Epistle to the Galatians was a grand turning-point in
t h i s wh ole c o nt r o v e r s y wh i c h h ad s o l o n g a f fe c t e d t he
church, making the call of a g reat Council necessary, and
constantly i nter fer i ng w ith the apostle’s work among the
G e n t i l e s . T h e w h o l e q u e s t i o n w a s n o w e l u c i d at e d . We
f u r t he r n o t i c e a fe w p o i nt s b e f o r e pr o c e e d i n g t o o t he r
scriptures.
“ C h r ist is be c ome of no ef fe c t u nt o you , whoso ever of
you a r e ju st i f ie d by t he l aw ; ye a r e f a l len f r om g r ac e.”
This verse is often separated from its connection, and used
as having a bearing upon our personal justification by faith
f o r o u r t r a n s g r e s s i o n s o f t h e m o r a l l aw. N o w j u s t i f i -
cation by faith is one of the grandest and most glorious doc-
trines of the gospel of Christ. We love, delight, and rejoice
i n t h a t p r e c i o u s t r u t h s e c o n d t o n o n e . We k n o w P au l
has explained it as no other writer in all the Bible has, in
R oma ns a nd other epistles. No ma n ca n be saved by h is
g o o d work s a l one . “A l l h ave s i n ne d , a nd c ome s hor t o f
t he g lor y of G o d .” We a r e we a k a nd ut t erly helple s s of
ou rselves , c overed w ith p ol lution , a nd never ca n remove
our g uilt and uncleanness by present or future ef for ts of
obed ience. I nde ed , we a re ut t erly wea k a nd helpless ;
75
and if our sins have been forgiven, we must have constant
faith in and help from a crucified Saviour, constant access
t o h is u n fa i l i ng fou nta i n of streng th , i n order t o obta i n
a ny rea l help or accompl ish a ny th i ng whatever that w i l l
meet G od’s favor i n the l i ne of go od works. A l l th is a nd
vastly more we cheerfully acknowledge and most fully be-
l ieve. Yet the most ca reless reader ought t o see that the
apostle in speaking of being “ justif ied by the law ” in this
c o n n e c t i o n , i s n o t s p e a k i n g o f b e i n g j u s t i f i e d t h r ou g h
o b e d i e n c e t o t h e m o r a l l aw. S u c h a v i e w w o u l d m a k e
the statement utterly foreig n to the words in its immedi-
at e c on ne c t ion , b ot h b efor e a nd a f t er. He h a s ju st s a id
that if they be circumcised, Christ shall profit them noth-
i ng : that they a re i n that case debt ors “ t o do the whole
l aw.” C h r i s t b e c ome s o f n o e f fe c t . “ Ye a r e f a l le n f r om
g r ac e .” T hey pl a i n ly lo oke d t o t hei r ob e d ienc e t o t he s e
dead , l i feless ceremon ies con ne cted w ith ci rcumcision as
t h at wh i c h wou ld m a ke t hem ju s t or ju s t i f ie d ; t h at i s ,
br i n g t hem t o a s av a ble c o nd it i o n ; whe r e a s t hey c ou ld
on ly b e m ade suc h by f a it h i n C h r i s t . For t h i s r e a s on ,
look i ng away f rom the on ly founta i n opened for unclea n-
ness , away f r om the on ly n a me th at c ou ld save , t o th at
l aw of b ond age , t hey h ad “ f a l len f r om” t he g r ac e of
Christ.
We see, therefore, that i n the expression “ justi f ied by
the law,” it is as necessary here to know of what law he is
spea k i ng as it i s a ny where i n the New Test a ment when
speaking of a law that is binding or abolished. T he same
e x p r e s s i o n “ j u s t i f i e d b y t h e w o rk s o f t h e l aw,” i s e v i -
dently used i n the same sense i n chap. 2 :16 , as the con-
ne c t ion shows. I nde ed , it i s ev ident th at for forg iveness
and justification for their transgressions of the moral law,
many of the Jews had always looked to the works required
by t he t y pic a l l aw. It wa s for t h i s pu r p o s e t h at it wa s
added, because of transg ression. Only the few, the spirit-
u a l-m i nde d , s aw it s t r ue de si g n . Henc e t hey wer e even
more in danger of looking to obedience to its requirements
for thei r justi f ication th a n t o obed ience t o the t en c om-
mandments. S o Paul exposes its utter wor th lessness now
that Christ had come and died.
A not her p oi nt : W ho w i l l d a r e s ay t h at t he l aw Pau l
speaks of in chapter 4 is not the same as the one he reasons
u p o n i n c h a p t e r 3 ? T h e y mu s t b e t h e s a m e . W i l l a ny
76
dare claim that the conclusions presented in the first verses
o f c h ap t e r 5 a r e n o t t h e c o n s e q u e n c e o f h i s a r g u m e nt
d r aw n f r o m t h e w o r d s p r e c e d i n g , i n c h a p t e r 4 ? T h e n
they must also have reference to the same law in chapter
3 . But the mora l law ca n not p ossibly be the one c onsid-
ered in chapter 4; therefore the law in chapter 3 cannot be
the moral law.
Ve r s e 6 : “ F o r i n J e s u s C h r i s t n e i t h e r c i r c u m c i s i o n
ava i let h a ny t h i n g, nor u nc i r c u mc i s ion ; but f a it h wh ic h
worketh by love.
“ 7. Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should
not obey the truth?
“8. This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.
“9. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
“ 10 . I h ave c on f idenc e i n you t h r oug h t he L or d , t h at
ye w i l l be none other w ise m i nded: but he that troubleth
you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.
“11. A nd I, brethren, i f I yet preach circumcision, why
d o I y e t s u f fe r p e r s e c ut i o n ? t he n i s t he o f fe n s e o f t he
cross ceased.
“12. I would they were even cut off which trouble you.
“ 13 . For, br et h r en , ye h ave b e en c a l le d u nt o l i b er t y ;
only use not liberty for an occasion to the f lesh, but by love
serve one another.
“14. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this:
Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”
C H A P T E R 6 : 1 2 : “A s m a n y a s d e s i r e t o m a k e a f a i r
show i n the f lesh , they constra i n you t o be ci rcumcised;
on ly lest they shou ld su f fer per se cut ion for the cr oss of
Christ.
“13 . For neither they themselves who a re c i r cu mc ised
ke ep t he l aw ; but de s i r e t o h ave you c i r c u mc i s e d , t h at
they may glory in your f lesh.
“ 14 . B ut G o d f o r bid t h at I s h ou ld g l or y, s ave i n t he
cross of our L ord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is cru-
cified unto me, and I unto the world.
“15. For i n Ch r ist Jesus neither ci rcumcision ava i leth
anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.”
We om it the rema i n i ng por tion of the Ga latia n letter,
as it wholly refers to practical Christian duties, and does
not relat e t o the subje ct we a re consider i ng. I n chap. 5 :
6 Paul states the utter uselessness of circumcision so far as
t he r el i g ion of C h r i s t Je su s i s c onc er ne d . It a lone c on-
77
sidered wou ld ma ke no d i f ference. A ma n wou ld need t o
repent ad believe on Christ just the same, whether he was
c i r c u m c i s e d o r n o t . I t w a s o n l y wh e n t h e s e J ud a i z i n g
t eachers were tr y i ng t o br i ng i n c i r cu mc ision a nd a l l it
represented as necessary to salvation, that Paul felt stirred
up t o v i g or ou s ly c om bat it . I n ver s e 7 he r e fer s t o t he
zeal with which they received the gospel, and to the fact
that some one had hindered them, driven them back (mar-
g in), so now they did not obey the truth as before. T hese
were unauthorized, self-appointed teachers, who had no real
connection with him who had called them; that is, Christ.
T he y we r e n o t r e a l ly t he f r ie nd s o f C h r i s t . T he wh ole
c hu r c h wa s i n d a n g er ; for a l it t le le aven le avenet h t he
wh o l e l u mp . B u t P au l h ad s t i l l h o p e s o f t h e G a l at i a n
church, that they would return to thei r alleg iance to the
t r uth . I n verse 13 he spea k s of the l iber t y i n C h r i st t o
wh ich t he br et h r en h ad b e en c a l le d , a nd c aut ion s t hem
to use this liberty not for an occasion of the f lesh, but “ by
l o v e ” t o “ s e r v e o n e a n o t h e r. ” T h e C h r i s t i a n , l i b e r t y
never lead s t o f lesh ly g rat i f ic at ions. “ For a l l the l aw is
f u l f i l le d i n one word , even i n t h i s : T hou sh a lt love t hy
neighbor as thysel f.” Hav i ng just show n by the most i n-
controver tible a rg ument that the ceremon ia l a nd ty pica l
syst em of the Mosa ic ser v ice was abol ished , a l l that re -
ma i ned of the law relati ng t o ou r fel low-men was simply
f u l f i l led i n th i s : “ T hou sh a lt ‘ love thy neighb or a s thy-
self ”—the substance of our obedience to the law of God so
far as it relates to our fellow-men.
In verses 11, 12, we have a very interesting point again
forcibly presented, to which we have referred several times
i n t h i s a r g u ment ; v i z ., t he m a l ic e w it h wh ich d i s c iple s
a f fe ct ed by the Juda i zi ng do ctr i nes, a nd the Jews them-
selves , fol lowed Pau l . A nd it wou ld se em f r om th i s l a n-
guage that the whole reason of the special bitterness of the
Jewish people toward him was because he did not preach
c i r cu mc i sion or g ive it a ny c ou nt ena nce. I f he h ad done
t h at , t hey wou ld h ave let h i m c ompa rat ively a lone. But
when they saw that he took the course he did, they followed
him from city to city, making his life bitter. A nd of these
pretended brethren, who claimed to he disciples, who thus
misled the Galatian church, he said that he would that they
were “even cut of f ” be cause they u nderm i ned the gospel
system. This cutting off can refer to nothing less than ex-
78
communication, and it may signify utter destruction, judg-
ing from past references, as we have seen in the first chap-
ter a solemn curse pronounced upon those who were, per-
ver t i n g t he g o sp el . T h i s s hows how wei g ht y a que s t ion
the apostle considered this whole subject to be.
Before we close this argument, we wish to impress this
point more fully, to conv ince our fr iends, i f possible, who
hold the opposite v iew, that this question of ci rcumcision
i n the apost ol ic chu rch was not one of mi nor impor ta nce
but in its effects upon the progress of Christianity and the
pr e s ent at ion of g o sp el t r ut h , wa s e qu a l i n t he ap o st le ’s
mind to even the much-vaunted doctrine of justification by
f a it h . A s we h ave s a id , we hold t he l at t er t o b e a ver y
impor tant doctr ine. But the special thing with which the
ap ostle h ad t o c ont end i n h i s work a mong the G ent i les ,
was to show the proper relation between his work and the
old system that was passing away.
L et us trace this subject to show how bitterly the Jews
contended against the idea of an equality before God of the
G enti les w ith themselves, wh ich was the g reat poi nt i n-
volved. If circumcision passed away, all could see that they
stood on the same level; for circumcision represented that
whole system, and was the wall of separation dividing be-
tween the Jews and the Gentiles.
We will commence with the case of Cornelius, a devout
m a n who fe a r e d G o d . E v ident ly G o d s aw t h at Pet er
wou ld not da re go t o preach t o C or nel ius un less he gave
him, special light to open the way, even though he was a
man of good repute. So he gave Cornelius a vision to send
for Peter, and Peter a vision to prepare him to go, letting
down the various kinds of unclean beasts in a sheet, and
t el l i ng h i m t o r i se , sl ay, a nd e at . We k now G o d p ou r ed
out his Spirit upon Cornelius and the Gentiles, even before
hands were laid upon them in this case. Peter had hardly
returned to Jerusalem before he was taken to task for doing
t hu s . A c t s 11: 2 : “A nd when Pet er wa s c ome up t o Jer u-
salem, they that were of the ci rcumcision contended with
h im, say ing, T hou wentest i n to men unci rcumcised, and
d i d e at w i t h t h e m .” T h i s o c c u r r e d q u i t e , a nu m b e r o f
years after the crucifixion of Christ and the abolition of the
ceremon ia l law; so it must be ev ident that neither Peter
nor a ny of the other apostles had been accust omed t o do
such a thing as this up to this point. They had not realized
79
that the Gentiles were to reoeive light on the same terms
as they. T hey had not laid aside thei r Jew ish prejud ices,
or God would not have found it neqessary to give this vis-
ion t o open Peter ’s eyes. T hey had not yet comprehended
the real breadth of the gospel. W hen Peter rehearsed his
experience with Cornelius, all had to submit to it, as God’s
direction was so manifest in it.
We do not discern any special bitterness on the part of
the Jews shown to the apostles at Jerusalem, except among
the lead i ng men; a nd Herod’s perse cution seems t o have
been prompted by them. But as soon as Paul and Ba r na-
bas went among the G enti les, then they were followed at
ever y step by a dogged det erm i nation of the Jews t o de -
stroy them a nd brea k up thei r work. W hen they came t o
A ntioch in P isidia (Acts 13 ), after speaking at leng th to
the Jews, the Gentiles, doubtless most of them being pros-
elytes, came and desired to hear from them the next Sab-
bat h . A nd t he whole c it y c a me t o g et her. B ut t he Jews ,
when they saw that the Gentiles were receiving light, and
that they were attracted to this new teaching of the gospel,
wer e exc e e d i n g ly m ad , a s ex pr e s s e d i n ver s e 4 5 : “ T hey
were filled with envy, and spake against those things which
were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.” The
apostle did not make it necessary for these Gentiles to be cir-
cumcised, and thus failed to acknowledge the Jewish supe-
riority. Nothing could have stirred the Jews more than this.
W hen Paul f inally told them that they would turn to the
Gentiles, and labor for them, their anger knew no bounds.
T hey st i r red up devout women (verse 5 0 ), a nd the ch ief
men , a nd ra i sed a fe a r f u l per se cut ion aga i n st Pau l a nd
Barnabas, and expelled them from thei r coast. T he apos-
t le s f le d t o a not her c it y, Ic on iu m ( c h apt er 14 ) , but t he
Jews followed them with such bitterness that they had to
f le e t o Ly s t r a a nd D erb e . B ut t he Jews of A nt io c h a nd
Iconium came a f ter them, and persuaded the people, who
stoned Paul, and left him for dead.
Then follows that Council at Jerusalem to consider this
subject, wh ich, hav i ng noticed ca ref ul ly, we pass, simply
reminding the reader that this question was raised in the
chu r ch it sel f , show i ng th at Pau l’s work a mong the G en-
tiles had not only a f fected the Jews, but also the Jewish
bel ievers, who sa id , “ E xcept ye be ci rcumcised” a nd
“ ke ep t he l aw of Mo s e s ,” “ ye c a n not b e s ave d .” But
80
God helped his servant to bring the matter around in such
a way that a g reat tr iu mph for the spread of the gospel
was the resu lt. A f t er th is, when Pau l preached i n T hes-
s a lon ic a ( ch apt er 17 ), t he Jews st i l l fol lowed h i m , m i n-
gl i ng w ith the baser elements of the people, a nd set the
whole city in an uproar. Paul had to f lee again, and went
unto B erea; but the Jews f rom T hessa lonica immed iately
followed him to this place, and Paul again had to f lee from
them. A f ter passi ng th rough Athens, and comi ng t o C or-
inth, he labored with his usual energy in behalf of the gos-
p el , a nd c ont i nue d t her e s ome t i me . B ut her e a g a i n he
met that bitter hatred of the Jews, and through their inf lu-
ence was summoned to appear before Gallio, the deputy of
A cha ia. W hat was the cha rge aga i nst the g reat apostle?
I n c h a p . 1 8 :1 3 , w e f i n d t h i s a c c u s a t i o n : “ T h i s f e l l o w
p e r s u a d e t h m e n t o w o r s h i p G o d c o n t r a r y t o t h e l aw. ”
T hey even undertook to try him before the R oman deputy
for h i s c ou r s e i n not su st a i n i n g t he c er emon i a l l aw, a s
though it was a great crime. This reveals the special bur-
den of the Jews against the apostle. A fter laboring a long
ti me at C or i nth , where the Jews d id not have power be -
cause of their fear of the deputy, and did not dare molest
h i m , he h ad g reat suc cess. But as s o on as he aga i n ap -
p e a r ed i n Gr e e c e ( ch apt er 2 0 ), the Jews l ay i n wa it for
h im, and tr ied to k i l l h im, but d id not succeed. Paul ex-
pr e s s e s t he sit u at ion i n h i s t a l k w it h t he elder s of t he
church at Ephesus (chap. 20 :19 ), and g ives as the g reat-
est cause of his persecution and diff iculties which he had
t o meet , “ the ly i ng i n wa it of the Jews,” who were con-
stantly dogging his steps at every turn because he did not
preach the ceremonial law.
In his final, closing visit to Jerusalem, we have quite a
vivid picture presented before us of the effect of this feel-
i ng, even i n th at chu r ch . No doubt Pau l’s a n x iet y t o go
to Jerusalem was prompted by his g reat desire to have a
better state of feeling exist between the Jewish and Gentile
Christians. He carried large gifts to them from his Gentile
converts, hoping to appease their distrust and dislike by thus
showing his regard for the poor. We can readily see that,
th is was a g reat cr isis i n the apostle’s l i fe. A nd what a
source of sadness it must have been to a man like him,—
who had given his life unreservedly to his Master, suffer-
ing every indignity, pain, imprisonment, and finally death
81
itself,—to be forced to see that his labors were not appre-
ciated, and that he himself was looked upon with distrust,
even a mon g ex c el lent memb er s at Jer u s a lem , t he p oi nt
f rom wh ich the gospel had sta r ted. But he felt that i f it
was possible, this union between the two must be strength-
ened, and these feelings of d istr ust and d isli ke removed;
so he made this trip to Jerusalem. He presented his g ifts
t o show h i s love for them , a nd wa l ked c i r cu mspe c tly i n
t hei r m id st . T hey r e c eive d h i s g i f t s g l ad ly at f i r st , yet
t h e s e f e e l i n g s o f d i s l i k e we r e n o t r e m o v e d f r o m t h e i r
hea r t ; for i n chap. 21: 2 0, 21 we see these feel i ngs qu it e
m a n i fe st : “ T hou s e e st , br ot her, how m a ny t hou s a nd s of
Jews t her e a r e wh ic h b el ieve ; a n d th e y a re a ll z e a l o u s
of th e l aw; a nd they a re i n formed of thee, that thou
teachst all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to for-
s a k e M o s e s , s ay i n g t h a t t h e y o u g h t n o t t o c i r c u m c i s e
their children, neither to walk after the customs.”
Here we see the same old bitterness again, even in the
chu rch. Now they g ive some adv ice, that he shou ld treat
these customs which he had really discarded, with respect,
by performing some of these services according to the law,
and thus appear to recognize it. We fully believe that this
was an inconsistent course for the apostle to take, and that
these brethren in giving this advice yielded to the pressure
that was brought t o bea r aga i nst Pau l on accou nt of the
do c t r i ne s wh i c h he pr e ac he d . T h i s ver y adv i c e t o Pau l
was the cause of h is long i mpr ison ment , wh ich depr ived
the church of his labors; and it was thus brought about by
t he adv ic e of t he d i s c iple s t hem s elve s . Pau l , w i l l i n g t o
give way to the very utmost extent consistent with principle
if he could bring about peace between them, accepted their
advice, and went into the temple to purify himself, and at
qu it e a heav y ex pense pa id the money requ i red for fou r
others who had vowed.
