Larger font
Smaller font
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font

    Second Session


    Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen: I will proceed to notice some points made by our brother. He argues that the Gentiles were under the same law that the Jews were, and read some passages to sustain that position. In regard to sojourners, I, will read some passages: Isaiah 60:10: “And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls.” A sojourner is a temporary resident, not a permanent dweller; they resided among, them as servants. Isaiah 61:5: “And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your ploughmen and your vinedressers.” Isaiah 56:1-6, was noticed: The eunuchs were a particular class of servants, “also the sons of the stranger that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it,” etc. Strangers and their sons associated with families of Israel. You see they were servants, and therefore this text is in keeping with our resolution—all their servants were to keep it. Nothing here against the resolution.DSQ69 43.1

    He refers to the Crisis. I remark that Bro. Preble did not refer to the seventh day, but the first: But he asks, Might not the obligation exist before Moses? The next thing is to prove it.DSQ69 43.2

    Now for his three points: Mark 2:27: It Was made for man. He did not make man on purpose to keep the Sabbath. The Greek says “the” man. 1 Corinthians 10:4, 5: “And did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was Christ.” I read this for the purpose of reading a remark of Dr. Geo. Campbell on this subject: “The Son of Man in this [28th] verse must be equivalent to man in the preceding; otherwise, a term is introduced into the conclusion, which is not in the premises.”DSQ69 43.3

    He says the New Testament points back to Sinai Luke 23:56: They “rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment.” This was before the resurrection of Christ. They were yet waiting for the resurrection, as the Jews in Egypt were waiting for deliverance. Next, he says the commandment points back to creation, but it does not reach there. See Deuteronomy 5:15:“And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched-out arm; therefore”—not for something back, not to creation therefore—“the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day.”DSQ69 44.1

    Now for his syllogism: He says, 1. The Sabbath was made for man. 2. Every Gentile is a man. 3. Therefore the Sabbath was made for every Gentile. This syllogism is good for nothing; because it is false in fact. I may state one thus: 1. The passover was made for man. 2. The Gentiles were men. Therefore the passover was made for Gentiles. This is also false; in fact, but is as good as his.DSQ69 44.2

    But were not the Gentiles under the same law? No Romans 2:14: “For when the Gentiles which have not the law.” There it is: they have not the law. “The woman was made for the man,” not for the Jew. But this points back to creation, to the origin of the marriage institution, and the Saviour referred back to that time when questioned on that subject.DSQ69 44.3

    One thought: lf the Jews kept the first day they would acknowledge the resurrection of Christ, for it is kept in memory of that. But they will not do it. Now I wish to ask him of what law did Christ pay the penalty. I wish him to consider this.DSQ69 45.1

    Is not a particular 1 day to be kept as a Sabbath? No it is after six days’ labor; then a day of rest. Peter says a day with the Lord is as a thousand years. The Sabbath looks forward to, the rest remaining for the people of God after six thousand years of toil in this world. Is their any proof that God ever sanctified any day but that one on which he rested? I throw, out these things for him to think of. A particular day cannot be kept on account of the difference of time.DSQ69 45.2

    If a particular day of twenty-four hours was sanctified to be observed as the Sabbath, closing at sunset, then it is not kept in the United States. Let us look at facts. Every fifteen miles east or west of a given meridian makes one minute’s difference in time Every degree, or sixty miles, four minutes; every fifteen degrees, one hour, and three hundred and sixty degrees, the entire circle of the earth, twenty-four hours. Suppose two travelers start from the same point, and go in Opposite directions around the earth; the one going west will lose a day, and the one traveling east will gain one. To illustrate, we will take a Turk, Jew, and Christian. The Turk observes Friday for his Sabbath, the Jew, Saturday, the Christian, Sunday. Now let the Turk go around the earth in a westerly direction, the Christian in an easterly, and let the Jew remain at home. When they arrive at the end of their journey, the same day will be a Friday, to the Turk, Saturday, to the Jew, and Sunday, to the Christian. Who is right? The same day cannot be in fact three different days Let the Turk remain at home, the Christian go west and the Jew east; then the Jew’s Sabbath is on Friday, the same as the Turk’s; and the Christian’s rest day is Monday. Who is right? Or, let the Christian remain at home, the Jew go west, the Turk east; then the Jew’s Sabbath will be the Christian’s Sunday, and the Turk’s will be on Thursday. Who is right, if a particular day was sanctified to be kept as the Sabbath?DSQ69 45.3