It wou ld have been better i f Pau l had kept away f rom
this temple ser v ice; but God turned even this to good ac-
count, and made his ser vant useful even in prison. W hile
p e r f o r m i n g t h i s s e r v i c e , s ome Je w s wh o h ad s e e n h i m
elsewhere, stirred up the people against him, “crying out,
Men o f I s r ael , help ; t h i s i s t he m a n , t h at t e ac het h a l l
men everywhere against the people, and the law, and this
place,” etc. So we see that the great cause of their hatred
most pr om i nent aga i n was that he d id not t each the
82
c e r e m o n i a l l aw. We a l l k n o w wh at f o l l o we d , h o w P au l
was captured from the mob by the authorities, and finally
permitted to make a speech to the people; and when they
heard him speak in Hebrew, we learn from chapter 22 that
they l ist ened patiently u nti l he reached the troublesome
point: “A nd he said unto me, Depar t; for I will send thee
far hence unto the Gentiles. A nd they gave him audience
unto this word, and then li fted up their voices, and said,
Away w ith such a fel low f rom the ea r th; for it is not f it
t h a t h e s h o u l d l i v e . ” Ve r s e s 2 1 , 2 2 . T h e y t h e n t h r e w
dust into the air, and acted like mad men.
How plain it must be to any candid mind that this ques-
t ion of m a k i n g t he G ent i le s e qu a l t o t hem by br e a k i n g
down the ceremonial law, was the leading question in the
whole m at t er of send i ng the go sp el i n the ap ost ol ic age
out side of t he Jews . It wa s not si mply a n i n si g n i f ic a nt
question, though it may be considered as such today, when
ever y thing is changed from what it was centuries ago, at
the ver y beg inni ng of the gospel work. It was a question
which was worthy of calling out an epistle from this great
champion in the gospel.
Sist er W h it e, i n her “ Sket ches f r om the L i fe of Sa i nt
Paul” also dwells considerably upon this subject. On page
6 4 she says: “ T he Jews had pr ided themselves upon their
d iv i nely-app oi nt e d s er v ic e s ; a nd t hey c onclude d t h at a s
God once specif ied the Hebrew manner of worship, it was
impossible that he should ever author ize a change in any
of its speci f ications. T hey decided that Chr istianity must
connect itsel f with the Jewish laws and ceremonies. T hey
wer e slow t o d i s c er n t o the end of th at wh ich h ad be en
abolished by the death of Christ, and perceive that all their
sacr i f icia l of fer i ngs had but pref ig u red the death of the
Son of God, in which type had met its antitype, rendering
valueless the div inely-appointed ceremonies and sacrif ices
of the Jewish religion.”
I n spea k i ng of the causes wh ich led t o the C ou nci l at
Jerusalem (Acts 15) in which she agrees with the position
we have taken, that it was the same as the visits brought to
v iew i n Ga l. 2 , she says ( page 6 4 ) they felt “ that i f the
r e st r ic t ion s a nd c er emon ie s of t he Jew i sh l aw wer e not
made obligator y upon thei r accepting the faith of Ch r ist,
the n at ion a l pe c u l i a r it ies of the Jews , wh ich kept them
d i s t i nc t f r om a l l ot her p e ople , wou ld f i n a l ly d i s app e a r
83
from among those who embraced the gospel truths.” Here
we see the tr ue cause of thei r feel i ngs aga i n as we have
many times stated. On page 195 she shows how this same
fe el i ng ex i st ed : “ Pau l i n h i s pr e ach i ng at C or i nth , pr e -
sented the same arg uments which he urged so forcibly in
h is epistles. H is strong stat ement , ‘ T here is neither
Greek nor Jew, ci rcumcision nor unci rcumcision,’ was re-
ga rded by h is enem ies as da r i ng blasphemy. T hey deter-
mined that his voice should be silenced.”
(A similar expression occurs in this very epistle to the
Galatians.)
O n pa g e 210 , i n sp e a k i n g of h i s s t a nd i n g b efor e t he
breth ren at Jer usa lem when he present ed h is g i f ts , a nd
made his remarks, she says: “ He could not recount his ex-
perience in Galatia without stating the difficulties he had
enc ou nt ered f r om those Jud a i z i ng t eachers, who had at-
tempted to misrepresent his teachings and pervert his con-
ver ts.” Here she ev idently has i n v iew the epistle t o the
G a l at i a n s . T h i s she i nd ic at e s c au s e d s ome fe el i ng s . O n
page 212 she says that the advice given by James to recog-
nize the ceremonial law by going before the priests, as we
have stated, “was not consistent with that decision [of the
Council of Acts 15] which had also been sanctioned by the
Holy Spirit. The Spirit of God did not prompt this advice.
It was the f r u it of c owa rd ice. By non- c on form it y t o the,
ceremon ia l law, Ch r istia ns wou ld br i ng upon themselves
the hatred of the unbelieving Jews, and expose themselves
to severe persecution.”
Page 213 : “ The disciples themselves yet cherished a re-
gard for the ceremonial law, and were too willing to make
concessions, hoping by so doing to gain the con f idence of
their countrymen, remove their prejudice, and win them to
fa ith i n Ch r ist as the world’s R edeemer. Paul’s g reat ob-
ject in v isiting Jerusalem was to conciliate the church of
Palestine. So long as they continued to cherish prejudice,
they were constantly working to counteract his inf luence.
He felt that i f he c ou ld by a ny law f u l c oncession on h is
part win them to the truth, he would remove a very great
obstacle to the success of the gospel in other places. But
he was not authorized of God to concede so much as they
had asked. T h is concession was not i n ha rmony w ith h is
teachings, nor with the firm integrity of his character.”
Page 214 : “ W hen we consider Paul’s g reat desi re to be
84 85

i n h a r mony w it h h i s br et h r en , h i s t ender ne s s of spi r it some detached passages of scr iptu re, utt erly fa i l t o pre -
t owa rd the wea k i n fa ith, h is reverence for the apostles, sent that harmonious, systematic view of the whole epistle
who had been w ith Ch r ist , a nd for Ja mes the brother of fou nd i n t he p o s it i o n we h ave he r e i n ad v o c at e d , wh i le
the Lord, and his purpose to become all things to all men ther e a r e ma ny r efer enc es th r oughout the epi stle wh ich
as fa r as he c ou ld do th i s a nd not sacr i f ice pr i nc iple, — utterly forbid their application of it to the moral law.
when we consider all this, it is less surprising that he was T h is question wh ich has long been i n ag itation among
c on st r a i ne d t o dev i at e f r om h i s f i r m , de c ide d c ou r s e of us is most u n for tu nat e. A s ou r breth ren have present ed
ac t ion . But i n st e ad of ac c ompl i sh i ng the desi r ed obje c t , thei r v iews i n such a publ ic ma n ner, i n a way wh ich we
these ef for ts t o c onc i l i at ion on ly pre c ipit at ed the cr isis , cannot think is proper or consistent, we have felt it duty
hastened the pred icted su f fer ings of Paul, sepa rated him t o present ou r v iew of the subje c t before ou r lead i ng
from his brethren in his labors, deprived the church of one breth ren. Yet we feel the sa me brotherly feel i ng as ever
of its strongest pi l la rs, a nd brought sor row t o Ch r istia n toward those who differ with us, believing they have been
he a r t s i n ever y l a nd .” M a ny ot her ex pr e s sion s c ou ld b e misled in regard to their duty. We ask our leading breth-
quoted to the same effect; but we should despair of being ren to consider the points of this arg ument carefully, and
a ble t o s how how i mp o r t a nt t h i s s u b j e c t wa s r e g a r de d weigh it well. We leave the result with them and God.
among the ea rly chu rch , i f what we have presented does
not clearly prove it.
We will only notice the remaining references to circum-
B AT T LE C REEK , M ICH .,
Nov. 18, 1886 }
c i sion i n the si x th ch apt er. E v idently Pau l h ad f i n ished
his long arg ument, and was now g iving the most precious
Ch r istian instruction for the benef it of the believers: but
it seems that he cannot get th is subject out of his mind.
“As many as desire to make a fair show in the f lesh, they
c o n s t r a i n y ou t o b e c i r c u m c i s e d ; o n ly le s t t hey s hou ld
su f fer perse cution for the cross of Ch r ist.” T here he
shows how preach i ng the gospel with ci rcumcision re -
l e a s e d o n e f r o m p e r s e c ut i o n ; but t o p r e a c h t h e g o s p e l
without circumcision, not acknowledging its claim, brought
per se cut i ng element s up on h i m f r om ever y qu a r t er. But
h e wou ld r at her pr e ac h t he t r ut h o f G o d i n it s pu r it y,
whet her p er s e c ut e d or not . C i r c u m c i s ion s ave d no one ,
and uncircumcision saved no one; but there must be a new
c r e at u r e i n C h r i st Je su s . T hu s we s e e , f r om t he b eg i n-
ning of the epistle to the end, this is the great theme that
the apostle has in mind.
We now leave the subject with the reader, claiming for
our view that it makes one connected, consistent, harmoni-
ou s a r g u ment t h r ou g hout . T he c onc lu s ion s a r e a l l c on-
sistent with the premises. We have shown that there was
a suff icient issue to demand such an arg ument; hence we
conclude that the apostle has the ceremon ia l law ma i n ly
i n v iew th roughout th is lett er. O u r breth ren , w ith thei r
position, though they may present quite an argument upon
The Gospel


Book of
Galatians






EXPLANATORY NOTE
This letter was written at the date indicated, but for cer-
tain reasons it was thought best to delay sending it out.
Chief among these reasons was the fear of seeming to act
precipitately in the matter, and the desire to counsel with
others of larger experience. The delay of nearly two years
has given ample time to carefully review the subject again
and again, and to avoid any appearance of heated contro-
versy. It is thought best, even at this late day, to send the
matter out in the form of a letter, as originally written. It
will be understood, of course, that this does not purport to
be an explanation of the book of Galatians; that would re-
quire a book many times the size of this. I have here en-
deavored merely to correct some erroneous views, so that
those who read may be prepared to study the epistle to the
Galatians with more profit than heretofore.
It should also be stated that this little book is not published
for general circulation. It is designed only for those in
whose hands Elder Butler’s pamphlet on Galatians was
placed, and perhaps a few others whose minds have been
specially exercised on the subject. No one can be more anx-
ious than the writer, to avoid everything of a controversial
nature in matters intended for the general public.
That this letter may tend to allay controversy, to help to
bring the household of God into the unity of the faith as it
is in Christ Jesus, and to hasten the time when the servants
of God shall see eye to eye, is the only desire of the writer.
E. J. W
The Gospel In Galatians
OAKLAND, Cal., February 10, 1887.
ELDER GEO. I. BUTLER, Battle Creek, Mich.—Dear
Brother: The matter of the law in Galatians which received
some attention at the late General Conference, has been upon
my mind a good deal, and doubtless many have thought of it
since then more than before. I very much regretted that
every moment of time was so occupied that we could have no
conversation upon the subject. It is true the matter was
discussed to a very limited extent in the meetings of the
Theological Committee, but of course the little that could be
said under the circumstances was not sufficient to give any
satisfaction to any party concerned. I know that you are at
all times exceedingly busy, and I myself have no time to
squander; but this matter is of very great importance, and
has received so much attention that it cannot by any possi-
bility be ignored now. You remember that I stated that
there were some points in your pamphlet which seemed to
me to indicate that you had misunderstood my position. I
therefore wish to note a few of them. Before taking up any of
the details, I wish to say first, that, as I assured you when in
Battle Creek, I have not the slightest personal feeling in this
matter. What I have written in the Signs has been with the
sole design of doing good, by conveying instruction on an
important Bible subject. I have not written in a controver-
sial manner, but have particularly avoided anything of that
nature. It has been my aim on this subject, as well as on
others, to write in such a way as not to arouse combativeness
in any, but to present simple Bible truth, so that the object-
ions would be taken out of the way before the person could
make them. Second, it is not possible that in noting a few
of the points in your pamphlet I could properly present my
3
own position. To do that I should want to take up the book
of Galatians without any reference to what anybody else had
said upon it. In my articles in the Signs I have mentioned
only a few points that might seem to be objections to the law,
and which are often quoted as showing its abolition, to show
that they are really the strongest arguments for the perpetu-
ity of the law.
I wish to say also that I think great injustice has been
done in the allusions that have been made to the Instructor
lessons. If it were simply injustice to me, it would be a
matter of small consequence. But discredit was thrown upon
the lessons, which would materially weaken the influence
of the important subject upon which they treated, and this
too when not a text used in the lessons was given a different
application from that which has been held by those at least
of our people who have written upon the same subject.
Every position taken in those lessons is perfectly in harmony
with works published by our people, and may be read there-
from. This was proved before the committee. And I
have no knowledge that any different view on any text
used in those lessons was ever printed by our people be-
fore the appearance of your pamphlet. This being the case,
I honestly think that justice demands that on this subject at
least the impressions conveyed in your pamphlet should be as
publicly corrected.
As to the propriety of publishing the matter in the Signs
when I did, I have nothing to say. Whatever censure is due
on that score, I willingly take, as I already have. But I wish
to say that nothing that has been said or written has in the
least degree shaken my confidence in the truthfulness of what
I published in the Signs. Those positions I hold to and re-
joice in to-day more strongly than ever. I wish also most
earnestly to protest against the accusation that I have made
the Signs, much less the Instructor, a medium for taking an
unfair advantage of any of our people. Quotations that will
appear further on, will show that I am not the one who has
departed from the standard works of our people.
I will now proceed to notice a few points in the pamphlet,
taking them up in the order in which they come. On page
8 you say:—
4 5
“The Lord chose Abraham and his descendants to be His
peculiar people. They were such till the cross. He gave
them the rite of circumcision—a circle cut in the flesh—as
a sign of their separation from the rest of the human family.”
This seeming misapprehension of the nature of circumcision
appears throughout your pamphlet. It seems strange that
it should be so, when the apostle Paul speaks so plainly con-
cerning it. In Rom. 4:11 I read of Abraham: “And he re-
ceived the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the
faith which he had yet being uncircumcised; that he might be
the father of all them that believe, though they be not cir-
cumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them
also.”
The fitness of this rite as a sign of righteousness will readily
appear to anybody who understands the physical evils against
which circumcision is a guard. At the present time it is
often performed by physicians as a preventive of physical
impurity. It was practiced for this purpose by many nations
of antiquity. Herodotus (2:37) says of the Egyptians:
“They practice circumcision for the sake of cleanliness, con-
sidering it better to be cleanly than comely.” Professor Von
Orelli, of Basel, says in the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia:
“The custom is also found among nations which have no
traceable connection with any form of ancient civilization; as
for instance, among the Congo negroes and Caffrarians in
Africa, the Salivas Indians in South America, the inhabitants
of Otaheite and the Fiji Islands, etc.” He adds: “The Arabs
of today call the operation tutur tahir, purification.”
I think that among the Jews as a class the rite exists to-day
only as a preventive of physical impurity. I was present
when it was performed by an eminent rabbi of San Francisco,
and he said that that was all it was for. In this, as in every-
thing else, the Jews have lost all knowledge of the spiritual
meaning of their ceremonies. The veil still remains over
their hearts. But that cutting off of the cause of physical
impurity signified the putting off of the impurity of the heart,
which was accomplished by faith in Christ. See Deuteronomy 10:16,
and many other texts, for proof that circumcision had from
the beginning this deeper meaning.
 The question will naturally arise, If circumcision was prac-
ticed by other people, why did everybody despise the Jews
because of it? I answer that the hatred was due, not to the
mere fact of circumcision, but to that which it signified among
the pious Jews. “The wicked plotteth against the just, and
gnasheth upon him with his teeth.” Ps. 37:12. “All they
that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.”
And this is true of all time. As proof that the uncircumcised
heathen hated the Jews solely on account of their righteous-
ness, and not on account of their circumcision, we have only
to note how ready they were to mingle with the Jews, when-
ever they could seduce them into idolatry. If the Jews
would relax their strictness of living, would depart from God,
and serve other gods, the heathen had no objections to
mingling with them, and intermarrying with them.
And this leads to the main point, namely, that the mere act
of circumcision never made the Jews God’s peculiar people.
They were His peculiar people only when they had that of
which circumcision was the sign, namely, righteousness.
When they did not have that, they were just the same as
though they had never been circumcised (Romans 2:25-29;
Philippians 3:3), and were cut off without mercy as readily as were
the heathen. Circumcision was only a sign of the possession
of righteousness; and when righteousness was wanting the
circumcision amounted to nothing.
On page 10 I read of the Jews:—
“Then came the cross, when all their special privileges,
with circumcision as their representative and sign, were swept
away. They had forfeited them by disobedience and rebell-
ion.”
On page 11 I also read of the Jew:—
“He greatly disliked to be reckoned a common sinner with
the hated Gentile. He strenuously contended also for cir-
cumcision and its attendant privileges.”
But on page 37 I read:—
“The law of rites had an immense amount of these, so
that they constituted a ‘yoke of bondage’ grievous to be
borne, which Paul claimed had passed away.”
I cannot harmonize this last quotation with the first two.
How can a “yoke of bondage” be considered as “special
6 7
privileges”? And why should the Jew strenuously contend
for “circumcision and its attendant privileges,” if he felt it
to be a “yoke of bondage grievous to be borne”? This is
a minor matter, but consistency should appear in the details
of truth. I will not at present take time to give my view of
the yoke of bondage, but will consider it later. On page 12,
concerning the books of Romans and Galatians, I read:—
“We cannot agree with some who claim that the design,
scheme, or argument in the two epistles are substantially
the same. We freely admit that there are expressions alike in
both; but we believe that the main line of argument and the
ultimate object in view are widely different, and that many
of the similar expressions used are to be understood in a dif-
ferent sense, because the argument of the apostle demands it.
“In the other epistles of Paul these facts are adverted to;
but in none of them is the argument anywhere near so fully
developed. It does not look reasonable on the face of it, that
the apostle would have principally the same object in view in
two different epistles. These were written by direct inspira-
tion of God, to be the special guidance of the Christian
church. He was bringing out the great principles which
should serve as the governing influence of the church for all
future ages. We therefore believe it to be an unreasonable
view that both have the same design.”
You say that it does not look reasonable that the apostle
would have principally the same object in view in two differ-
ent epistles. This is not an argument, but an opinion, and
an opinion which I do not share. It does not seem any less
reasonable to me that Paul should have principally the same
object in view in two different epistles, than that the Spirit
of God should inspire four men to write four different books
with principally the same object in view, as is the case in the
four Gospels. It seems fully as reasonable as that the proph-
ets Daniel and John should have written two books with
principally the same object in view, namely, to enlighten the
church in regard to things to take place in the last days; or
that the books of First and Second Chronicles should cover
the ground covered in the books of Samuel and Kings; or
that Paul’s epistle to Titus should contain so much that is in
the epistles to Timothy; or that the book of Jude should be
an almost exact reproduction, in brief, of the Second Epistle
of Peter. Instead of Paul not having the same general ob-
ject in view in two epistles, I find the same points brought out
in Ephesians and Colossians, though not to the extent that
they are in Romans and Galatians. To me it seems very rea-
sonable that the same things should be presented from differ-
ent points of view, especially when addressed to different
people, and under different circumstances. I find that things
that are dwelt upon at considerable length in one of the
Testimonies for the Church, are repeated and emphasized
in others; and it seems to me very fitting and necessary that
this should be done, although these are addressed to the same
churches, and not to different ones. This is in accordance
with the Bible rule of line upon line, precept upon precept.