    This is a fact; I have talked with sailors. If a particular day is to be kept, how is it with these three parties? Those on the other side of the earth would have to keep it at midnight. Sometimes in some places the days are several weeks long; what is to be done there? Let the Sabbath fall after six day’s labor, and then rest, and all can be harmonized. Let him consider these facts.DSQ69 46.1

    I now come to the historical argument for the Lord’s day, showing that Christians did not keep the seventh day. Ignatius speaks of the Lord’s day—[Time.]DSQ69 46.2


    Mr. President Ladies and Gentlemen: We have a resolution to discuss, but my brother seems to have wandered very far from it. The resolution says the Sabbath was binding only on the Jews and their servants. What has this to do with the first day of the week? As near the question as to talk about the Fourth of July. Let him find a text of Scripture that says the first day of the week is the Sabbath, and then it will be time to talk on it. Till then, I object.DSQ69 46.3

    Last evening, he complained that I wanted him to prove a negative. It is his own question, of his own making; it has two negatives, “only” for the Jews, and “only.” after they came out of Egypt. This excludes all others. If he proves anything he has got to prove a negative If he fails to prove the Gentiles were not to keep the Sabbath, his question is lost.DSQ69 47.1

    Who are the servants? this is an important question. I quoted texts to show the blessings of God were promised to strangers or sojourners. He admits that the strangers were Gentiles. But he tries to show that a sojourner had no residence except in the families of Jews. Abraham was a sojourner in the land where he is spent his life after the Lord called him. For testimony on this point read Deuteronomy 23:15, 16 “Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee.” Now he is escaped from his master, and is not to be returned. He is not a servant, but free. “He shall dwell with thee, even among you in that place which he shall choose, in one of thy gates where it liketh him best.” He would then be a free man, and a stranger dwelling among them. Such, the Lord says, should keep the Sabbath. Now compare Ezekiel 47:22; “And it shall come to pass that ye shall divide it by lot for an inheritance unto you, and to the strangers that sojourn among you, which shall beget children among you, and they shall be unto you as born in the country among the children of Israel; they shall have inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel.” Now he admits that the strangers sojourning among them were Gentiles, and should keep the Sabbath, only he says they were all servants, temporary residents. But here it is proved they were sometimes freemen, having a permanent residence, and inheritance among the children of Israel. This must satisfy everybody they were not servants, but men treated as equals. And Jeremiah 12, shows that the nations, as nations, had this same privilege. The Lord would build them up if they did as his people did; if not, he would cut them off. And just so he said to Israel. One, condition for both. This is positive proof. Further in reference to the Gentiles. His proposition is, that none but Jews and their servants were to keep the Sabbath. See the case of Ruth: she was a Moabitess, but by her determination that Israel’s God should be her God, she was accepted and became the grandmother of King David. Was she a servant? and would she have received these blessings if she had not been a keeper of the Sabbath? Joseph’s wife was an Egyptian woman, but not a servant. She was accepted of God and became the mother of two tribes of Israel. Israel were God’s church, and as many as would be converted to the ways of his people, or church, were accepted of God, not as mere servants in Jewish families. And they were to keep the same laws with Israel. God had not two laws, one for Jews, and another for Gentiles.DSQ69 47.2

    He says the, Sabbath was not sanctified “for men to keep” till after the Jews came out of Egypt. Let him prove that the Sabbath was sanctified at, or after, that time. He, has affirmed it, and once before I called his attention; to it. Let him touch it if he dare, and try to prove his assertion. The only time the Sabbath was sanctified, was when it was made for man, at the creation of the world.DSQ69 48.1

    He says Eld. Preble has reference to the first day of the week, but he forgot how the article reads from which I quoted. It says the Sabbath was “binding from creation” Now I ask Eld. Grant, Does Eld. Preble believe that the first day was the Sabbath from creation?DSQ69 48.2

    Again he reads Deuteronomy 5:15. But what is the use of taking up time to show that they ought to obey God because they were brought out of Egypt? It proves too much for his purpose; it proves that all moral obligation grew out of that fact, if it proves anything to the point. He asks, Is there proof that any particular day should be kept? That depends on another question, Did God rest on any particular day?DSQ69 49.1

    No other day sanctified; but that one on which God rested. But he sanctified the day after he rested. He did not set apart that day that was past, but its successors: seventh-day in its succession. See the commandment. [Time.]DSQ69 49.2


    The fact that I stated in regard to the particular day is fatal to his position. No one in the United States keeps it unless he keeps it at midnight. He must keep just that space of time or else he does not keep it. The facts are clear on that point. None were to keep it except in Palestine. There they could keep, it; but not all round the world.DSQ69 49.3

    I am not aware of wandering from the subject. Nobody claims that the Bible says the first day is the Sabbath. Who are the servants? Those that serve. Deuteronomy 23:15, 16. If the servant escaped, he was not to be returned, but to be taken in and cared for. Nothing here to disprove our position. Ezekiel 47:22. The servants were allowed to own the land; they were permitted to live there, but nothing there about keeping the Sabbath; if they chose to abide there, they were permitted to, but not a word about the Sabbath.DSQ69 49.4

    Jeremiah 12:16: “If they will diligently learn the ways of my people, to swear by my name, The Lord liveth; as they taught my people to swear by Baal; then shall they be built in the midst of my people.” I fail to see any evidence in this; it does not say, If they keep the Sabbath, but if they confess God, if they say, You have got a living God, and we admit it, then they were to be built up. But that does not settle the question. There is nothing here against the resolution.DSQ69 50.1

    Ruth was a Jewish proselyte, of course she was included. All the proselytes were to keep it. If my brother objects to their being included in the resolution, I will meet him on that issue. The wife of Joseph was also a proselyte. But as Gentiles, they were without the law, says Paul.DSQ69 50.2

    He seems to misunderstand us in regard to the sanctification of the Sabbath, after they came out of Egypt. That was the first time man sanctified it, and kept it. I admit that God sanctified it at creation. Does Eld. Preble mean Saturday, when he says Sabbath? I say, No.DSQ69 50.3

    Deuteronomy 5, is referred to again. “Therefore.” This is so plain that it does not need more notice. Why should they keep it? Here is a reason why. In commemoration of their deliverance from Egypt. The most wonderful manifestation of God’s power. Deuteronomy 24:17, 18, is just the same. It refers back to that event. They were to treat strangers well for that very reason; they were strangers in Egypt, and the Lord brought them out. And so Leviticus 19:33, 34: “And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you, shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” They were to remember their bondage and deliverance. These are all the points we think of to notice now.DSQ69 50.4