You say that similar terms, and even identical terms, need
not necessarily have the same meaning. This may be true
provided they are used with reference to different subjects.
But if the same subject is under consideration in two differ-
ent places, and the same or similar terms are used in each
place, then we are bound to admit that they have the same
meaning. If we do not do this, we cannot interpret the Bible
at all. It is on this basis alone that we can understand the
prophecies. If you will turn to the comments on the thir-
teenth chapter of Daniel, in Thoughts on the Book of
Daniel and the Revelation, you will find that similarity of
statement is all that is depended on to prove that the leopard
beast is identical with the little horn of Daniel 7. No one has
ever thought of questioning the argument in that place, and
no one has any right to.
Now let us look for a moment at the subject of the two
books, Romans and Galatians. The leading thought in the
book of Romans is justification by faith. The apostle shows
the depraved condition of the heathen world; then he shows
that the Jews are no better, but that human nature is the
same in all. All have sinned, and all are guilty before God,
and the only way that any can escape final condemnation is
by faith in the blood of Christ. All who believe on Him are
justified freely by the grace of God, and His righteousness is
imputed to them although they have violated the law. This
truth, which is brought out so clearly in the third chapter of
Romans, is repeated and emphasized in the fourth, fifth,
8 9
sixth, and seventh chapters. And in the eighth chapter the
apostle concludes that there is no condemnation to them
which are in Christ Jesus. He has before shown that all
sinners are under, or condemned by, the law, but when we
come to God through faith in Christ, and are justified freely
by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
we are no longer under the law, but are under grace. This
condition is represented in various places as “dead to the
law by the body of Christ,” “delivered from the law,” etc.
Everywhere faith in Christ and justification by faith are made
prominent. So we may say that justification by faith is the
key-note of the book of Romans. Now how about the book of
Galatians? There is no question in the mind of any but that
the Galatians were being induced to submit to circumcision.
Were they submitting to the demands of the Jews that they
should be circumcised, because they thought it a great privi-
lege to be circumcised? Not by any means, but because cer-
tain Jews were teaching them that if they were not circum-
cised they could not be saved. See Acts 15:1. They were
therefore looking to circumcision as a means of justification.
But since there is none other name under heaven except that
of Christ whereby we can be saved, it follows that to depend
on anything except Christ for justification is a rejection of
Christ. It was this which called out Paul’s letter to them.
Now since the Galatians were being led to trust in circumcis-
ion for justification from sin, what else could be the burden
of a letter designed to correct this error, but justification by
faith in Christ? That this is the burden of the epistle is
seen from Gal. 2:16-21; 3:6-8, 10-14, 22, 24, 26, 27; 4:4-7;
5:5, 6; 6:14, 15, and other passages. In the book of Ro-
mans the apostle develops his argument on justification by
faith in a general way, building up a general treatise; but
when he wrote to the Galatians he had a special object in
view, and he adapted his epistle to the necessities of the case.
It is the most natural thing in the world that he should write
on justification by faith to the Galatians, when they were in
danger of losing their faith, even if his treatise on that sub-
ject to the Romans had been already written. The truth is,
however, that the book of Galatians was written first. In
the book of Romans he expanded the book of Galatians into
a general treatise.
On page 13 of your pamphlet I find a paragraph which
must necessarily be misleading to those who have not read
my articles. You say: —
“What was the change in them of which he complains so
strongly? Was it that they had kept the moral law so well
—had observed the Sabbath, refrained from idolatry, blas-
phemy, murder, lying, stealing, etc.—that they felt they
were justified by their good works, and therefore needed no
faith in a crucified Saviour? or was it that they had accepted
circumcision, with all it implied and symbolized, the laws and
services which served as a wall of separation between Jews
and Gentiles, and the ordinances of the typical remedial sys-
tem? We unhesitatingly affirm it was the latter. In in-
dorsing the former remedial system of types and shadows,
they virtually denied that Christ, the substance to which all
these types pointed, had come. Hence their error was a
fundamental one in doctrine, though they might not realize
it. This was why Paul spoke so forcibly, and pointed out
their error with such strength of language. Their error in-
volved practices which were subversive of the principles of
the gospel. They were not merely errors of opinion.”
Anyone who had not read my articles would naturally
conclude on reading the above, that I had claimed that the
Galatians were most strict in their observance of the ten com-
mandments, and that by this means they expected to be jus-
tified from past transgression. That is the very opposite of
what I taught. I made it as clear as I knew how, that the
Galatians were accepting “circumcision with all it implied
and symbolized,” and were accepting the Jewish error that
circumcision was the only means of justification. We can-
not suppose that the Jews who were thus seeking to turn the
Galatians away from the faith, taught them to ignore the
ten commandments, but we do know that they did not teach
them to rely solely upon their observance of the moral law
as a means of justification. The true gospel is to keep the
commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. The perverted
gospel which the Galatians were being taught, was to keep
the commandments of God, and circumcision. But since
circumcision is nothing, and there is in the universe no means
of justification outside of Christ, it follows that they were
10
practically relying upon their good works for salvation. But
Christ says, “Without Me ye can do nothing;” that is, the
man who rejects Christ, by accepting some other mode of
justification, cannot possibly keep the commandments, “for
Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one
that believeth.” So we find that the Galatians, although
they had once accepted Christ and known God, were now in-
sensibly turning away from God, and of course going back
to the heathen practices which came so naturally to them.
This is shown by several expressions: First, “I marvel that
ye are so soon removed from Him that called you into the
grace of Christ unto another gospel, which is not another.”
Gal. 1:6, 7. This shows that they were being removed from
God, for God is the one who calls people unto the fellowship
of His Son. 1 Cor. 1:9. Again we read, “After that ye
have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye
again to the weak and beggarly elements?” Gal. 4:9. This
shows that they were turning from God. Once more we read,
“Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not
obey the truth?” Gal. 5:7. These passages clearly show
that that which made the case so urgent was the fact that
the Galatians were leaving the truth of God, and going into
idolatry. This was not because the Jews were teaching them
to break the commandments, but because they were putting
their trust in something besides Christ, and the man who
does that cannot keep from sin, no matter how hard he tries.
See Rom. 8:7-10; Gal. 5:17. Those who attempt to build
their house on anything except the rock Christ Jesus, are
building for destruction. And so I believe as firmly as you
can that their error was fundamental and a grave one.
I must go back to the tenth page, and notice an expression
which I find concerning the relative position of the Jews and
Gentiles after the passing away of the ceremonial law:—
“There was no propriety, therefore, in still keeping up the
wall of separation between them and others. They all stood
now upon the same level in the sight of God. All must ap-
proach Him through the Messiah who had come into the
world; through Him alone man could be saved.”
Do you mean to intimate by this that there was ever a time
when any people could approach God except through Christ?
11
If not, then language means nothing. Your words seem to
imply that before the first advent men approached God by
means of the ceremonial law, and that after that they ap-
proached Him through the Messiah; but we shall have to go
outside the Bible to find any support for the idea that any-
body could ever approach God except through Christ. Amos
5:22; Micah 6:6-8, and many other texts show conclusively
that the ceremonial law alone could never enable people to
come to God. These points will come in again later.
I pass on to your consideration of the second chapter. I
do not think there is anyone whose opinion is worth consid-
ering, who will question for a moment your statement that
the visit referred to in the first verse in this chapter is the
same as the one of which we have an account in Acts 15. I
certainly agree with you there. If you will notice, I made a
distinct point on this in my articles; in fact, I insisted upon
it as a necessary foundation of my argument. I repeated
several times, what I have already stated in this letter, that
the epistle to the Galatians was called out by the very same
thing which the certain men who came down to Antioch were
teaching, namely, “Except ye be circumcised ye cannot be
saved.” I agree with you that “the very same question pre-
cisely which came before the council is the main subject of
the apostle’s letter to this church.” But I do not agree with
you in all that you say in the words immediately following,
which I find on page 25 of your pamphlet:—
“Will any Seventh-day Adventist claim that the moral
law was the subject considered by that council? Was it the
moral law which Peter characterizes as ‘a yoke . . .
which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear’? Were
the moral and ceremonial laws all mixed up and confounded in
the council? Did the decision of that body set aside the
laws against stealing, lying, Sabbath-breaking, and murder?
We all know better. The council took no cognizance what-
ever of the ten commandments.”
Do you really believe that the council took no cognizance
of the ten commandments? If so, can you tell me of what
law fornication is the transgression? Fornication is one of
the four things forbidden by the council. Now I have a
very distinct recollection of some plain talk which you gave
12
on this subject at the General Conference, and of some still
plainer testimony from Sister White, all of which I thought
was very pertinent. You proved from Scripture that the
seventh commandment may be broken by even a look, or a
desire of the heart. And yet you claim that the council
which forbade fornication took no cognizance whatever of
the ten commandments. How you can make such a state-
ment after reading the fifteenth chapter of Acts, is beyond
my comprehension.
Again, another thing which was forbidden by the council
was “pollutions of idols.” That certainly must have some
connection with the first and second commandments, to say
nothing of other commandments that were broken in idola-
trous feasts. l should be extremely sorry to have people get
the idea that we do not regard pollutions of idols, or forni-
cation, as violations of the moral law. You claim that it is
the ceremonial law alone that was under consideration in
that council. Will you please cite me to that portion of the
ceremonial law which forbids fornication and idolatry?
This is an important matter, and right here your whole
argument falls to the ground. You very properly connect
the book of Galatians with the fifteenth chapter of Acts.
You justly claim that in Galatians Paul pursues the same
line of argument which was pursued in the council. And
you depend on the assumption that the council took no
cognizance of the moral law, in order to prove that the moral
law does not come into the account in Galatians. But a
simple reading of the report of the council shows that the
moral law did come in there; and therefore, according to your
own argument, the moral law must be considered in the book
of Galatians.
Take for a moment the supposition that the ceremonial
law alone was considered by the council; then it necessarily
follows, as is plainly stated in the “Two Laws,” page 31, that
the council decided that four points of the ceremonial law
were declared to be binding on Christians. Now let me ask:
1. Is the decision of that council as binding on us as it was
on the primitive Christians? If so, then the ceremonial law
was not taken away at the cross, and we are still subject
13

to it. 2. If the ceremonial law was a yoke of bondage, and
that council decreed that a part of it was to be observed by
Christians, did they not thereby deliberately place Christians
under a yoke of bondage, in spite of Peter’s emphatic pro-
test against putting a yoke upon them? 3. If those “four
necessary things” were part of the ceremonial law, and were
binding twenty-one years after the crucifixion, when, if ever,
did they cease to be in force? We have no record that those
four necessary things ever ceased to be necessary things;
and therefore, according to the theory that the ceremonial
law was a yoke of bondage, it is impossible for Christians
ever to be perfectly free. This one thing is certain, if the
ceremonial law was nailed to the cross, then the apostles,
acting in harmony with the leadings of the Spirit of God,
would not declare a part of it to be “necessary things.” And
whoever claims that the “four necessary things” enjoined
by the council at Jerusalem, were a part of the ceremonial
law, thereby denies that the ceremonial law ceased at the
cross. I cannot think that you would have taken the position
which you have, if you had taken time to carefully consider
this matter.
Now let me state, in brief, what I regard as the truth con-
cerning the council at Jerusalem. Certain ones came down
to Antioch and taught the brethren that if they were not
circumcised they could not be saved. These persons, or
others of the same class, had greatly troubled all the churches
that Paul had raised up, the Galatians among the rest. These
men who taught thus were not Christians indeed, but were
“false brethren;” see Galatians 2:4. As a consequence of this
teaching, many were being turned away from the gospel.
In trusting to circumcision for justification, they were lean-
ing on a broken reed which could profit them nothing. In-
stead of gaining righteousness by it, they were insensibly
being led into wicked practices, for without faith in Christ
no man can live a righteous life. Suppose now that the
council had confirmed the teachings of these false brethren,
and had decreed that circumcision was necessary to justifi-
cation; what would have been the result? Just this; they
would have turned the disciples away from Christ; for the
14
only object in coming to Christ is to receive justification or
pardon, and if people can get it without coming to Christ, of
course they have no need of Him. But whatever the apostles
might have decreed, it would still have remained a fact that
circumcision is nothing, and that the disciples could no more
be justified by it than they could by snapping their fingers.
Therefore, if they had been led to put their trust in circum-
cision, they would have rested satisfied in their sins; and to
lead them to do that would indeed have been to put a yoke
upon them. Sin is a bondage, and to teach men to put their
trust in a false hope, which will cause them to rest satisfied
in their sins, thinking that they are free from them, is simply
to fasten them in bondage.
Peter said, “Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the
neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were
able to bear?” Now the fathers had the ceremonial law,
and did bear it; they practiced it, and throve under it, as
David said: “Those that be planted in the house of the Lord
shall flourish in the courts of our God. They shall still bring
forth fruit in old age; they shall be fat and flourishing.”
Psalm 92:13, 14. Anyone who reads the Psalms will see that
David did not regard the ceremonial law as a burdensome
yoke, nor think it grievous bondage to carry out its ordi-
nances. It was a delight to him to offer the sacrifices of
thanksgiving, because by it he showed faith in Christ. Faith
in Christ was the soul and life of his service. Without that
his worship would have been a meaningless form. But if he
had been so ill-informed as to suppose that the simple me-
chanical performance of the ceremonial law would cleanse
him from sin, then indeed he would have been in a grievous
condition. There are two yokes,—the yoke of sin (Satan’s
yoke), and the yoke of Christ. The yoke of sin is hard to
bear,—Satan is a hard master; but the yoke of Christ is easy,
and His burden is light. He sets us free from sin, that we may
serve Him by bearing His mild yoke. Matthew 11:29, 30.
Now what was the reason that only four things were en-
joined upon these troubled converts. It was because these
four things covered the danger. Compliance with Jewish
ceremonies, as a means of justification, separated them
15
from Christ, and naturally led them to look with favor upon
heathen ceremonies. They were told that no Jewish cere-
monies whatever were required of them, and then were cau-
tioned against the four things in which there was the great-
est danger for them. If the converts from among the Gen-
tiles should begin to backslide, fornication and the eating of
blood would be the first things they would take up, because
those were so common among the Gentiles that they were
not considered sinful at all.
Thus we see that while in the council at Jerusalem the
ceremonial law was under consideration, and the question
was whether or not Christians should observe it, the only im-
portance that attached to it, and the only reason why those
who taught circumcision were reproved, was because such
teaching necessarily led to the violation of the moral law;
and this is the sum of the teaching in the book of Galatians.
Paul emphatically warns the Galatians against being circum-
cised; not because circumcision was in itself so heinous a
thing, for he himself had circumcised Timothy (and that,
too, after the council at Jerusalem), but because they were
trusting in circumcision for justification, thus cutting loose
from Christ, and relapsing into idolatry.
I pass to page 33, to your closing remarks on the second
chapter, where you say:—
“We have had here nearly two entire chapters in this
letter, about one-third of the whole epistle, and hitherto we
have not had a single reference to the moral law; but through
it all constant reference is made to the other law, that of
Moses.”
I think you could not have had in mind the nineteenth
verse of the second chapter when you wrote the above. That
verse reads, “For I through the law am dead to the law, that I
might live unto God.” The ceremonial law never had power
to slay anyone. But even allowing that it did once have
that power, it had itself died, having been nailed to the
cross at least three years before Paul was converted. Now
I ask, How could Paul be slain by a law that for three years
had had no existence? This verse shows upon the face of it
that the moral law is referred to. It is the same law to
16
which Paul refers when he says, “I was alive without the
law once; but when the commandment came, sin revived,
and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to
life, I found to be unto death.” Rom. 7:9, 10. The limits
of a brief review do not allow me to give an exposition of
these references to the law in the second chapter of Galatians,
as I hope to do sometime, but it needs very little space to
show that the moral law, and no other law, is referred to in
Gal. 2:19.
I see you apply Gal. 3:10 to the ceremonial law. In so
doing you certainly are taking a new position. I think I
have read every book published by Seventh-day Adventists,
and I never read that position in any of them. On the con-
trary, everyone who has written upon this subject has ap-
plied this to the moral law, and I do not see how there is
any chance to apply it anywhere else. I do not question the
statement that “the book of the law” included both the
moral law and the ceremonial law. I am glad that you ad-
mit as much, for many who have talked or written on this
subject have seemed to claim that “the book of the law”
refers exclusively to the ceremonial law. You will notice,
however, that the book of Deuteronomy is devoted almost
entirely to moral precepts, and has only one or two ref-
erences to the ceremonial law, and those references are to the
three annual feasts, the antitype of one of which is still in
the future. That the moral law occupies the chief place in
the book of Deuteronomy must be patent to everyone who
carefully reads that book. See chapter 4:5-13; 5; 6; (ch. 6:
25 is universally used by Seventh-day Adventists concerning
the moral law); 11:8, 18-28; 13; and many others than these
which I have selected at random. Deut. 29:29 certainly ap-
plies to the moral law, and the expression there used (in the last
clause) implies that the moral law is the prominent law under
consideration in the book. And in Deut. 27, where the curses
are found, the twenty-sixth verse of which is quoted in Gal.
3:10, only the moral law is referred to.
But while it is doubtless true that the ceremonial law was
included in the “book of the law,” I have yet to find Script-
ure proof for the statement that there was any curse pro-
17

nounced for non-performance of the ceremonial law as an in-
dependent law. I will try to make clear what I mean.
There can be no moral obligation to perform anything not re-
quired by the moral law. That is simply another way of
saying that sin is the transgression of the law. Now, if at
any time sin can be imputed for the performance or non-per-
formance of any act not forbidden or enjoined in the moral
law, then it necessarily follows that the moral law is not a
perfect rule of action. But the moral law is a perfect law.
It embodies all righteousness, even the righteousness of God,
and nothing more can be required of any man than perfect
obedience to it. That law is so broad that it covers every act
and every thought, so that it is utterly impossible for a per-
son to conceive of a sin which is not forbidden by the moral
law. I do not see how this position can be questioned by
one who believes in the divine origin and the perpetuity of
the law; yet your position does virtually deny that the
moral law is a perfect rule of conduct; for you say that the
curse attaches both to the ceremonial law and to the moral
law.
That the curse of the law is death, I do not suppose you
will deny, and therefore will not stop here to offer extended
proof, yet a few words may not be out of place. I sim-
ply note the following points: 1. The curse of the law is
what Christ bore for us. See Galatians 3:13. 2. This curse con-
sisted in being hanged on a tree. See last part of same verse.
3. This being hanged on a tree was the crucifixion of Christ,
for at no other time was He ever hanged on a tree; and Peter
said to the wicked Jews: “The God of our fathers raised up
Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.” Acts 5:30.
Therefore death is the curse which Christ bore for us; but
death is the wages of sin, and sin is the violation of the moral
law. Therefore Christ bore the curse of the moral law for
us. There is no other law that has any curse attached to it.
Certain it is that no curse is or can be pronounced except
for sin; therefore if the curse be pronounced for failure to
comply with the rites of the ceremonial law, then such failure
must be in itself sin, and therefore the ceremonial law is also
a standard of righteousness. I do not see how from your
18
position you can avoid the conclusion that the moral law is
not, or at least was not, in the Jewish age, of itself a perfect
standard of righteousness. The great fault which I find with
the position you hold is that it depreciates the moral law, and
correspondingly depreciates the gospel.
Let me repeat the argument: If the curse attaches to the
ceremonial law, then violation of the ceremonial law is sin;
and if violation of the ceremonial law is sin, then there is sin
not forbidden by the ten commandments; and then the ten
commandments are not a perfect rule of action; moreover,
since the ceremonial law is done away, it follows that the
standard of righteousness is not so perfect now as it was in
the days of Moses. If this is not a legitimate conclusion from
your premises, I must confess my ignorance of logic. An-
other point: No sin can remove itself, neither can it be atoned
for by any subsequent good deed. So then there must be
some scheme of atonement for sin. Now if sin were imputed
for neglect of the ceremonial law, what remedy was provided
for that sin? The ceremonial law was simply the ordinances
of the gospel. If condemned sinners were still further con-
demned by the very remedy provided for their salvation, then
indeed it must have been a yoke. A man is in a truly pitiable
condition when the remedy given him for a sore disease only
aggravates that disease.
But you will say, and correctly too, that those who refused
to comply with the requirements of the ceremonial law were
put to death. Why was this, if the curse did not attach to
the ceremonial law? I will answer. The violator of the
moral law justly merited death, but God had provided a par-
don for all who would accept it. This pardon was on con-
dition of faith in Christ, and it was ordained that faith in
Christ should be manifested through the rites of the ceremo-
nial law. Now if a man repented of his sins, and had faith
in Christ, he would manifest it, and would receive the pardon;
and then of course the penalty would not be inflicted upon
him. But if he had no faith in Christ, he would not comply
with the conditions of pardon, and then of course the penalty
for sin would be inflicted. The penalty was not for failure to
carry out the rites of the ceremonial law, but for the sin
19
which might have been remitted had he manifested faith. I
think anybody can see the truthfulness of this position. Let
us illustrate it. Here is a man who has committed a murder,
and is under sentence of death. He is told that the Governor
will pardon him if he will acknowledge his guilt, repent of his
sin, and make an application for pardon; but this he refuses
to do, and the law is allowed to take its course, and he is
hanged. Now why is he hanged? Is it because he refuses to
make the application for pardon? Not by any means. He
is hanged for the murder. No particle whatever of the pen-
alty is inflicted because he refused to sue for pardon, and yet
if he had sued for pardon every particle of the penalty would
have been remitted. So it is with the sinner in his relation to
the law of God. If he despises the offer of pardon, and shows
his disregard by a refusal to take the steps necessary to re-
ceive the pardon, then the curse of the law, death, is allowed
to fall upon him. But refusing to receive pardon is not a
sin. God invites men to receive pardon, but He has no law
to compel them to be pardoned. The murderer who has been
offered pardon and has rejected it, is no more guilty than an-
other man who has committed the same crime but who has not
been offered a pardon. I do not know as this can be made
any clearer; I cannot see that it needs to be. The sum of it
all is simply this: Sin is the transgression of the moral law,
and the violation of no other law; for the moral law covers
all duty. There is a curse attached to the violation of the
law, and that curse is death; “for the wages of sin is death.”
But there is provision for the pardon of those who exercise
faith in Christ. And this faith is indicated by a performance
of certain rites. Before Christ, it was by the offering of
sacrifices; since Christ it is by baptism and the Lord’s Sup-
per. Those who have real faith will indicate it in the pre-
scribed manner, and will escape the penalty. Those who
have not faith will receive the penalty. This is exactly what
Christ meant when He Himself said to Nicodemus: “For God
sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but
that the world through Him might be saved. He that be-
lieveth on Him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is
condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name
of the only begotten Son of God.” John 3:17, 18.
20
I marvel how you can read Galatians 3:11, 12, and imagine that
the word law in those verses has the slightest reference to
the ceremonial law. I quote them: “But that no man is
justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident; for,
The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith; but,
The man that doeth them shall live in them.” It does not
seem as though any comment could make more evident the
truth that the moral law alone is here referred to. You
cannot escape this conclusion by saying that the statement
that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God, applies
with equal force to any law, and that therefore this may apply
to the ceremonial law as well as to the moral. The question
is not what law may be referred to, but what law is referred
to? The law here referred to is a law of which it is said,
“The man that doeth them shall live in them.” Now this is
emphatically true of the moral law. It is equivalent to Rom.
2:13: “The doers of the law shall be justified.” The sad
fact that there are no doers of the law does not destroy the
truth that the doers of the law shall be justified. Perfect
compliance with the moral law alone is all that God can
possibly require of any creature. Such service would neces-
sarily give eternal life. But a man might perform every
item of the ceremonial law with the most rigid scrupulous-
ness and yet be condemned. The Pharisees were strict ob-
servers of the ceremonial law, yet they were cursed; therefore
this text cannot have the slightest reference to the ceremo-
nial law.
Again, the text says, “And the law is not of faith.” But
the ceremonial law was of nothing else but faith; it was a mat-
ter of faith from beginning to end. It was faith that consti-
tuted all the difference between the offering of Abel and that
of Cain. See Hebrews 11:4. It was faith alone that gave to
that system all the force it ever had. And this again is pos-
itive evidence that the ceremonial law is not referred to.
It does not seem possible that argument is needed to show
that Galatians 3:11-13 has reference to the moral law, and to
the moral law exclusively. Until the publication of your pam-
phlet, a contrary view was never put forth by Seventh-day
Adventists. I really cannot believe that you would delib-
21

erately deny that the moral law is there under consideration.
The limits of this review will not allow me to take up every
occurrence of the word “law” in the book of Galatians, and
show its application, but I wish to ask one question: Is it
reasonable to suppose that the apostle would use the words,
“the law,” in one place, and then a few verses later, without
any change in his subject, or anything to indicate a change,
use the same words again, and in the two places have refer-
ence to two entirely distinct laws? You yourself say that
it is not. If it were true that the apostle wrote in so indefi-
nite a manner as that, using the term “the law” in one verse
with reference to the moral law, and in the next verse with
reference to the ceremonial law, then nobody could under-
stand his writings unless he had the same degree of inspira-
tion that the apostle had.
I turn again to your book, page 39, and read the fol-
lowing:—
“If these Galatians were going to re-establish the whole
Jewish system, which would be the logical result of their
action in adopting circumcision, they must thereby bring
themselves under a curse.”
In the same paragraph you say that the statement, “Cursed
is every one that continueth not in all things which are written
in the book of the law to do them,” applies to the ceremonial
law, and that the Galatians were bringing themselves under
this curse because they were going to re-establish the whole Jew-
ish system! I cannot see logic in that. If it were true, it
would be a case of “You’ll be damned if you do, and you’ll
be damned if you don’t.”
I pass to your argument on Galatians 3:17-19. On this you
say:—
“This law was given four hundred and thirty years after
the promise to Abraham. Could it, therefore, be the same as
‘My commandments, My statutes, and My laws’ which Abra-
ham kept? Genesis 25:5. They were evidently the moral law;
hence this is not.”— p. 43.
This is an argument that proves too much. It is a reversal
of the Campbellite view that the moral law had no exis-
tence before it was given upon Mount Sinai. Your argument
claims that the moral law was not given upon Mount Sinai,
22
because it existed in the days of Abraham. But it is a fact
that God spoke some law from Mount Sinai, and that this
event was four hundred and thirty years after the promise to
Abraham; therefore your statement that the law given four
hundred and thirty years after the time of Abraham cannot
be the moral law because Abraham kept the moral law,
amounts to the assertion that the law given upon Mount
Sinai was not the moral law. Your argument also, if valid,
would prove that the law referred to is not the ceremonial
law either, because Abraham had that in substance. He had
circumcision, which you say stands for the whole ceremonial
law, and he had sacrifices. I think that when you revise
your book, that argument at least will have to be left out.
You next say:—
“This law was ‘added because of transgressions.’ The
original word signifies ‘to pass by or over; to transgress or
violate.’ This law, then, had been ‘added’ because some
other law had been ‘passed by,’ ‘transgressed,’ or ‘violated.’
It was not ‘added’ to itself because itself had been ‘violated.’
This would be absurd if applied to the moral law; for none
of us claim there was any more of the moral law really in
existence after the ten commandments were spoken, than
there had been before. They all existed before, though
Israel may have been ignorant of portions of them.”
It seems as though your principal argument is a play upon
words. It is not enough to say that a thing is absurd, in
order to controvert it. Some things may seem absurd to one
person which appear very reasonable to another. Paul says
that the preaching of the cross is to some people foolishness,
or absurd, and I have often heard people ridicule the idea
that the death of one person could atone for the sins of
another. They call such an idea absurd, yet to you and me
it is perfectly consistent with reason. So when you say that
it is absurd to apply the term “added” to the moral law,
you should substantiate your assertion by proof, in order to
have it of any value.
You say, “It could not properly be said that the moral
law was ‘appointed’ four hundred and thirty years after
Abraham, when we see that it existed and he fully kept it
at that time.” This argument has been noticed already, but
I will note it a little further. If the law here referred to
23
means the ceremonial law, and your argument just quoted is
valid, then it precludes the possibility of there being any
ceremonial law in the time of Abraham; but Abraham had
the essential parts of the ceremonial law, although that law
had not been formally given. If you deny that Abraham
had the ceremonial law, and insist that that law was not
given until 430 years after his time, then I would like to
ask what remedial system there was before the exode? You
say that the ceremonial law was added because of transgres-
sions, that is, as a remedial system. Then why was it not
added as soon as the transgression was committed, instead of
2,500 years later? I claim that the remedial system entered
immediately after the fall, and for proof I cite you to the
offering of Abel. Your argument would put off the remedial
system until the exode. You may say that at that time the
ceremonial law was given more formally and circumstantially
than before; very good, but if that argument will apply to
the ceremonial law, as it undeniably will, why will it not
apply equally to the moral law? You cannot deny that the
moral law was given at Sinai, although it had been known
since the creation. Why was it given then? Because it had
never been formally announced. So far as we know, no copy
of it had ever been written, and the great mass of the people
were almost totally ignorant in regard to it. You, yourself,
say that Israel may have been ignorant of portions of the
moral law, and this is undoubtedly true. Then there is
abundant reason why it should have been given at that time,
—because of transgressions. If all the people had known
and obeyed the law, there would have been no necessity for
its promulgation on Sinai; but because they were ignorant of
its requirements, and had transgressed it, it was necessary
that it should then be given as it was.
But you say that it is not proper to apply the term “added”
to the moral law. The Bible itself must decide that matter.
In the fifth chapter of Deuteronomy Moses rehearses to the
children of Israel the circumstances of the giving of the law.
Verses 5-21 contain the substance of the ten command-
ments, and of these Moses says in the twenty-second verse:
“These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the
24
mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the
thick darkness, with a great voice; and He ADDED no
more.” The term “added,” in this verse, is in the Septua-
gint exactly the same as that rendered “added” in Gal. 3:
19. The Hebrew word is the same that is rendered “add” in
Gen. 30:24. That it has unmistakable reference in Deut. 5:
22 to the moral law, and to that alone, no one can deny. I
care not whether you render it “added,” “spoken,” or
“promulgated’‘—it makes no difference. In Heb. 12:18, 19
we have unmistakable reference to the voice of God speaking
the law from Sinai, and the request of the people that God
should not speak to them any more (Ex. 20:18, 19), in the
ords, “which voice they that heard entreated that the
word should not be spoken to them any more.” Here the
word rendered “spoken” is the same as that rendered
“added” in Gal. 3:19 and Deut. 5:22. If we chose we
might render it, “they entreated that the word should not
be added to them any more,” and then we would have a uni-
form rendering. Or we might render it uniformly “spoken,”
and then we would read in Deuteronomy that the Lord
spoke all those words in the mount, out of the midst of the
fire, etc., with a great voice, “and He spoke no more;” and
this would be the exact truth and a good rendering. And
likewise for uniformity we might justly render Gal. 5:19,
“it was spoken because of transgressions.” Or we might
take the word in Deut. 5:22 in the same sense in which it
is used in Gen. 30:24, and the same idea would appear.
When Rachel said, “God shall add to me another son,” it
was the same as though she had said, “God will give me
another son.” So the meaning in Deuteronomy 5:22 is that after
the Lord had given them the commandments recorded in the
preceding verses, He gave them no more. It seems to me
very reasonable to apply the term “added” to the moral
law; and whether it is reasonable or not I have certainly
quoted two texts besides Galatians 3:19 which apply it so. But
ou cannot find in the Bible a single instance of the use of the
word “added,” as applied to the ceremonial law, to sub-
stantiate your view on Gal. 3:19.
Deut. 5:22 plainly says that the ten commandments were
25

spoken by the Lord, and that nothing but the ten command-
ments was spoken, or given, or “added.” Gal. 3:19 tells us why
they were spoken. It was because of transgressions; that
is, because people were largely ignorant, of the law. We may
not play upon the word “added,” and use it in a mathe-
matical sense, but must necessarily use it in the sense of de-
claring or speaking. There was no more moral law after God
spoke it from Sinai than there was before, but it was certainly
known a great deal better than it was before, and there was
less excuse for sin than there was before. In the preceding
verses the apostle has spoken of the promise to Abraham, and
the covenant made to him. The statement that that covenant
was confirmed in Christ shows plainly that the covenant to
Abraham confirmed the forgiveness of sins through Christ.
But the forgiveness of sin necessarily implies a knowledge of
sin. Only the righteous can be heirs of the promise, and a
knowledge of sin and righteousness can only be obtained
through the moral law. Therefore the giving of the law in
a more specific manner than ever before was necessary, in
order that the people might be partakers of the blessings
promised to Abraham.
The very same thing is stated in Rom. 5:20, “Moreover,
the law entered that the offense might abound;” and I never
knew any Seventh-day Adventist to have any trouble in
applying that to the moral law, yet it is certainly as difficult
a text as Gal. 3:10. The word rendered “entered” is,
literally, “came in.” The revised version has it, “came in
beside.” But the moral law existed before the days of Moses,
as is evident from verses 13, 14 of the same chapter, and also
from the expression in the same verse, “that the offense
might abound,” showing that sin—the transgression of the
law—existed before the law came in. Although the law
existed in all its force before the exode, yet it “came in,”
“entered,” was spoken or given, or “added” at that time.
And why? That the offense might abound, i.e., “that sin
by the commandment might become exceeding sinful;” that
what was sin before might the more plainly be seen to be
sin. Thus it entered, or was added, “because of transgres-
sions.” If it had not been for transgressions there would
26
have been no necessity for the law to enter at Sinai. Why
did it enter because of transgressions? “That the offense
might abound;” in order to make sin seem greater than ever
before, so that men might be driven to the super-abounding
grace of God as manifested in Christ. And so it became a
school-master, pedagogue, to bring men to Christ, in order
that they might be justified by faith, and be made the
righteousness of God in Him. And so it is stated later that
the law is not against the promises of God. It works in
harmony with the promise, for without it the promise would
be of no effect. And this most emphatically attests the
perpetuity of the law.
I do not care for the opinions of commentators, except as
they state in a clearer form that which has already been
proved from the Bible; but as you in your pamphlet seem to
have placed considerable reliance upon the opinion of com-
mentators, it may not be profitless to quote a few here. I do
it, however, not because I think they add anything to the
argument, but simply as an offset to your quotations, and
because they possibly state the case a little more clearly than
I have done. Professor Boise, in his “Critical Notes on the
Greek text of Galatians,” says on this text:—
“Because of the transgressions indicates, therefore, this
idea, to give a knowledge of transgressions, to make plainly clear
and distinct what were actual transgressions of the divine require-
ments.”
He also says:—
“In keeping with this idea, and perhaps implied, is the
interpretation, to restrain transgressions.”
And he cites Erasmus, Olshausen, Neander, DeWette,
Ewald, Luther, Bengel, and others, as holding the same view.
If the opinions of commentators are to decide this matter, I
think that the moral law will come out ahead.
Dr Barnes says on the expression “because of transgres-
sions:—
“On account of transgressions, or with reference to them.
The meaning is, that the law was given to show the true
nature of transgression, or to show what was sin. It was
not to reveal a way of justification, but it was to disclose the
27
true nature of sin; to deter men from committing it; to de-
clare its penalty: to convince men of it, and thus to be ‘ancil-
lary’ to, and preparatory to, the work of redemption through
the Redeemer. This is the true account of the law of God
as given to apostate men, and this use of the law still exists.”
And Dr. Clarke says:—
“It was given that we might know our sinfulness, and the
need we stood in of the mercy of God. The law is the right
line, the straight edge that determines the obliquity of our con-
duct. See the notes on Rom. 4:15, and especially on Rom.
5:20, where this subject is largely discussed and the figure ex-
plained.”
Your argument against the moral law being “added be-
cause of transgressions” will apply with equal force against
the moral law having “entered that the offense might
abound.” If you claim that Gal. 3:19 cannot apply to the
moral law, then you must claim also that Rom. 5:20 does not
apply to that law.
I quote further from your pamphlet, from the paragraph
ending at the top of page 44:—
“It would be absurd to suppose that this law was ‘added’ to
itself. It does apply reasonably to another law, brought in
because the one previously existing had been ‘violated.’ A
law cannot be transgressed unless it exists; for ‘where no law
is, there is no transgression.’”
I have already shown the force of the term, “added.” I
have never claimed that any law was added to itself, or that
any mathematical process is referred to by the word ren-
dered, “added.” What do you mean by saying a law cannot
be transgressed until it exists? You seem to imply that the
moral law did not exist so that it could be transgressed be-
fore it was given upon Mount Sinai. I know you do not be-
lieve this, and yet in another paragraph it is implied still
more plainly. I will again quote Rom. 5:20: “Moreover the
law entered, that the offense might abound. But where sin
abounded, grace did much more abound.” This law unmis-
takably is the moral law, yet you might say it is impossible
that it should be the moral law, because offenses existed be-
fore the law here spoken of entered, and where no law is
there is no transgression; and that therefore the law which
here entered was some other law. But you would not argue
28
that here. You would claim as I do, that the meaning of
the text is that the law entered, or was given, in order that
sin might appear in its true enormity. As Paul elsewhere
says, sin by the commandment became exceeding sinful.
The moral law existed from creation, and long before. The
patriarchs had a knowledge of it, and also all the antedilu-
vians and the Sodomites, because they were counted sinners;
yet it did not exist in written form, and those who were not
in immediate connection with God could not have that per-
fect knowledge of the law which would show them the full
heinousness of sin. They could know that the things which
they committed were wrong, but they could not realize their
full enormity; and especially was this the case when the
Israelites came from Egyptian bondage. But God had made
a covenant with Abraham, and had promised wonderful
things, but only on condition of perfect righteousness through
Christ; and if men ever attain to this perfect righteousness,
they must have the law in its fullest extent, and must know
that many things were sinful, which they might previously
have thought were harmless. So the law entered that the
offense might abound; and because the offense abounded,
and men saw their depravity, they found that grace super-
abounded to cover their sins. The case is so plain, and the
argument in Galatians 3:19 is so plainly parallel, that I marvel
how anybody who has any just conception of the relation of
the law and the gospel can question it for a moment.
Again on page 44 I read:—
“The moral law is referred to as the one transgressed. But the
‘added’ law, of which Paul is speaking, made provision
for the forgiveness of these transgressions in figure, till the
real Sacrifice should be offered.”