    Again I call attention to the law. All the commandments are called the law of God. All, anything, and everything, to anybody, are called the law. Law, statues, testimonies, commandments, are used indiscriminately. The ten commandments are no more the law than any other. Luke 10:26. Written in the law. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, etc. But it is not in that law [pointing to the chart]. Jesus says, “In the law.” It is found in Deuteronomy 6, but not in the decalogue. The word rendered law, is used both before and after Moses. I have heard people say: “Not my Sabbath; the Lord’s Sabbath.” My Sabbath—your Sabbath, all the same. John 9:16: “This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the Sabbath day.” This was a charge by the Pharisees against Christ. I can show that the Hebrew words rendered law, commandments, etc, were used before the ten commandments were given. See again the New Testament on this point. Matthew 12:5: “Have ye not read in the law how that on the Sabbath day the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless.” But it is not there [on the chart]. Matthew 22:36, 37: “Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,” etc. This is not in the decalogue. No commandment there to love God. There is a promise to such as do love him, but no commandment to love him. Luke 2:23: “As it is written in the law of the Lord, every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord.” Verse 27: “And when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law.” Verse 39: “And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord; they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.” The law of the Lord, but not in the decalogue. Acts 15:24: “Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us, have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, ye must be circumcised, and keep the law; to whom we gave no such commandment.” What law was that? The law of God. Romans 3:19: “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law;” and chap. 6:14, tells us who are, and who are not, under the law. “For sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under the law, but under grace.” Is that so? [Cries of, Amen.] Now see Romans 7:1-7: “Know ye not, brethren (for I speak to them that know the law), how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband, is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.” Here you see he talks of being loosed from the law. “So then if while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law.” Free from the law. Now Paul makes the application: “Wherefore, my brethren, ye are also become dead to the law.” [Time.]DSQ69 51.1


    I will notice a few points made. Some of his arguments have no bearing on the subject. The resolution says the Sabbath is not binding on any but Jews. In regard to what is the law, or what is called the law of God, we can understand, by the connection, what law is meant. The New Testament speaks of a law done away, and one that is not done away. One law as being binding, another not binding, cannot be the same law. We must distinguish between them.DSQ69 53.1

    Romans 2:14, is quoted, but it is fatal to his position. It does prove positively that the law is binding on the Gentiles. They have not the law as the Jew had; they did not hear the voice of God as the Jews did. But by the connection, we learn that they had a knowledge of it. Mark, the doers of the law shall be justified, and not the hearers who do not keep it. “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law,” did not hear the voice of God, nor have a written copy of the law given to them on stone, “do by nature the things contained in the law.” Who are the hearers? the Jews; and who are the doers of whom Paul speaks? The Gentiles—they do by nature the things contained in the law. They are justified for obeying, not the Jew for hearing. So the Gentiles “show the work of the law written in their hearts,” the same law the Jews heard. Paul is not talking of two different laws in this passage. This shows that it is binding on the Gentiles. I challenge him to take hold of that issue. He left out all that related to the Gentiles’ keeping the law. I call his attention to it.DSQ69 53.2

    He says the world is round, and no particular day can be kept. He claims that there is difficulty and confusion with that view. But he goes on to show that Sunday should be kept. Of course that can be kept all over. The seventh day can’t be kept because the world is round, but the world flats right out when Sunday comes! [Laughter.] The Lord made the world round, and made the Sabbath for a round world, and commanded that it be kept on the round world.DSQ69 53.3

    He admits that the proselytes were not servants, but that admission is fatal to his resolution; for in that he admits, the Sabbath was binding on somebody besides the Jews and their servants. Before he said, only those who came out of Egypt; but these proselytes were not brought out of Egypt. So now he admits all that he has heretofore denied.DSQ69 54.1

    He asks, “Does Bro. Preble keep the seventh day?” No; if he did, I would not quote him. Pres. Mahan says, “Admissions in favor of truth from the ranks of its enemies constitute the highest kind of evidence.” Eld. Preble is opposed to us, but his arguments sustain our position. Eld. Preble says the Sabbath was binding from creation; Eld. Grant denies it. He and Preble for it. They are both strong men. I propose they have a hitch on it.DSQ69 54.2

    Who are under the law? He says Christians are not. But how about the Gentiles? The resolution concerns them. If Christians are not under the law because they are Christians, then everybody unconverted is under the law. But does he mean that we are not under the law in the sense that we are not to keep it? Let us see. Romans 6:15: “Shall we sin”—sin is transgression of the law—“because we are not under the law but under grace? God forbid.” I say, Amen; and let Bro. Grant say, Amen; and let all the people say, Amen. We are under the grace or favor of God; now let us obey him, and keep his law, and sin no more.DSQ69 54.3