Your misapplication of the word “added” I have already
sufficiently noticed, but there is an idea expressed in the quo-
tation just made which I am sorry to see has of late been
taught to some extent. And that is that in the so-called Jew-
ish dispensation forgiveness of sins was only figurative. Your
words plainly indicate that there was no real forgiveness of
sins until Christ, the real Sacrifice, was offered. If that were
so, I would like to inquire how Enoch and Elijah got to
29
Heaven. Were they taken there with their sins unforgiven?
Had they been in Heaven for two or three thousand years
before their sins were forgiven? The very fact that they
were taken to Heaven is sufficient evidence that their sins
were really pardoned. When David says, “Blessed is he
whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered,”
he means just what Paul did when he used the same words.
David said to the Lord, “Thou forgavest the iniquity of my
sin.” That was no sham forgiveness. And it was expressly
declared that if a soul should sin against any of the com-
mandments of the Lord, he should offer his sacrifice and his
sins should be forgiven him. Lev. 4:2, 3, 20, 26, 31. There
was no virtue in the sacrifice, which was typical, yet the par-
don was as real as any that has ever been given since the
crucifixion. How could this be? Simply because Christ is
the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. That He
should offer Himself as a sacrifice, was promised to our first
parents in Eden, and confirmed to Abraham by an oath from
God, and therefore, by virtue of that promise, Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob, and all who wished, could receive as much
virtue from the blood of Christ as we can. That forgiveness
was real is shown by the fact that Abel, by his offering, re-
ceived witness that he was righteous. But there can be
no righteousness that has not been preceded by forgiveness.
If the pardon were figurative, then the righteousness must
also have been figurative. But Abel and Noah and Abra-
ham, and others, were really righteous; they had the perfect
righteousness of faith; therefore they must have had actual
forgiveness. This is further shown from the fact that for-
giveness of sins must precede all righteousness. For there
can be no righteousness without faith (Rom. 6:23), and faith
always brings pardon. Rom. 3:24, 25; 5:l.
I quote the next paragraph of your pamphlet, page 44:—
“‘Till the seed should come,’ limits the duration of this
remedial system, beyond all question. The word ‘till’ or
‘until,’ ever has that signification. The ‘added’ law, then,
was to exist no longer than ‘till the seed should come.’ This
the language unmistakably declares. Did the moral law ex-
tend no further than the full development of the Messiah?
No Seventh-day Adventist will admit that. But this was
precisely the case with the other law.”
30
You say that the added law was to exist no longer than
till the seed should come, because the word “till,” or “un-
til,” has ever the signification of a certain limited duration.
Let me quote you a few texts. In Ps. 112:8, I read of the
good man: “His heart is established, he shall not be afraid,
until he see his desire upon his enemies.” Do you think that that
implies that as soon as the good man has seen his desire
upon his enemies he shall be afraid? Again I read of Christ
in Isa. 42:4, “He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till He
have set judgment in the earth.” Do you think the word
“till” in this instance limits the duration of the time that
Christ should not be discouraged? and does it imply that as
soon as He has set judgment in the earth, He shall fail and be
discouraged? The question answers itself. Once more, in
Dan. 1:21, I read: “And Daniel continued even unto the
first year of King Cyrus.” Does that mean that he did not
live any longer? Not by any means, for in the tenth chapter
we read of a vision which was given him in the third year of
Cyrus. 1 Sam. 15:35 says that “Samuel came no more to
see Saul until the day of his death.” Do you think that he
went to see him as soon as he died? These texts show that
“till” does not necessarily limit the duration of the thing to
which it is applied, and does not necessarily imply that the
law ceases at the coming of the seed. The exact meaning of
the term in this instance I reserve till later.
I quote again from your pamphlet:—
“The ‘added’ law was ‘ordained by angels in the hand of a
mediator.’ All agree that this ‘mediator’ was Moses, who
went between God and the people. The original word for
‘ordained’ is rendered ‘promulgate’ by Greenfield, who cites
this text as an illustration. Was it true that the ten com-
mandments were ‘ordained,’ or ‘promulgated, ’ ‘by angels,’
‘in’ or ‘by the hand of Moses’? God Himself spoke them
with a voice that shook the earth, and wrote them with His
own finger on the stone tablets. But the other law was given
through angels, and written in a ‘book’ by the ‘hand of
Moses.’ If the reader desires to see some of the instances
where the same expression substantially is used when speak-
ing of the ‘law of Moses,’ we refer him to Lev. 26:46; Num.
4:37; 15:22, 23, and especially Neh. 9:13, 14, where the
distinction is clearly made between the laws which God spoke,
and the ‘precepts, statutes, and laws’ given ‘by the hand of
Moses.’”
31
 There are several points in this paragraph, and we will
note them in order. First, was the ceremonial law given by
angels? Those who hold as you do, say that it was, and
quote Gal. 3:19 as proof. But that is not competent testi-
mony on this point, for it is the text under discussion; but,
unfortunately for your theory, it is the only text that you can
quote. And so the “proof” that the ceremonial law was
given by angels is nothing but reasoning in a circle. Thus:
You say that Gal. 3:19 refers to the ceremonial law, because
it speaks of a law that was “ordained by angels;” then you
“prove” that the ceremonial law was spoken by angels, by
quoting Gal. 3:19, which you have already “proved” refers
to the ceremonial law. This is not proving anything, but is
simply begging the question. You started out to show that
Gal. 3:19 has reference to the ceremonial law, because it
speaks of a law ordained by angels. In order to make that
good, you ought to cite at least one other text in the Bible
where it is at least implied that the angels gave the ceremo-
nial law; but this you cannot do.
Now, on the other hand, the connection of angels with
the giving of the ten commandments from Sinai is most
clearly marked. I first cite Psa. 68:17: “The chariots
of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels;
the Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place.”
Again, I refer to Deut. 33:2: “The Lord came from Sinai,
and rose up from Seir unto them; He shined forth from
Mount Paran, and He came with ten thousands of saints
[holy ones,—angels]; from His right hand went a fiery law for
them.” These texts show plainly that the angels of God
were on Sinai when the law was spoken. They were there
evidently for a purpose, though we cannot tell what. But
we have a still more emphatic testimony in Stephen’s address,
Acts 7:51-53: “Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart
and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers
did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers
persecuted? and they have slain them which showed before of
the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the
betrayers and murderers; who have received the law by the
disposition of angels, and have not kept it.” The law which
32
these wicked Jews had not kept was the moral law, which
Stephen said was given “by the disposition of angels,”—
the very same term that in Galatians 3:19 is rendered “ordained
by angels.” The word diatasso, rendered “ordain,” means,
according to Liddell and Scott, “to range, ordain, establish,
to set in order, draw up an army.” The word “disposition,”
in Acts 7:53, is from diataxis, a noun derived from the
preceding verb, and means, “disposition, arrangement, es-
pecially a drawing up of troops, order of battle.” These
words have also the signification of “to decree,” to “will,”
but the former signification seems to convey the idea of the
words as used in the texts quoted.
The text under consideration does not say that the angels
spoke the law, and we know very well that they did not
speak either the moral or the ceremonial law. The Lord
Himself spoke them both, the one directly to the people,
and the other to Moses. But the angels were there, evi-
dently in their regular order, as the armies of Heaven.
Just what part they had to act no one can tell, for the
Bible does not specify. All I claim is that the Scriptures
speak of them as being intimately connected with the giving
of the moral law; while there is not a text in the Bible which
mentions them in connection with the giving of the ceremo-
nial law; and the text in Acts, already quoted, plainly says
of the moral law that it was given “by the disposition of
angels.” The expression “ordained by angels,” is the one
upon which those who argue for the ceremonial law in Gala-
tians, have placed their principal reliance; but even that is
against them.
Second, the distinction which is made between the moral
and the ceremonial law, namely, that the moral law was
spoken by the Lord, and the ceremonial law by Moses, will
not hold. The very texts which you cite are against this
distinction. I will take the first one, Lev. 26:46. It reads:
“These are the statutes and judgments and laws, which the
Lord made between Him and the children of Israel in Mount
Sinai by the hand of Moses.” This is the last verse of the
chapter. The first two verses of the chapter read thus: “Ye
shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a
33
standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in
your land, to bow down unto it; for I am the Lord your God.
Ye shall keep My Sabbaths, and reverence My sanctuary; I
am the Lord.” And then the chapter goes on with instruct-
ions to keep the commandments of the Lord, to walk in His
statutes, tells what judgments shall come upon them if they
break the commandments, especially the Sabbath, and closes
with the words first quoted. But in all the chapter there is
not a shadow of a reference to the ceremonial law.
Your next reference, Num. 4:37, has no reference to either
the moral or the ceremonial law. It simply states that Moses
and Aaron numbered the families of the Kohathites, “accord-
ing to the commandment of the Lord by the hand of Moses.”
Your third reference, Num. 15:22, 23, has unmistakable
reference to the moral law, and to that alone, as will be seen
if the twenty-fourth, twenty-fifth, and twenty-sixth verses
are read in connection. I will quote them: “And if ye have
erred, and not observed all these commandments, which the Lord
hath spoken unto Moses, even all that the Lord hath com-
manded you by the hand of Moses, from the day that the Lord
commanded Moses, and henceforward among your gener-
ations; then it shall be, if ought be committed by ignorance
without the knowledge of the congregation, that all the con-
gregation shall offer one young bullock for a burnt offering.
. . . And the priest shall make an atonement for all
the congregation of the children of Israel, and it shall be for-
given them; for it is ignorance; and they shall bring their
offering, a sacrifice made by fire unto the Lord, and their sin-
offering before the Lord, for their ignorance; and it shall be
forgiven all the congregation of the children of Israel.” All
this atoning sacrifice was to be made on account of sins against
what the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses. But nothing
is sin except violation of the ten commandments.
Your last reference, Neh. 9:13, 14, may have reference to
both the moral and the ceremonial law. I will quote the
verses: “Thou camest down also upon Mount Sinai, and
spakest with them from Heaven, and gavest them right judg-
ments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments;
and madest known unto them Thy holy Sabbath, and com-
34
mandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of
Moses Thy servant.” This is the only text of all to which
you have referred, which even by implication refers to the
ceremonial law. And it is certainly a strained implication
that limits “by the hand of Moses” to the last part of verse
14. All the other texts, at any rate, when they refer to any
law at all, refer solely to the moral law, which is said to have
been commanded “by the hand of Moses.”
You will perhaps say that I have broken down the dis-
tinction between the moral and the ceremonial law, and have
opened the way for the enemies of the law to confuse the two.
But I have not. I have simply quoted the texts to which
you refer, and have shown their exact application. There is
no chance for confusion concerning the two laws, for we have
this plain distinction: The moral law was spoken by the
Lord with an audible voice, from the fire and smoke of Sinai.
The ten commandments are all that were given in this manner
(Deut. 5:22). and they alone were written on tables of stone
by the finger of God. The ceremonial law was given in a
more private manner. This certainly forbids any confusion.
Both the moral and the ceremonial law, however, are, as we
have seen in the texts quoted, said to have been given by the
hand of Moses, and both were written in the book of the law.
But there is still this distinction, that the ceremonial law was
written only in the book, while the moral law was written on
the tables of stone, with the finger of God, and also in a book.
That the term, “the law of Moses,” does sometimes refer to
the ten commandments, will be evident to anyone who will
carefully read Deut. 4:44 to 5:22 and onward; Josh. 23:6, 7;
1 Kings 2:3, 4; 2 Kings 23:24, 25, etc. See also “Great
Controversy,” vol. 2, pp. 217, 218, beginning with last para-
graph on page 217. On the other hand, the term “the law
of the Lord” is applied to the ceremonial ordinances. For
instance, see Luke 2:23, 24. Thus the terms, “the law of
Moses,” and “the law of the Lord,” are used interchangeably
of both laws.
Third, you say of the latter part of Gal. 3:19, that all
agree that this mediator was Moses. I do not agree; and I
do not think that the text and the context warrant such an
35
assumption. The apostle continues in the next verse: “Now
a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.” Now I
turn to 1 Timothy 2:5, and read: “For there is one God, and
one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
God is one party in the transaction, and Christ is the media-
tor. I suppose you will not question the statement that
Christ was the One who spoke the ten commandments from
Mount Sinai. In “Great Controversy,” vol. 2, page 217
(concerning the sermon on the mount), I read: “The same
voice that declared the moral and the ceremonial law, which
was the foundation of the whole Jewish system, uttered the
words of instruction on the mount.” And this is indicated
in the text under consideration, and also in Acts 7:38, where
Stephen says of Moses: “This is he that was in the church
in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the
Mount Sina, and with our fathers.” That angel we all under-
stand to be the one that spoke to Moses out of the bush, the
one that went before the children of Israel, in whom was the
name of God, being none other than our Lord Jesus Christ.
If I thought it necessary I could give you plenty of Scripture
testimony on this point. And so the text under consideration,
as I have proved in noting your points, teaches that the
law was given upon Mount Sinai, because of transgression,
that is, that the people might know what sin was, and might
appreciate the pardon that was offered in the covenant to
Abraham; and that it was thus given till the seed should
come to whom the promise was made; and the apostle shows
the dignity and the value of the law, by the statement that
it was disposed, or arranged, or ordained, by angels, in the
hand of our great mediator, the Lord Jesus Christ.
I will now give a little attention to the expression, “till
the seed should come to whom the promise was made,” and
show how it harmonizes with the other expressions in the
verse as I have explained them. First, I will quote a refer-
ence which you make to that. You say:—
“Another argument, a very late invention, designed to
avoid the conclusion that the ‘added’ law terminated at the
cross, we briefly notice. It is the claim that ‘the seed’ has
not yet come, and will not come till the second advent of
Christ. It would be hard for the writer to really think
36
that any believer in Christ would take that position, had we
not read it in our own beloved Signs of the Times, of July 29,
1886.— p. 46.
If this had been written by some men I should think it was
deliberate misrepresentation; for it certainly does woefully
misrepresent the view which I take and have published. I
have carefully re-read my articles to see if by any unfortunate
expression I had conveyed the idea that Christ, the promised
seed, has not yet come, and I find no hint of such an idea. I
have not, however, the slightest thought that you would will-
fully misrepresent any person, and I can only attribute your
failure to state my position properly, to a too hasty perusal of
it. It is not at all surprising to me that in the little time
which you had to spare, burdened at the same time with a
multitude of cares to distract your mind, you did not grasp
the whole of the argument, especially as it was one to which
your mind had not been previously directed. But although
your misrepresentation was unintentional, it does none the
less convey an erroneous impression of my teaching.
The argument which I put forth is not so late an invention
as you think. I have held the view for several years, and it
was not original with me. But even if it were entirely new,
that in itself would be nothing against it; for “every scribe
which is instructed into the kingdom of Heaven, is like unto
a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his
treasure things new and old.” Matt. 13:52.
It is true that I held, and still hold, that the coming of the
seed spoken of in Galatians 3:19, means the second coming of
Christ; but that does not imply that Christ has not already
come, or that He is not now the seed. You often preach
that the Lord is coming, and you no doubt quote such texts
of Scripture as Ps. 50:3, 4; 1 Cor. 4:5, and scores of others.
Now if a man hearing you preach such a sermon, should go
off and say that you did not believe that the Lord came 1,800
years ago, he would be no more out of the way than you are
in saying that I have taught that Christ has not come. In
the Old Testament we have many references to the coming of
Christ; some of them mean His first advent, and some His
second. The only way we can distinguish between them is
37
by the events mentioned in connection with the references to
the coming. And so we must decide here in Gal. 3:19.
There is only one ground on which you can claim that the
coming of the seed cannot refer to the second coming of Christ,
and that is by claiming that He will not be the seed then;
that He is the seed only at the first advent. But such a claim
cannot stand for a moment, for Christ is as surely the seed
when He bruises the serpent’s head, as when He Himself was
bruised. He will be the seed when the promise is fulfilled to
Him. The matter, then, stands just this way: Christ is the
seed; therefore to say, “till the seed should come,” is equiva-
lent to saying, “till Christ should come.” Then the next
point is, does the expression, “the coming of Christ,” neces-
sarily apply to the first advent alone? Certainly it does not,
for there are two advents, and the simple expression, “the
coming of Christ,” may apply to either. Therefore, so far as
the expression, “till the seed should come,” is concerned,
there is no reason why it should not apply to the second ad-
vent as well as to the first. Indeed, we might say that there
is an antecedent probability that it should refer to the second
coming of Christ, for that is the more prominent coming of
the two, and it is the one which we always think of when the
expression is unqualified. But in every case of this kind, the
context must decide what coming is referred to.
The application of Gal. 3:19 to the first advent of Christ
arises largely, I think, from a careless reading of it. You
argue as though it read, “till the seed should come of whom
the promise was made.” But it is, “till the seed should come
to whom the promise was made.” The apostle is not dealing
with the idea that the seed was promised to Abraham, but he
is speaking of the promise that was made to Abraham and
to his seed, the seed being Christ. Now if you can find a
single promise that was fulfilled to Christ at His first advent,
there will be some show of reason in applying Gal. 3:19 to
the first advent of Christ. But you cannot. There was ab-
solutely nothing that Christ then received; no part of the prom-
ise was fulfilled to Him. He received only rebuffs, reproaches,
mockings, poverty, weariness, scourging, and death. More-
over, the promise “to Abraham and his seed” is a joint prom-
38
ise; but certainly no promise was fulfilled to Abraham at the
first advent of Christ, for Abraham had then been dead 2,000
years.
That the apostle connects the coming of the seed with the
fulfillment of the promise to him, is evident from the simple
reading of the text. A certain promise had been made to
Abraham and his seed, and a certain thing was given for a
special purpose, until the seed to whom the promise was made
should come. The idea that inevitably follows from the
reading of the text, letting each clause have its proper weight,
is that at the coming referred to, the seed will inherit the
promise. I shall give something more on this point a little
further on.
But there is no need of any conjecture as to what the prom-
ise is which is referred to in this verse. The eighteenth verse
reads thus: “For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more
of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise;” and then
the nineteenth verse continues: “Wherefore then serveth the
law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed
should come to whom the promise was made.” This shows
most conclusively that the promise referred to is the inherit-
ance. This promised inheritance is the whole world (Rom.
4:13); and there is no need of presenting argument to show
that the inheritance is still future. Christ has not received
it, for we are joint heirs with Him; and when He receives it,
Abraham and all those who are His children through faith,
will likewise receive it. And this makes of no value your
argument that “the promises to this seed, many of them,
reach beyond the second advent,—as does this one [Isa. 9:6,
7 ]—even into eternity. So, according to this reasoning, we
may wait to all eternity for the seed to come.” That argu-
ment, if it proved anything in this connection, would simply
prove that the promise to Abraham and to his seed will never
be fulfilled, which is contrary to the word of God. But, as
we have seen, there are not many promises referred to in this
nineteenth verse, but only the one promise, the inheritance,
and that promised inheritance will be received at the second
coming of Christ and not before.
But you say that even this promise is not fulfilled till the
39
end of the thousand years, and that therefore if the coming of
the seed is not till the fulfillment of the promise, “the seed can-
not come till the end of the one thousand years; for the land
is not inherited by Abraham till that time.” This argument
might indeed be called a “late invention.” I am certain it is
a new one among our people. It is true that the saints do
not dwell on the earth till the close of the one thousand years,
but it is not true that they do not possess it, or inherit it, till
that time. If they do not, then what does Christ mean in Matt.