    I will now prove that the Sabbath was binding before the Sinaitic covenant. He hangs all upon that covenant; says the Sabbath owed its obligation to that covenant. But destroying that covenant made with Israel at Sinai cannot affect the Sabbath, as it was not dependent on it; it was a prior obligation. Exodus 16:27-29: “And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none. And the Lord said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? See, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath.” He hath given—not, is going to give it; he hath—he gave it in the past. If they could not keep it in Egyptian bondage, they had no excuse now; they were free. And he asks, “How long refuse ye to keep my commandments?” Then they had broken the Sabbath before, a long time. He did n’t say, I now make a Sabbath; nor did he then make a law to observe it. He had given them the Sabbath before, and the law had “long” existed. There is no commandment recorded here, nor does it say when the commandment was given. It only states that a law had been previously given. No enactment after they came out of Egypt; no account of the giving of the Sabbath, except in Genesis 2, where it was sanctified, or set apart, “for man.” There is no law given in Exodus 16: but the fact is stated that there was such a law.DSQ69 55.1



    He speaks of the law in Romans 2:14, as binding on the Gentiles. I am as much surprised that men should look so differently at the same thing, as that two plants growing out of the same soil should be so different—one bearing good fruit, the other being poisonous. The Gentiles had not the law. He says they did not have it as the Jews did. One had it on stone; the other, in their hearts—quite a difference. “Do by nature”—did not learn it of the Jews. “Law unto themselves”—not of Sinai. There is a contrast on the stone and on the hearts; not the same law. The Gentiles had not got it. If he can see proof in this in his favor, he can see further than I can.DSQ69 55.2

    The world is round. I do not claim the identical day the Lord began creation, but the seventh after six of labor. But why keep it? He objects to my historical evidence on that point, so I waive it for the present; another time will answer just as well. Proselytes who were converted to Judaism virtually became Jews, and then, of course, they were to keep it. So Christians all come under one condition, law, or regulation. All proselytes were reckoned among them.DSQ69 56.1

    The old covenant was made at Sinai—the old covenant was done away. Well, I am glad we have come together at last. But the Sabbath was kept before the law, or covenant, made at Sinai. Yes, preliminary; but its observance began at Exodus 16. Had they been keeping it, they would not have gone out on the seventh day to get manna. They had not kept it.DSQ69 56.2

    Now the real tug on the law has not come yet. Romans 7:4: “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ, that ye should be married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead.” And verse 6: “But now we are delivered from the law;” the margin says, “Being dead to that,” or, as it is in our version, “That being dead wherein we were held.” If a man gets hold of me, he cannot hold me after he is dead. “What shall we say then? Is the law sin?” Is the law wrong? Oh, no! he had not known sin but by the law. What law? He is talking about that law now [points to the chart]. “I had not known lust except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” That is the law—the tenth commandment. Was the woman under condemnation of the law as long as her husband was alive? If Paul were here, he would talk as we do. Galatians 2:16: “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by works of the law.” Won’t works of the law save us? “For by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” But hear further: chap. 3:11, 12: “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” Also verse 17: “And this I say that the covenant [to Abraham] that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.” The law was four hundred and thirty years after that promise, which just brings us to Mount Sinai; it was not before. “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” Added till—not forever, but till—the seed should come. He talks just as I want to talk to prove my point.DSQ69 56.3

    Verses 23-25: “But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterward be revealed. 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 schoolmaster.” I have heard it remarked that it is a strange schoolmaster who teaches mathematics and never speaks of mathematics. So it would, be, if that were his specialty. It points us to Christ—not bring us to Christ. A guide-board pointing to Boston is quite different from the cars which bring us to Boston. It was good before Christ, but not after. If Christ said, Keep the seventh day, I will keep it. Are we under Moses or Christ?DSQ69 57.1

    Galatians 4:21: “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free-woman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the free-woman was by promise. Which things are an allegory”—or rather allegorized—“for these are the two covenants, the one from the Mt. Sinai”—there it is, the ten commandments—“which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.” I will prove next session that this Agar, or Sinai covenant, is the law of ten commandments. “So then we, brethren, are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.” Chap. 5:1: “Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.” That law or covenant genders to bondage. We are free; we are not under it. Verse 4: “Christ is become come of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” See also Hebrews 7:12: “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.” Verses 18, 19: “For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.” If Paul had written for this discussion for me, he would have written just as he did. Now to conclude, we have examined from Adam to Enoch, Abraham, Melchisedec, etc., and not a trace of the Sabbath. Moses wrote after the Sabbath was given. Before that, not a word was said about keeping or breaking the Sabbath. [Time.]DSQ69 58.1


    I am getting more interested in this discussion, and glad we have so many witnesses. Beside meeting his arguments, I have brought some proof every time; through I am not obliged to do anything more than to show that he does not prove his position. All his arguments against the Sabbath weigh just as much against the other nine commandments. They all stand or go dawn together.DSQ69 59.1

    He does not claim a particular day. How, then, does he keep the first day of the week? Is not the first day a particular day, as well as the seventh? Did not Christ rise on a particular day? In this, he gives up all; for, if no particular day can or need be kept, why find fault with us for keeping the seventh day? Are we not as near right as he is, even if his own position is correct?DSQ69 59.2

    But he says if it had been their custom to keep the Sabbath, they would not have gone out after manna on that day. True, if they had kept it. I did not say it proves they kept it; but it does prove that they ought to have kept it, even of a “long” time. Here is positive testimony that the Sabbath was enjoined by law before the old covenant was made. Why kill time to show the old covenant is done away, when it has bearing on the subject.DSQ69 59.3

    In Romans 7, he makes the law the first husband. Let us see who are the parties. “The law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth,” not as long as law liveth. “For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth.” Let me illustrate this: My three fingers here may represent the parties; the first, the husband; second the woman; third, the law. Now the law, the third party, binds the first to the second as long as he lives. But he dies; the first is taken away, and what is left? The woman and the law. And if married to another man, what binds them together? The law. She can only be judged whether she be an adulteress or not, by the law. But he is mistaken in regard to Paul’s conclusion. We will see which side Paul comes out on. “What shall we say then?” That is the question. Now, Bro. Grant, what shall we say? Let us see. “Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin but by the law.” Paul was proved a sinner; but it was by the law. “For I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.” It took a living law to slay Paul. Bro. Grant says a dead man could not hold him; a dead man could not kill Paul. A living law could slay and convert him. Which side is Paul on? Let us hear him further. “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” That is just our faith. But if it was abolished several years before, it could not have killed Paul, or convinced him of sin for by the law is the knowledge of sin.DSQ69 60.1

    Now on Galatians 2:16; and 3:11, 12. No sinner justified by law, nor ever could since the world was rested. The eighth commandment does not justify him who steals. Was it different before Christ? Would the law justify a sinner then? No; only justified by pardon. It is forgiveness, pardon, the sinner must look to for justification. We get it through Christ, on condition of repentance and reform.DSQ69 60.2

    Galatians 4. Covenant from Sinai genders to bondage; but what law relates to this bondage? There is more than one law. Types, pointing to Christ. Agar is the old covenant; is it the ten commandments? No. Why? It answers to Jerusalem that now is. Yes; those offerings had to be all offered at Jerusalem; the ten commandments can be kept anywhere.DSQ69 61.1

    He says, “Let us hear Christ.” If Christ said, Keep the seventh day, he would keep it. Well, did Christ say, Keep the first day? He will not keep the day God commanded, because Christ did not command it over again. But he will keep the first day that never was commanded at all. [Time.]DSQ69 61.2

    Larger font
    Smaller font