25:31-34, where He says that when He comes in His glory and
all the holy angels with Him, He shall sit upon the throne
of His glory, shall separate the righteous from the wicked,
and shall say to the righteous, “Come, ye blessed of My Father,
inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of
the world.” The mistake into which you fall is in supposing
that the saints cannot possess the earth till they dwell upon
it. If that were true, it would apply equally to Christ, that
He cannot possess it until He dwells upon it; but we read, in
Psa. 2:8, 9, these words of the Father to the Son: “Ask of
Me, and I shall give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance,
and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession; Thou
shalt break them with a rod of iron; Thou shalt dash them in
pieces like a potter’s vessel.” We learn from this, as well as
from Rev. 11:15-19, and other texts, that Christ receives the
kingdom just before He comes to this earth. And it is not
until after the uttermost parts of the earth are given to Him for
His possession, that He dashes the nations in pieces like a
potter’s vessel. If Christ did not possess the earth, He would
not have the right to do this. The wicked subjects of Satan
now claim possession of the earth, which has been promised
to Christ. When that promise is fulfilled, and the earth is
given into His possession, then He will rid it of those who
have usurped dominion. He inherits the earth while the
wicked are still upon it, but He cannot dwell upon it until
they are removed. We say He cannot dwell upon it, not be-
cause he has not the power, but because He cannot take up His
abode upon it while it is so impure. The fact, however, that
He does with the nations according to His will, rooting them
out of the earth, shows that the earth is in His possession.
40
This same argument applies to the saints. They are joint
heirs with Christ. This means that they receive their inherit-
ance at the same time He does. When He comes to this
earth, having received His kingdom, He calls them to inherit
it with Him. They do not at once dwell upon the earth, but
they dwell in its capital, the New Jerusalem, and possession
of the capital of any kingdom is usually considered as evi-
dence of the possession of the kingdom itself. Moreover, the
saints during the thousand years sit upon thrones, judging
the wicked, and determining the amount of punishment that
shall be given to them. Thus they are sharers with Christ
in the work of ridding their common possession of its incum-
brances. It is just as though you and I should be joint heirs
of a farm. At a certain time we are given possession, but we
find that it is entirely overrun with thorns and briars; and
so before we take up our abode upon it, we clear off this growth
of rubbish and burn it up. The wicked are the tares that
cumber the farm that is promised to Abraham and his seed;
when Abraham and his seed shall be given possession, they will
clear it of this foul growth, and then will dwell upon it. This
brief argument shows clearly, what I thought was already
established among us, namely, that Christ and the saints
possess the kingdom when He comes the second time.
Having settled these points, namely, that the “promise”
means the inheritance of the earth, and that this promise to
Abraham and his seed is fulfilled at Christ’s second coming,
we are prepared to go on. The prominent idea in this chapter
is by what means the promise is to be obtained. The prom-
ise is the uppermost thought in this verse. The apostle is
showing that the inheritance is gained solely by faith, that it
is not of the law, but of faith in the promise, and then he car-
ries us down to the time when the promise shall be fulfilled.
That the “coming” that is referred to is the second coming
of Christ, when the promise shall be fulfilled, is a most nat-
ural and easy conclusion, and makes harmony of the text. I
think you overlooked a parallel text which I quoted in my
articles. It is Ezekiel 21:26, 27: “Thus saith the Lord God:
Remove the diadem, and take off the crown; this shall not be
the same; exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high.
41
I will overturn, overturn, overturn it; and it shall be no
more, until He come whose right it is; and I will give it Him.”
Here we have unmistakable reference to the seed, in the
words, “He whose right it is.” And it is plainly declared
that when “He whose right it is” comes, the inheritance will
be given Him. These words were written nearly six hundred
years before Christ’s first advent, yet it is not necessary for
me to enter into an argument to convince you that the first
advent of Christ is not referred to here. In Gal. 3:19 Paul
is speaking of the inheritance, and says, “till the seed
should come to whom the promise was made;” in the text
just quoted from Ezekiel, the prophet is speaking also of the
inheritance, and says, “till He come whose right it is.” Now
why is it any more absurd to say that the first expression
refers to the second coming of Christ, than to say that the
second refers to that event?
If you say that the coming of the seed has no reference to the
second advent, because when the coming spoken of takes place
the ceremonial law is to terminate, you beg the question en-
tirely. If you say, as you do in your pamphlet, that applying
that coming to the second advent, and the law which is spoken
of to the moral law, would make the moral law terminate at the
second coming of Christ, I have already answered that, for I
have shown that “till” does not of necessity mean “termina-
tion.” I believe most emphatically that the law referred to is
the moral law, and that the coming of the seed is the second
advent of Christ, but I do not believe that the moral law is
going to terminate when Christ comes; and Gal. 3:19 does not
indicate that it will.
In order to establish your point, that the coming of the
seed cannot refer to the second advent of Christ, it would be
necessary for you to show that Christ was the seed only at
the first advent, and that He is not the seed since then. But
Genesis 3:15 says not only that the serpent should bruise the
heel of the seed (at the first advent), but that the seed should
bruise the serpent’s head (at the second advent). When
Christ comes the second time He is still the seed. So when
Paul says, “till the seed comes,” it need no more be confined
to the first advent than when he says, “till the Lord comes.”
42
Lest it should be objected that Christ does not bruise
Satan’s head at His second coming, but only after the close
of the 1,000 years, I will remind you that the wicked are not
punished until after the close of the 1,000 years; yet they are
said to be punished at the coming of the Lord. And so they
are; for the second advent, like the first, covers a period of
time. The first advent of Christ covered all the time of His
earthly ministry; the second advent covers all the time from
the appearance of “the sign of the Son of man in heaven,”
until the wicked are destroyed out of the earth.
The argument thus far on the coming of the seed has been
negative, in order to meet some of your objections. I will now
give some positive argument that the coming referred to is
the second advent. In doing this I shall also proceed to
consider verses 22-25, for they have an intimate connection
with verse 19. Verses 24 and 25 read thus: “Wherefore the
law was our school-master to bring us unto Christ, that we
might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we
are no longer under a school-master.” By no manner of
reasoning whatever can these verses be made to apply to the
ceremonial law. The reference must be to the moral law,
and to that alone, as I shall show.
1. The text does not read that the law was our school-
master to point us to Christ; if it did there might be some
show of reason in applying it to the ceremonial law. But
“the law was our school-master to bring us to Christ,” or, lit-
erally, “the law was our school-master unto Christ,” that is,
the law was our school-master till we came to Christ. Now
the ceremonial law brought no one to Christ. The perform-
ance of it was an act of faith on the part of the performer,
showing the belief he already had in Christ.
2. Faith did not release people from the observance of the
ceremonial law; on the contrary, the person did not begin
the observance of the ceremonial law until he had faith in
Christ.
3. The twenty-second verse says that “before faith came,
we were kept under the law;” but before faith came, people
did not have anything to do with the ceremonial law.
4. If the ceremonial law were referred to in this verse,
43
then, according to verse 25, we should conclude that as soon
as people learned to have faith in Christ they had nothing
more to do with the ceremonial law; but the truth is that
the patriarchs and prophets were most punctual in their
observance of the ceremonial law, and no one had more faith
than they. Take the case of David; his writings abound
with references to sacrifices and to ceremonies in the court
of the Lord’s house. He offered multitudes of sacrifices, yet
there is no writer in the Bible who shows a more perfect
knowledge of Christ, or who exhibits more faith in Him.
5. But you say that the apostle is reasoning of dispensa-
tions, and not of individual experiences, and that bringing
them to Christ means bringing them to His first advent, and
“to the system of faith there inaugurated.” But that is the
weakest position you could take, for if that were the mean-
ing, then it would follow that the law accomplished its pur-
pose only for the generation that lived at Christ’s first
advent. No other people ever came to Christ, in the sense in
which you use the term. In order for the law to bring men
to Christ, in the sense in which you apply it, that is, to His
first advent, it would have had to lengthen their lives. Adam
would have had to live at least 4,000 years. For, let me again
repeat: The text does not say that the law was a school-
master to point men to Christ, but to bring them to Him.
6. Again; the text says it brings men to Christ, that they
may be justified by faith. Are people justified by faith in a
national capacity. I have just shown that, according to the
theory that the apostle is arguing of dispensations, only one
generation was brought to Christ, namely, the generation
that had the good fortune to live at His first advent; but even
that generation was not justified by faith. Very few of
them had any faith whatever. They didn’t have any faith
from first to last. Then they must have remained under the
school-master,—the law,—and indeed they did. Justification
by faith is an individual, and not a national, matter. Seventh-
day Adventists often speak of the great light which “we as
a people” possess. But “we as a people” will derive no
benefit from that light unless we as individuals possess it in
our own hearts. I repeat, justification by faith is something
44
that each individual must experience for himself. Thousands
who lived at Christ’s first advent knew nothing of this expe-
rience, while thousands who lived long before He came, were
actually brought to Christ for pardon, and they received it.
Abel was counted righteous through faith; Noah was heir of
the righteousness which is by faith; and Abraham actually
saw Christ’s day, and rejoiced in it, although he died 2,000
years before the first advent. And this most positively proves
that the apostle, in the third chapter of Galatians, is speaking
of individual experience, and not of dispensational changes.
there can be no Christian experience, no faith, no justifica-
tion, no righteousness, that is not an individual matter. Peo-
ple are saved as individuals, and not as nations.
A word of explanation may be in place right here. The
term “under the law,” if it be applied to the ceremonial law,
cannot have the same meaning that it does when applied to
the moral law. When used with reference to the moral law,
it means “condemned by the law;” but it cannot have that
meaning if it should be applied to the ceremonial law, be-
cause that law condemned nobody. So with the supposition
that the expression refers to the ceremonial law, we must
conclude that not to be under it means not to be subject to it;
but when we refer it to the moral law, we come to no such
conclusion, because “under the law” means condemned by
the law.
7. The strongest argument against the ceremonial law view
is found in verse 24: “Wherefore the law was our school-
master to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by
faith.” Now it is an undeniable fact that the possession of
faith led to the offering of sacrifices, and not the offering of
sacrifices to faith. “By faith Abel offered unto God a more
excellent sacrifice than Cain.” Now I ask, How could the
ceremonial law lead a man to that which he already had?
Since it was faith that prompted Abel and all others to offer
sacrifices, how can it be said that those sacrifices served as a
school-master to lead them to Christ that they might be justi-
fied by faith?
I have already noticed your idea that the word “faith” is
here synonymous with “Christ;” that the apostle means that
45

before Christ came we were kept under the law; that the law
was our school-master to bring us unto (the first advent of)
Christ, that we might be justified by Him; and that verse 25
means that after Christ is come we are no longer under a
school-master. I believe that this is the position that is
usually taken by those who hold the ceremonial law view,
and it is the only position that can be taken if the ceremo-
nial law is referred to. The only thing that it lacks is proof.
There is no warrant whatever for making the term “faith”
synonymous with Christ. Besides, if that were true, then
the text would teach that no man was justified until Christ’s
first coming, which is preposterous and unscriptural. For
this reason we must conclude that the ceremonial law is not
under consideration in this verse.
It is evident that verses 19 and 24 are closely related, that
is, when the law entered, or was added, it was in the capacity
of a pedagogue, to bring men to Christ. Now to abolish the
law before it has brought to Christ all who can be induced to
come to Him, would certainly be an act of injustice. The
law must retain its office of pedagogue or task-master, until
all have come to Christ who will, and this will not be until
probation closes and the Lord comes. In its office as peda-
gogue, it is not against the promise, but works in harmony
with it. Thus: God made the promise to Abraham that he
and his seed should inherit the earth. This promise was
made to Abraham, not because of his inherent righteousness,
but because of his faith, which was accounted to him for
righteousness. The promise was confirmed in Christ, that is,
none but those who exercised faith in Christ for the forgiveness
of their sins could be heirs of the promise. But forgiveness of
sins depends upon repentance of sin, and repentance of sin pre-
supposes a knowledge of sin, and a knowledge of sin can be ob-
tained only by the law. Therefore the law acts as a pedagogue,
overseer, or task-master, to overwhelm men with a sense of
their sin, that they may flee to Christ to be justified by faith.
And this office it must perform until all those who can be
influenced to come to Christ have come, and the promise is
fulfilled. Then the law will no longer have the capacity of
a task-master. God’s people will all be righteous, walking in
46
the law, and the law will be in their hearts. They will not
then need the law written in books or on tables of stone—
that is, the added law—because they will have direct access
to the throne of God, and will all be taught of God. Thus
the law was added, or spoken to be a pedagogue to bring
men to Christ; but when all who are worth saving have been
brought to Christ, it will cease to have that capacity. But
this no more implies the abolition of the law when the Lord
comes, than the fact that the law entered at Sinai implies
that there was no law before. There was just as much law
before it was spoken upon Mount Sinai and written out for
the benefit of mankind, as there is today. And when the
law shall cease to be a pedagogue, because it has brought to
Christ all who can be induced to come, and all earthly copies
of the law shall have been destroyed with the earth, the law
will still exist-the foundation of the throne of God, un-
changed to all eternity as it has from all eternity.
Perhaps the following from the pen of Elder J. N. An-
drews may be considered worthy of perusal. It is from his
reply to H. E. Carver, in the Review and Herald of September 16,
1851 (vol. 2, No. 4):—
“The idea that the law is our school-master to bring us to
Christ, that we may be justified by faith, is often urged as
proof that the law is abolished. How is the law our school-
master to bring us to Christ? We answer, It shows our guilt
and just condemnation, and that we are lost without a Sav-
iour. Here the apostle Paul, who was converted since the
time when it is said the law was abolished, ‘had not known
sin but by the law.’ Rom. 7:7. ‘By the law is the know-
ledge of sin.’ Rom. 3:20. Read a full account of Paul’s
experience in this school, also his deliverance from the carnal
mind, which ‘is not subject to the law of God.’ Rom. 7:
7-25; 8:1-7. The instruction of the law is absolutely nec-
essary, for without it we can never know our guilt in the
sight of God. It shows our just condemnation, its penalty
hangs over our heads; we find ourselves lost, and fly to Jesus
Christ. What does He do to save us from the curse of the
law? Does He abolish the law that He may save its transgres-
sors? He assures us that He did ‘not come to destroy’ it;
and we know that the law being ‘holy, just, and good,’ can-
not be taken back, without destroying the government of
Him who gave it. Does the Saviour modify its character, and
lessen its demands? Far from it. He testifies that ‘one jot
47
or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be ful-
f i l l e d. Matt. 5:18; Luke l6:17; Jam e s 2 :1 0 . A n d H e
shows that those who in heart commit any act of iniquity,
are transgressors of the law. Matt. 5:22, 27, 28; 1 John
3:15. If the Saviour did not abolish or relax the law, how
can those who have fled to Him ‘for refuge,’ hope for salva-
tion? What does He do to save the transgressors from the
sentence of the law? He gives up Himself to die in their
stead. He lays down His own ‘life a ransom for many.’
Matthew 20:28. ‘God so loved the world, that He gave His
only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him, should
not perish, but have everlasting life.’ John 3:16. Man,
though justly condemned, can now be pardoned without dis-
honoring God, or making void His law. God can be just, and
yet the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Rom. 3:
25, 26. Had the law been abolished at the death of Christ,
it could not have been a school-master many years afterward
to bring the Galatians to Christ. Paul testifies that he ‘had
not known lust except the law had said, Thou shalt not
covet.’ But an abolished law could never have convinced
him of sin as a transgressor. James 2:8, 9; Rom. 4:15.
We cannot know sin ‘but by the law,’ but if the law was
abolished by the death of Christ, the world has never known
its sinful state, or realized its need of a Saviour. We may
state on the highest authority, that the law brings us to
faith for justification, and that faith does not make void the
law, but establishes it. Gal. 3:23; Rom. 3:31. The fact
that the law is our school-master to show us the claims of God,
and our own just condemnation, is direct evidence that it has
not been abolished, hence, though we have been pardoned
through the death of Jesus and thus rescued from its right-
eous sentence, we can never violate its precepts without be-
ing convinced by it as transgressors.”
In your pamphlet (page 50) you make considerable of the
words “the faith” or “that faith,” as though the word
“faith” were used in a different sense than a personal faith
in Christ. But I repeat again, (1) There can be no faith ex-
cept faith in Christ. And (2) faith in Christ is a personal
matter; each one must have faith for himself. Therefore
the coming of faith is to each individual as an individual, and
not to any people as a class. For the same reason also I can-
not accept your statement that “the faith” refers to “the
whole system of truth devised by God for the salvation of
men,” and that its coming refers to the revelation of Christ
at His first advent. If that were true, it would prove that
48
the system of truth devised by God for the salvation of men,
was not known till Christ came, which is so evidently un-
scriptural as to need no comment. The theory which you
hold, when traced to its conclusion, inevitably makes God
have two plans of salvation, one for the people before the
coming of the Lord, and another for those after. It makes the
Jews judged by one standard, and the Gentiles by another.
But the position which I have briefly outlined is consistent
with itself, and is consistent with the plainly revealed truth
of Scripture concerning the plan of salvation.
You say (page 51):—
“We would be much pleased to have our friends who hold
that this ‘added’ law was the ten commandments, tell us how
the law against blasphemy, murder, lying, stealing, etc.,
‘shut individuals up,’ ‘guard’ them ‘in ward,’ in the relation
of a ‘child to a guardian,’ to a ‘revelation’ to be made ‘af-
terwards.’”
This I can readily do. First, sinners are, in the Bible,
represented as being in bondage, in prison. See 2 Peter
2:l9; Rom. 7:14; 2 Peter 3:19, 20; Zech. 9:l2; Isa. 61:l;
Ps. 68:6; l02:l9, 20; Acts 8:23; Heb. 2:14, 15. Note
this last text particularly. Christ died to “deliver them who
through fear of death were all their life-time subject to bond-
age.” It is sin that brings the fear of death, therefore it is
sin that causes men to be subject to bondage. Second, when-
ever men are in prison, it is the law that puts them there.
Only a few weeks ago I heard a Judge pronounce the death
sentence upon a murderer, and I took particular note of his
statement that he was compelled to pronounce the sentence;
that he was simply the law’s agent; that since the man had
been found guilty, the law demanded his death, and that he
was simply the mouthpiece of the law. It is the law which
arrests the criminal; the sheriff is simply the visible agent
of the law. It is the law which locks the prisoner in his cell;
the jailer, the iron walls, and heavy bars which surround
the prisoner, are simply the emblems of the iron hand of the
law which is upon him. If the government is just, and if
the man is indeed guilty, there is no way in which he can es-
cape the punishment, unless he has a powerful advocate who
can secure his pardon from the Governor. So it is with the
49
sinner against God’s government. The eyes of the Lord are
in every place, so that there is no possibility that he can es-
cape arrest. As soon as he has sinned, he is seized by the
law, and is at once under condemnation of death, because it
has already been declared that the wages of sin is death.
Now he is shut in on every side by the law. There is not
one of the commandments which is not against him, because
there is not a man on earth who has not broken every one of
them. At first the sinner may not be conscious of his im-
prisonment; he has no sense of sin, and does not try to escape.
But when the law is so applied to him that he can realize its
claims and his failure to meet them, he is convicted. To
carry out the figure, we might say that the Spirit of God
causes the prison walls to close in upon him, his cell becomes
narrower, and he feels oppressed; and then he makes desper-
ate struggles to escape. He starts out in one way, but there
the first commandment rises up against him and will not let
him go free. He turns in another direction, but he has taken
the name of God in vain, and the third commandment refuses
to let him get his liberty in that direction. Again he tries,
but he has committed adultery, and the seventh command-
ment presents an impenetrable barrier in that direction, and
prevents his escape. So with all the commandments. They
utterly refuse to grant him liberty, because he has violated
every one of them, and only those who keep the command-
ments can walk at liberty. Psalm 119:45. He is completely
shut in on every side. There is, however, just one avenue of
escape, and that is through Christ. Christ is the door (John
10:9), and entrance through that door gives freedom (John
8:36). Since the sinner is in prison, and cannot get freedom
except through faith in Christ, it is exactly the truth to say
that he is “shut up,” to the faith which may be revealed to him.
The translation “kept in ward,” affects the case for you not
in the least. It is the same as saying that we were kept in
prison. Pharaoh’s butler and baker were put “in ward,” in
the same prison where Joseph was. Genesis 40:3.
Now it is not the Jews alone who are spoken of as “shut
up.” You yourself say that the Jews were in as bad case as
the Gentiles were. The twenty-second verse of this third of
50
Galatians also says that “the Scripture hath concluded [lit-
erally, “shut up together”] all under sin.” This shows in what
the shutting up consists. They are in jail because they
have sinned. So Paul says to the Jews, “What then? are
we better than they? No, in no wise; for we have before
proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin.”
Rom. 3:9. And again he says that “God hath concluded
them all [margin, “shut them all up together”] in unbelief.”
Rom. 11:32. These statements are identical with that in
Galatians. Now notice that in all places the shutting up is
said to be for the same purpose. Gal. 3:22 says that the
Scripture hath concluded or shut up all under sin, “that the
promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that
believe.” In the third of Romans Paul shows that Jews and
Gentiles are alike under sin, in order to prove that “the
righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ,”
may be “unto all and upon all them that believe; for there
is no difference; for all have sinned, and come short of the
glory of God; being justified freely by His grace through the
redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” Verses 22-24. And
in Rom. 11:32 he states that God hath shut them all up
together (both Jews and Gentiles) in unbelief, “that He might
have mercy upon all.” All are in the same bondage—all are
under the law—and none can be delivered from their prison
until they come to Christ. He is the only door to freedom.
Let me ask you if you think that it is the ceremonial law
that shuts men up under sin? If you do, then you hold that
the ceremonial law is a rule of righteousness, and thereby
you detract from the ten commandments. But if you do not
hold this opinion, and I cannot believe that you do, then you
admit that it is the moral law that shuts men up and acts as
their task-master, to drive them to Christ; that they may be
justified by faith. How anybody can hold a different view, I
cannot imagine.
Again you say:—
“We claim that this expression, ‘under the law,’ has two
significations: (1) Primarily meaning under the authority of
the law, or under obligation to keep it; (2) under the
condemnation of the law, with its penalty impending over
51
us, or already suffering it. The expression itself does not
decide which of these meanings is to be understood; the
connection must decide that.”
It would have been more to the point if you had quoted
some instances outside of the one under discussion, to show
that “under the law” is ever used in the sense of “sub-
ject to the law.” To be sure, you quote from Greenfield’s
Lexicon, where it is stated that the word hupo is used with
the sense “of subjection to the law.” But you should re-
member that it is the province of lexicons simply to give the
meaning of a word, and not to decide upon points of doctrine.
When Greenfield says that hupo means “under,” he states
a simple truth; but when he says that it is used in the sense
of “subjection to the law,” he gives merely his opinion upon
a text of Scripture; and his opinion on the meaning of a
text of Scripture is no better than that of any other man.
Indeed, I think that if you had examined Greenfield a little
more closely you would have left his opinion in this matter
out entirely, for he cites Rom. 6:14 as an instance of the use
of the word hupo in the sense of “subjection to the law,” and
that is the only text that he does give as an illustration. There
is no more doubt in your mind than there is in mine that
that text refers to the moral law, and to that alone. So if
you accept Greenfield as a commentator, you will read that
text thus: “For ye are not subject to the law, but under
grace.” This would suit the enemies of the truth, but I
know that you do not accept it. Your argument from
Greenfield is certainly an unfortunate one for you. You say:
“Greenfield gives a variety of definitions [comments, you
should have said], such as the sense in many places requires,
one of which is, ‘of subjection to law,’ etc. He gives no in-
stance where it is used in the sense of being subject to the
condemnation of the law.” That is, he gives no instance
where he thinks it is used in the sense of under the condemna-
tion of the law. And the instance he gives where he thinks
it is used in the sense of subject to the law, is one where it
does unquestionably mean condemned by the law. I have
not time here to give an exposition of every text where the
expression “under the law” occurs; I have done this in my
52
articles, and you have not noticed or attempted to over-
throw a single position which I took upon those texts. I
therefore repeat that (with the exception of Rom. 3:19 and
1 Cor. 9:21, where the word hupo is not found, and which
should properly be translated “in the law”) the term “under
the law,” wherever it occurs in the New Testament,
means “condemned by the law.” It never has any other
signification. Christians are all subject to the moral law,
but they are not under it. If they were under it they would
not be Christians.
You say:—
“The moral law never led a man to Christ and left him. It
always stays with him. We may be delivered from its con-
demnation; but its supreme authority must be regarded then
as before. Its claims never leave us.”
I agree with that most heartily, The law does not leave
the man when he comes to Christ, but the man’s relation to
it is changed. Before he was “under the law,” now he is “in
the law” (Ps. 119:l) and the law is in him (Ps. 37:31). He is
in Christ, who is the personification of the law, and in Him
he is made the righteousness of God. 2 Cor. 5:21.
Again you say of the moral law:—
“There is nothing in that law about Christ, not a hint. All
the law does, is to condemn those who break it, and justify
those who keep it. It is the sense of guilt in the man’s con-
science, which is acted upon by the Spirit of God, which
makes him go to Christ; not anything in the moral law itself.”
This admits my whole argument. Pray tell me what
makes the sense of guilt in the man’s conscience? Paul says
that “by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Have you found
something else besides the law of God, which will make a man
conscious of his sinful condition? If conscience has the power
in itself to make a man conscious of his guilt, what office,
pray tell me, has the law? What is the use of the law, if the
conscience alone convicts of sin? And if conscience possesses
the quality of making a man conscious of his guilt, why is it
that all men are not equally conscious of guilt? The reason,
and the only reason that can be given, is that some men are
better instructed in the law than others are. You cannot
escape the conclusion that it is the law which produces the
53
sense of guilt in the man’s conscience, by which he is driven
to Christ, unless you deny that by the law is the knowledge
of sin. Since it is the sense of guilt in the man’s conscience
that makes him go to Christ, and nothing but the law can
produce a sense of guilt, it is emphatically the law which
drives men to Christ. That is the office of the law to sinful
men—to overwhelm them with a sense of guilt, and so to
drive them to Christ that they may be justified by faith.
True, the ten commandments say nothing about Christ, but
does the sense of guilt in the man’s conscience say anything
about Christ? That is, does every man have naturally a
knowledge of Christ? Of course not. But the law begets in
the man a consciousness of guilt. The law does this only by
the aid of the Spirit, of course, for the word of God is the
Spirit’s sword. But when the law, through the Spirit, has
produced this sense of guilt, the man feels oppressed and
seeks for ease from his load, and is forced to go to Christ,
because there is nowhere else that he can go. In trying to
avoid my conclusion, you have in the above quotation de-
liberately walked into it. There was nothing else that you
could do.
You continue:—
“But this ‘added’ law did lead to Christ. Every type,
every sacrifice, every feast day, holy day, new moon, and
annual Sabbath, and all the priestly offerings and services
pointed out something in the work of Christ. They were
as a body ‘shut up,’ ‘guarded,’ under the control of this
‘severe,’ ‘imperious’ pedagogue, till the great system of
justification by faith was reached at the cross of Christ.
Mr. Greenfield could readily see that this pedagogue must be
used as an illustration of the ‘Mosaic law.’ It is strange
that all others cannot see the same.”
Here you yourself admit the charge which I have brought
against your theory, namely, that it virtually makes two
plans of salvation. If the “great system of justification by
faith” was not reached till the cross of Christ, pray tell me
whether anybody was ever justified before Christ came, and
if so, how? My reading of the Bible convinces me that “the
great system of justification by faith” was known as soon as
sin entered into the world. I read that “by faith Abel
offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain,
54
by which he obtained witness that he was righteous.” Heb. 11:4.
And in Ps. 32:1, 2; 68:6, 13; Isa. 1:18; 53:10, 11; 65:6, 7;
Hab. 2:4, and scores of similar texts, I find the clearest
reference to the great system of justification by faith. Some
say that we have a better knowledge of the plan of salvation
than the ancients had. Indeed, in one meeting of the Theo-
logical Committee, both you and Elder Canright claimed that
the patriarchs had very limited, if any, knowledge of Christ’s
real work; and you sustained Elder Canright in his assertion
that Christ introduced the gospel at His first advent. I do
not think that you would have taken such a stand, only that
your theory drove you to it. But Christ and Paul based all
their instruction concerning that great system upon the Old
Testament, and I have never seen a man with so much
knowledge of God that he could not study with profit the
words of David and Isaiah concerning justification by faith.
In Great Controversy, vol. 1, in the paragraph begin-
ning at the bottom of page 58, I read that angels held com-
munication with Adam after his fall, and informed him of the
plan of salvation. Certainly if Adam was ignorant of the
great system of justification by faith, it was not because of
the incompetency of his teachers.
After the battles which we have had to wage with Camp-
bellites concerning the value of the Old Testament Scriptures,
and the unity and universality of God’s plan of salvation, it
seems almost incredible that anyone should be called on to
defend, against Seventh-day Adventists, the idea that the
well-informed Jew had a full knowledge of Christ, and was
justified only through faith.
The quotation from your pamphlet which I made last,
closes thus: “Mr. Greenfield could readily see that this
pedagogue must be used as an illustration of the ‘Mosaic
law.’ It is strange that all others cannot see the same.” I
might with equal propriety say, “Mr. Greenfield could
readily see that Christians ought to keep the first day of the
week; it is strange that others cannot see the same.” Or
again I might say, “Mr. Greenfield could readily see that the
expression ‘under the law,’ in Romans 6:14, means ‘subject to
the law;’ it is strange that others cannot see the same.” The
55
only strange thing I can see about it is that you should use
such an argument as that. I care nothing for what a man
says. I want to know what God says. We do not teach for
doctrine the word of men, but the word of God. I am verily
convinced that you would not quote Greenfield if you could
find Scripture argument instead.
Again on page 64 I read:—
“All God now requires is a humble heart, repentance, and
confession of sin, faith in the precious blood of Christ, and a
determination to serve God and obey all His requirements.”
This you say of the time after Christ, and it still further
emphasizes the charge which I bring against your theory,
that it makes two plans of salvation. Can you tell me what
else or more than that God required of the Jews? Were they
accepted in any other way than by humility of heart, re-
pentance, confession of sins, faith in the blood of Christ, and
a determination to obey God? Nay, verily.
I will now pass to a brief notice of your comments on
chapter four; and first your arguments on the “elements of
the world.” You say (page 58):—
“What are these ‘elements’ which the apostle speaks of, in
which they were in bondage until God sent forth His Son
made under the law? Are they the commandments of God,
the law of liberty, that holy, pure law which will be the rule
in the Judgment? We think this would be a conclusion most
absurd. We claim with great confidence that these ‘elements’
refer to a different system. The original word is defined by
Greenfield: ‘Elementary instruction, first principles, the
lowest rudiments in knowledge, science, etc.’ The word is
translated ‘rudiments’ in the revised version and in the
Diaglott. The same word occurs in Colossians 2:20, where it is
translated ‘rudiments.’”
I have never been guilty of the absurdity of claiming that
these “elements” are the commandments of God. I am just
as confident as you are that they refer to something else.
Paul tells me what they are, when he says they are the “ele-
ments of the world.” You say this means the ceremonial
law. Will you please tell me what the world had to do with
the ceremonial law? If the ceremonial law was the elements
of the world, then the world ought to have adopted it, in-
stead of despising the Jews because of it, for we know that
56
the world will love its own. And will you tell me how you
reconcile the statement that the ceremonial law is the ele-
ments of the world, with your previous statement that it
was “given by angels”?
It does not change the argument a particle to translate the
word “rudiments.” I readily grant that the rudiments of
the world in Colossians 2:20, mean the same as the “elements of
the world” in Galatians 4:3. I also claim, what I think you will
hardly deny, that the term “rudiments” in Colossians 2:8 has
the same meaning that it has in the twentieth verse. It is
precisely the same term. Now in Testimony No. 7, in
the chapter on “Philosophy and Vain Deceit,” Sister White
quotes Col. 2:8, and says that she was shown that this verse
has especial reference to Spiritualism. That is, philosophy
and vain deceit, or Spiritualism, is “after the rudiments of
the world.” Will you claim that there is any connection
whatever between the ceremonial law and Spiritualism? Is
Spiritualism according to the ceremonial law which God gave
to the Jews? Impossible. But it is according to the ele-
ments of the world, to the carnal mind, which is enmity
against God; it is “according to the course of this world
[according to the rudiments, or elements of the world], ac-
cording to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that
now worketh in the children of disobedience; among whom
also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of
our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind,”
when “we were by nature the children of wrath.” Eph.
2:2, 3. The “elements of the world” are “the things that
are in the world,” namely, “the lust of the flesh, and the lust
of the eyes, and the pride of life.” 1 John 2:15, 16. These
are not “of the Father,” but are “of the world;” they are
practiced by those who know not God, and to these things we
were all subject before we were quickened by grace. It is not,
as you say, on page 57, that “their being under these ‘ele-
ments,’ or ‘rudiments,’ brought them into ‘bondage,’” but
their being under these elements was in itself the bondage—
the bondage of corruption.
On page 58 is a paragraph which contains some points that
I wish specially to notice, and so I quote it entire. It is the
following:—
57
 “In verse four, where Paul speaks of God’s sending forth
His Son, made of a woman, we have the expression, ‘made
under the law.’ We have already considered the meaning of
this term, ‘under the law,’ and have already shown that it
does not always mean under the condemnation of the law,
but rather under the authority of the law, or under obligation
to keep it. The term evidently has this meaning here. Both
the revised version and the Diaglott translate ‘made under the
law,’ ‘born under the law.’ Greenfield, in the definition of
the original word, which has a great variety of significations,
quotes its use in this fourth verse with the definition, ‘sub-
ject to the law.’ This evidently is the correct sense in which
it should be used. It is not true that our Saviour was born
under the condemnation of the law of God. This would be
manifestly absurd. That he did voluntarily take the sins of
the world upon Him in His great sacrifice upon the cross, we
admit; but he was not born under its condemnation. Of Him
that was pure, and had never committed a sin in His life, it
would be an astonishing perversion of all proper theology to
say he was born under the condemnation of God’s law.”
1. Concerning the meaning of the term, “under the law,”
you say that you have shown that “it does not always mean
under the condemnation of the law, but rather under the
authority of the law, or under obligation to keep the law.”
I have carefully reread all previous references to it, and while
I find several assertions to that effect, I find not one item of
proof. To be sure you quote from Greenfield, but I don’t
consider his assertion as of any more value than that of any
other man. I cannot take the space here to quote all the
occurrences of the term, “under the law,” and show its mean-
ing; but I wish to make this point: In Rom. 6:14, 15, and
Gal. 5:18, the expression occurs, and there cannot be the
slightest doubt but that it means “condemned by the law.”
You would not dare give it the meaning, “subject to the
law,” in those places. There can be no controversy concern-
ing its use in those texts. Now it is a fixed principle in
biblical interpretation that controverted texts must be settled
by appeal to texts which are uncontroverted. Moreover, con-
sistency requires that any term should have the same mean-
ing wherever it occurs in the Bible, unless the context shows
beyond question that it must have a different meaning. Now
there is no place in the Bible where it does not make good
sense to interpret “under the law” as “condemned by the
58
law.” But in the texts which I have just referred to, it can-
not possibly mean “subject to the law.” If the limits of
this review would warrant it, I would show by positive evi-
dence from Scripture, and not by quotations from commen-
taries; that “under the law” invariably means “condemned
by the law,” and that it cannot by any possibility mean any-
thing else. Of course I except the two places, 1 Cor. 9:21
and Rom. 3:19, where it is not found in the original.
2. I must protest once more against your dependence upon
the opinion of commentators. You say: “Greenfield, in the
definition of the original word, which has a great variety of
significations, quotes its use in this fourth verse, with the
definition, ‘subject to the law.’ This is evidently the correct
sense in which it should be used.” Why is it evidently the
sense in which it should be used? Because Greenfield says
so? Must we accept everyone of Greenfield’s opinions as of
final authority in matters of faith? I am not prepared to do
this. Do not misunderstand me. I am not casting any re-
flections upon Greenfield as a lexicographer, but as a com-
mentator. When Greenfield gives a simple definition of a
word, it is to be accepted, provided it agrees with the defi-
nition given in the classical lexicons; for words are not used
in Scripture in a special, scriptural sense, but in their ordi-
nary acceptation. But when Greenfield, or any other man,
says that a word which has several different shades of mean-
ing is used in a certain sense in any specified text, he is
simply giving his opinion, not of the meaning of the word,
but of the meaning of the text. And when he does that,
anybody may challenge his opinion, and demand the proof.
If we are to quote the opinions of men as authority, on points
of doctrine, we might as well turn Papists at once; for to pin
one’s faith to the opinions of man is of the very essence of the
Papacy. It matters not whether we adhere to the opinions
of one man, or to the opinions of forty; whether we have one
Pope or forty. Because a man has written a commentary on
the Bible, or on any part of it, that is no reason why his
opinion should pass unchallenged. He is only a man still.
Seventh-day Adventists, of all people in the world, ought to
be free from dependence upon the mere opinion of men.
59
They should be Protestants indeed, testing everything by the
Bible alone.
3. Now as to the rendering of the expression “under the
law,” in Galatians 4:4. I have no fault to find with the render-
ing, “born under the law,” but think that it is the correct
rendering. I will go farther than you do, and will offer some
Scripture evidence on this point.
John 1:1, 14: “in the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God.” “And the
Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” The word rend-
ered “made” is the same as that in Gal. 4:4, and evidently
signifies “born.” The Word was God, yet was born flesh of
the Virgin Mary. I don’t know how it could be so; I simply
accept the Bible statement. Now read Rom. 8:3, and you
will learn the nature of the flesh which the Word was
made:—
“For what the law could not do, in that it was weak
through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of
sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” Christ
was born in the likeness of sinful flesh.
Phil. 2:5-7: “Have this mind in you, which was also in
Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God, counted it not a
prize to be on an equality with God, but emptied Himself, tak-
ing the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men.”
Revised version. Now note the next verse: “And being
found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming
obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross.” And
now compare the above with,
Heb. 2:9: “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower
than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory
and honor; that He by the grace of God should taste death for
every man.”
These texts show that Christ took upon Himself man’s nat-
ure, and that as a consequence He was subject to death.
He came into the world on purpose to die; and so from the
beginning of His earthly life He was in the same condition that
the men are in whom He died to save. Now read,
Rom. 1:3: The gospel of God, “concerning His Son Jesus
Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David accord-
60
ing to the flesh.” What was the nature of David, “accord-
ing to the flesh”? Sinful, was it not? David says: “Be-
hold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother con-
ceive me.” Psalm 51:5. Don’t start in horrified astonishment;
I am not implying that Christ was a sinner. I shall explain
more fully in a few moments. But first I wish to quote,
Heb. 2:16, 17: “For verily He took not on Him the nature
of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. Where-
fore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His
brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest
in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the
sins of the people.”
His being made in all things like unto His brethren, is the
same as His being made in the likeness of sinful flesh, “made
in the likeness of men.” One of the most encouraging things
in the Bible is the knowledge that Christ took on Him the
nature of man; to know that His ancestors according to the
flesh were sinners. When we read the record of the lives of
the ancestors of Christ, and see that they had all the weak-
nesses and passions that we have, we find that no man has
any right to excuse his sinful acts on the ground of heredity.
If Christ had not been made in all things like unto His breth-
ren, then His sinless life would be no encouragement to us.
We might look at it with admiration, but it would be the
admiration that would cause hopeless despair.
And now as another parallel to Gal. 4:4, and a further
source of encouragement to us, I will quote,
2 Cor. 5:21: “For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who
knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of
God in Him.”
Now when was Jesus made sin for us? It must have been
when He was made flesh, and began to suffer the temptations
and infirmities that are incident to sinful flesh. He passed
through every phase of human experience, being “in all points
tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” He was a man of
sorrows, and acquainted with grief.” “He hath borne our
griefs, and carried our sorrows” (Isa. 53:4); and this script-
ure is said by Matthew to have been fulfilled long before the
crucifixion. So I say that His being born under the law was
61
a necessary consequence of His being born in the likeness of
sinful flesh, of taking upon Himself the nature of Abraham.
He was made like man, in order that He might undergo the
suffering of death. From the earliest childhood the cross
was ever before Him.
4. You say: “That He did voluntarily take the sins of the
world upon Him in His great sacrifice upon the cross, we ad-
mit; but He was not born under its condemnation. Of Him
that was pure, and had never committed a sin in His life, it
would be an astonishing perversion of all proper theology to
say that He was born under the condemnation of the law.”
It may be a perversion of theology, but it is exactly in har-
mony with the Bible, and that is the main point. Can you
not see that your objection lies as much against your position
as it does against mine? You are shocked at the idea that
Jesus was born under the condemnation of the law, because
He never committed a sin in His life. But you admit that on
the cross He was under the condemnation of the law. What!
had He then committed sin? Not by any means. Well, then,
if Jesus could be under the condemnation of the law at one
time in His life, and be sinless, I see no reason why He could
not be under the condemnation of the law at another time,
and still be sinless. And Paul declares that God did make
Him to be sin for us.
I simply give Scripture facts; I don’t attempt to explain
them. “Without controversy, great is the mystery of god-
liness.” I cannot understand how God could be manifest in
the flesh, and in the likeness of sinful flesh. I do not know
how the pure and holy Saviour could endure all the infirmi-
ties of humanity, which are the result of sin, and be reckoned
as a sinner, and suffer the death of a sinner. I simply accept
the Scripture statement, that only so could He be the Saviour
of men; and I rejoice in that knowledge, because since He was
made sin, I may be made the righteousness of God in Him.
What a wonder! Christ had all the glory of Heaven; we
had nothing; and so He “emptied Himself,” became nothing,
in order that we might be glorified together with Him, and
inherit all things. Christ was sinless, the very embodiment
of holiness; we were vile and full of sin, having no good thing
62
in us; He was made sin in order that we might be partakers
of His righteousness. Christ was immortal, having life in
Himself; we were mortal, doomed to eternal death; He suf-
fered death for us, in order that we might share His immor-
tality. He went to the very lowest depths to which man had
fallen, in order that He might lift man to His own exalted
throne; yet He never ceased to be God, or lost a particle of
His holiness.
5. Again; why was Jesus baptized? He said that it was
“to fulfill all righteousness.” We may not say that it was
simply as an example; for that would be really denying the
vicarious nature of the atonement. It must have been for
the same reason that He died, namely, for sin. Not His own
sin, but ours; for as in His death, so in His life, our sins were
counted as His. And thus it is that He could be all His life,
even from His birth, under the condemnation of the law. It
was not on His own account, but on ours.
I think that I have shown clearly, by abundance of Script-
ure testimony, that Christ was born under the condemnation
of the law, and that this was necessarily incident to the fact
that He was born of a woman; “for man that is born of woman
is of few days, and full of trouble;” and this was literally
true of Christ. He was in all things like His brethren, in His
life of temptation and suffering, and even to length of days;
for His earthly life was exactly the length of an average hu-
man life.
6. I must make one more argument, taking your stand-
point. I will allow for the moment, what is not true, that
“under the law” means “subject to the law,” and that the
law referred to is the ceremonial law. Now the statement is
that Christ was made “under the law, to redeem them that
were under the law.” He redeems none who were not in the
condition which He was made. And since only the Jews were
subject to the ceremonial law, your theory would make it
that He came to save only the Jews. I am glad that a proper
interpretation does not oblige us to limit the plan of salvation
in this way. Christ died for all men; all men were under the
condemnation of the law of God; and so He was made under
its condemnation. By the grace of God He tasted death for
every man.
63
 7. But this requires that I should show another absurdity
in which your theory lands you. The ceremonies of the
Mosaic ritual were simply the gospel ordinances for that time.
They were the things by which the people manifested their
faith in the gospel of Christ. But your theory, besides mak-
ing Christ die for the sole purpose of allowing the Jews to
stop offering lambs, etc., makes Him die to deliver them from
the gospel. If that were true, what kind of state would
they then be in? And again it makes Christ die to redeem
men from that which had no power to condemn. In short,
it nullifies the whole plan of salvation, and makes nonsense
of it. And so it is most positively proved that Gal. 4:4, 5
cannot by any possibility refer to what is commonly called
the ceremonial law. It does refer to the moral law, by which
all men are condemned, and from the condemnation of which
Christ redeems all who believe in Him, making them sons and
heirs of God.
In your claim that these elements refer to the ceremonial
law you say:—
“The language concerning ‘elements of the world’—these
‘weak and beggarly elements’ to which they desired to return,
under which they had been in servitude—it is utterly incon-
sistent to apply to the law which is ‘spiritual,’ ‘holy, just, and
good.’”—p. 60.
That is exactly the truth. Those elements of this world,
those weak and beggarly elements, must be the exact opposite
to the pure and holy law of God; and the opposite of that
holy, just, and good law is sin. And sin, as I have already
shown, is the elements of the world. It is that which
worldly men practice by nature. It is that which comes
naturally from the human heart (Mark 7:21-23], and which,
therefore, are the first things—the elements—that people
practice.
I marvel how you can read Gal. 4:3 in connection with
verses 8-10, and then say that the ceremonial law is referred
to. Those elements to which they had been in bondage, and
to which they wished to return, were the elements which
they practiced when they knew not God, and the service
which they did to them that were no gods. You yourself
say: “The language clearly shows that the persons referred
64
to had in some period of their lives been the worshipers of
other gods.” Then why not frankly admit that these ele-
ments to which they had been in bondage were the sinful
practices of licentious idolaters?
But I pass to your crowning argument on this point. I
quote from page 65:—
“The identification of these ‘elements of the world’—these
‘weak and beggarly elements’ into which the Galatians de-
sired to return into bondage—with the ceremonial law, is an
important link in this argument. There can be no question
but that our position on this point is correct. Dr. Schaff, in
his comments on these ‘rudiments,’ says: ‘According to my
view, the expression applies in any case only to Judaism,
especially to the law (an apostle Paul could not possibly com-
prehend heathenism and Judaism under one idea, regarding
them thus as virtually equivalent).’ We trust our friends
who sometimes endeavour to apply these ‘rudiments’ partially
to heathenism, will consider this well.
“Dr. Clarke says, ‘On rudiments of the world,’ ‘the rudi-
ments or principles of the Jewish religion.’ He says, also, that
the ‘weak and beggarly elements were the ceremonies of the
Mosaic law.’ Dr. Scott takes the same position.”
If it were not so serious a matter, it would be amusing to
see the argument which you bring to identify the elements of
the world with the ceremonial law. One would think that
on this point, which you say is an important link, and which
is indeed the point upon which your theory must stand or
fall, you would pile up the Scripture argument; and so in-
deed you would, if there were any to pile up; but instead
we have the opinion of Dr. Schaff, Dr. Clarke, and Dr. Scott
—three very good men, no doubt, but three men who are re-
sponsible for a vast amount of doctrinal error and false the-
ology. After quoting Dr. Schaff’s view that these weak and
beggarly elements apply only to Judaism, you say: “We
trust our friends who sometimes endeavor to apply these
‘rudiments’ partially to heathenism, will consider this well.”
Has it come to this among Seventh-day Adventists, that the
mere opinion of a doctor of divinity must be accepted as
final in any discussion? Is Dr. Schaff so unimpeachable an
authority that when he speaks no tongue may wag dissent?
Let me construct an argument from Dr. Schaff. He says:—
“The Christian Church keeps the first day of the week,
65
which celebrates the close of the spiritual creation, just as
the last day celebrates the close of the physical creation.
We have the fullest warrant for this change.”—Bible Diction-
ary, art. Sabbath.
And now having announced this dictum of the infallible
Dr. Schaff, the Sunday-keeper may say, “We trust our friends
who still regard Saturday as the Sabbath will consider this
well.” Would you admit such an argument as worthy of a
moment’s consideration? Would you say, “There can be no
question but that this position is correct,” because Dr. Schaff
says so? I know you would not; yet if you really regard
your argument on Gal. 4:8 as of any value at all, you will
be obliged to accept it.
I want to call special attention to your argument here, in
order to reveal the inherent weakness of your position. You
say that the “elements of the world”—those “weak and
beggarly elements”—are identical with the ceremonial law.
Then you add, “There can be no question but that our
position on this point is correct.” If there can be no ques-
tion on this point, it must be because it is so well fortified by
the clearest proof as to admit of no argument. And what is
the proof which you quote? The mere words of Dr. Schaff,
Dr. Barnes, and Dr. Scott. Then the inevitable conclusion
is that you regard the statement of those men as sufficient to
establish any point of doctrine. But I do not. I don’t con-
sider their statement as sufficient to establish any doctrine.
I don’t consider their statement sufficient to help, even to the
slightest degree, to establish any point of doctrine. Further,
I do not consider the statement of any man on earth as of
sufficient weight to help establish any point of doctrine. The
word of God alone can decide what is right; it alone can es-
tablish a point of doctrine; and when it has spoken, nothing
that any man can say can make the case any stronger. And
when a thing cannot be proved by the Bible, it cannot be
proved by what any man says, no matter how good he is.
All men understand this; all men know that the word of God
is better than that of any man; and so they always appeal to
the Bible instead of to man, whenever they have anything
that can be sustained by the Bible. I sincerely hope that at
66
this late day we shall not have introduced among us the cus-
tom of quoting the opinion of doctors of divinity to support
any theory. When our Sunday friends quote the opinions
of commentators concerning the supposed change of the Sab-
bath, we all say that it is because they have no scriptural
authority to bring forward. If I am wrong in arriving at
the same conclusion concerning your quotation to prove the
identity of the ceremonial law with the elements of the
world, I trust you will pardon me, and will convince me of
my error by bringing forward some Scripture evidence.
If you want the opinion of a man on this subject, I will
quote one for you. It is the opinion of a man whom I regard
as being as much superior to Dr. Schaff as a biblical expositor,
as Dr. Schaff is superior to me in the knowledge of Greek
and Latin. I refer to Elder J. N. Andrews. In his work
The History of the Sabbath, in the foot-note on page 186,
I find the following statement concerning Gal. 4:10:—
“To show that Paul regarded Sabbatic observance as dan-
gerous, Gal. 4:l0 is often quoted: notwithstanding the same
individuals claim that Rom. 14 proves that it is a matter of
perfect indifference; they not seeing that this is to make
Paul contradict himself. But if the connection be read from
verses 9-11, it will be seen that the Galatians before their con-
version were not Jews, but heathen; and that these days,
months, times, and years, were not those of the Levitical
law, but those which they had regarded with superstitious
reverence while heathen. Observe the stress which Paul lays
on the word ‘again’ in verse 9.”
I cannot refrain from saying that I trust our friends who
sometimes endeavor to apply these “rudiments” to the cere-
monial law “will consider this well.”
I will add, also, the following from Elder Andrews:—
“The bondage of the Jewish church did not consist in that
God had given them His law, but because they were its trans-
gressors—the servants of sin. John 8:33-36. The freedom
of the children of ‘Jerusalem which is above,’ does not con-
sist in that the law has been abolished, but in that they have
been made free from sin. Rom. 6:22.”—Review and Herald,
vol. 2, No. 4.
But I must not prolong this letter much further. I pass
to a brief notice of your strictures upon my argument upon
Gal. 4:21. You say:—
67
 “Here we have the expression ‘under the law’ repeated
once more. We have already dwelt at some length upon
this phrase, and have claimed that its uses in the letter to
the Galatians referred to being subject to the law, under its
authority. But one of our friends who is enthusiastic in his
devotion to the view that the law in Galatians is the moral
law, goes so far as to claim that in every case where this ex-
pression is used, it signifies being in a state of sin or con-
demnation; i.e., in a position where the penalty of the law
hangs over one’s head. That penalty is the ‘second death’ in
‘the lake of fire.’ We have, then, according to that view,
these Galatian brethren desiring to be in a state of guilt,
which would expose them to the lake of fire. ‘Tell me, ye
that desire to be under the law,’ with this equivalent expres-
sion substituted, would read, Tell me, ye that desire to be
under the condemnation of the law—Tell me, ye that desire
the condemnation of the second death. We have known men
to desire many strange things, but we never before knew one to
desire the second death. But if that view of the subject is
correct, and this jaw is the moral law, and all these expressions
‘under the law’ mean under its condemnation, then we have
no possible escape from this conclusion. But to think of
these new, zealous converts to Christianity desiring to go
into a state of condemnation, exposed to such a doom, is too
preposterous for a moment’s consideration.”
I gladly acknowledge that I am the identical one of your
friends who has claimed that in every case where the expres-
sion “under the law” occurs in the original, it signifies “be-
ing in a state of sin or condemnation, that is, in a position
where the penalty of the law hangs over one’s head.” And I
trust that I shall never be counted as your enemy because I
tell you this truth. You make sport of this idea, and say
that you never knew anyone who desired the second death.
My knowledge is not very extensive, but I have known that
very thing. In the eighth chapter of Proverbs, Wisdom,
which is the fear of God, is personified and in the last verse
of that chapter she says, “All them that hate me love death.”
There you have a plain Bible statement that there are some
that love death. It is not to be supposed that men deliberately
desire death, but they do deliberately choose and love the
course which must result in death, and consequently they are
said to love death. In Acts 13:45 we read that Paul and
Barnabas said to the Jews who had rejected the word of God,
“contradicting and blaspheming:” “Seeing ye put it from
68
you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we
turn to the Gentiles.” Here we have a similar statement.
The apostle did not mean to indicate that those self-conceited
Jews thought that they were not fit to enter Heaven; on the
contrary, they thought that they were the only ones who
were worthy of that privilege. But they were unwilling to
receive the only truth which could fit them for everlasting
life, and so they could justly be said to be unwilling to re-
ceive everlasting life. And so Paul could say to the Gala-
tians who were turning aside from the gospel of Christ, that
they desired to be under the law. Not that they deliberately
chose death, but they were seeking justification by something
which could not bring them justification. They were losing
their faith in Christ, and being removed from God (Gal. 1:5);
and such a course, if carried out, would inevitably bring them
under the condemnation of the law. I see nothing absurd in
this position. If it is absurd, then you must attach absurdity
to the words of Solomon in Prov. 8:36.
Let me prove the point in another way. You will admit
that a man’s own way, if followed, will always end in death.
Says Solomon: “There is a way which seemeth right unto a
man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.“ And this
way which seems right to a man, is his own way. Now
since a man’s own way is the way of death, it can truly be
said that all who love their own way love death. The Gala-
tians had turned to their own way, which is opposed to the
ways of God. And so they were desirous to be under the
condemnation of the law.
But I have already made this letter longer than I antici-
pated. I have done so only because I have a deep sense of
the tremendous importance of this question, and I am mor-
ally certain that your theory is opposed to the truth. That
those who have held it have not oftener been discomfited by
the enemies of the truth, is due rather to the providential
blindness of those enemies, than to the strength of the argu-
ment with which they have been met on this question. I
have written this brief review, as I did my articles in the
Signs, with the desire to vindicate the law of God, and to
show its perpetuity, its binding claims upon all mankind, and
69
the beautiful harmony between it and the gospel. The law Of one thing I am certain, and that is, that those who have
of God is the groundwork of all our faith. It may be said held to the theory of the law, which you are endeavoring to
to be the backbone of the Third Angel’s Message. That being uphold, have not overestimated the doctrine of justification
the case, we must expect, as we approach the end, that all by faith; because that theory leads inevitably to the conclu-
the forces of the enemy will be concentrated upon it. We shall sion that men are justified by the law. But when I read
have to do more valiant service for it than we ever yet have Rom. 3:28, and read also that Paul knew nothing among the
done. Every point in our argument will have to be subjected Corinthians but Jesus Christ and Him crucified, and that “the
to the test of the most rigid criticism, and we shall have to just shall live by faith,” and that “this is the victory that
fortify every point. If there is any inconsistency in any of overcometh the world, even our faith” (1 John 5:4), and that
our arguments, we may be sure that the enemies of the truth Paul wanted to be found when Christ comes, having nothing
will not always remain blind to it. but “the righteousness which is of God by faith” (Phil. 3:9),
I know you will say that it will be a humiliating thing to I conclude that it is impossible to overestimate the doctrine of jus-
modify our position on so vital a point as this, right in the tification by faith. You may call it a “much-vaunted”doctrine
face of the enemy. But if a general has a faulty position, I if you please; I accept the word, and say with Paul: “God
submit that it is better to correct it, even in the face of the forbid that I should glory [or vaunt], save in the cross of our
enemy, than to run the risk of defeat because of his faulty Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me,
position. But I do not see anything humiliating in the matter. and I unto the world.”
If our people should today, as a body (as they will sometime), Hoping that you will read this letter in the spirit in which
change their view on this point, it would simply be an ac- it is written, and that you will believe that I have written it
with only the utmost good-feeling and brotherly love for you
knowledgment that they are better informed today than
personally, and praying that God will guide both of us and all
they were yesterday. It would simply be taking an advance
His people to the most perfect knowledge of the truth as it is
step, which is never humiliating except to those whose pride
in Jesus, I remain your brother in Christ,
of opinion will not allow them to admit that they can be
E. J. WAGGONER.
wrong. It would simply be a step nearer the faith of the
great Reformers from the days of Paul to the days of Luther
and Wesley. It would be a step closer to the heart of the
Third Angel’s Message. I do not regard this view which I
hold as a new idea at all. It is not a new theory of doctrine.
Everything that I have taught is perfectly in harmony with
the fundamental principles of truth which have been held not
only by our people, but by all the eminent reformers. And
so I do not take any credit to myself for advancing it. All
I claim for the theory is, that it is consistent, because it sticks
to the fundamental principles of the gospel.
Before I close, I cannot refrain from expressing my regret
to see in your book (on page 78) the expression, “The much-
vaunted doctrine of justification by faith.” Do you know of
any other means of justification? Your words seem to inti-
mate that you think that doctrine has been overestimated.

70 71