[Extract from pp. 69-83.] Is Christ the end of the law in such manner that we may transgress it? The transgression of the law is sin, or unrighteousness; but it is not said that he is the end of the law for unrighteousness, but for righteousness, or obedience. We have shown from the scriptures the absurdity of supposing that the law of God is abolished or destroyed because it is fulfilled; and we would now refer to the following passages to show that end does not necessarily mean cessation, or death, but the ultimate object or design. Hebrews 13:7, 8; 1 Peter 1:9; James 5:11. “Behold we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy.” Now the law was ordained unto life, because it is a just standard of morals; but transgressors can obtain life only through Christ; and we understand this scripture to mean that the ultimate object or design of the law is accomplished in the person of Christ, who takes away the carnal mind, bestows upon us a moral character, and brings us to obedience.MMM 11.1

Many have been made to stumble over the letter to the Romans, supposing that Paul’s reasoning did tend to make void the law through faith. But we trust that the opposite has been shown to the satisfaction of all candid minds-that thus far God’s law stands firm on the authority of the New Testament. But the question now arises, Did Paul, in writing to the Romans, contradict what he had written to the Galatians two years before? We cannot believe that he did; and as he has maintained the perpetuity of the law in his letter to the Romans, in order that the two harmonize, he must also maintain it in that to the Galatians; and in our examination of this epistle, if we “find some things hard to be understood,” let us not wrest them to our own destruction, but compare them with the other scriptures, and thus ascertain the mind of the Spirit.MMM 11.2

We have stated our belief that the Saviour and the Apostles spoke of the same law that the Prophets wrote of, because they drew no line of distinction, but regarded it in the same light, as possessed of the same nature, its observance securing the same great reward, and its transgression attended with the same fatal consequences. For the same reason we conclude that the same law is spoken of in Galatians and Romans; that the word law, whenever it is used in the epistle of James, or those to the Galatians and Romans, has reference to the moral law of God, the ten commandments, except when directly qualified, as in Romans 7:23, 25; 8:2; and Galatians 6:2. But the same term in Hebrews always has reference to the Levitical law; the precepts of the moral code being spoken of in the plural, “laws.” Hebrews 8:10. That this word [law] is used in reference to more than one law in the New Testament, we have briefly noticed; and an examination of the nature and objects of these two laws must convince all that they cannot be regarded as one and the same, and are never confounded in the sacred writings. As we have dwelt somewhat at length upon the nature of the moral law, we will consider in contrast the nature of the ceremonial or Levitical law.MMM 11.3

A moral precept cannot possibly be typical; but is of itself holy, just and good. But the Levitical law was typical. It was a system of types and shadows. The priests under it served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things. Its offerings were remembrances of sin. Hebrews 10:3. The priesthood was instituted that offerings might be made to God through them; and the offerings were made to atone for sin. When an individual brought his offering to the priest, it was an acknowledgment on his part that he had sinned; the victim was slain to signify that he, as a sinner, was worthy of death. Thus it is evident that the whole system was instituted to show the nature and desert of sin, and the method of making an atonement for it. But if no sin existed, no offering would be required; therefore the sin laid back of, or existed before, the offering. But sin is the transgression of the law; hence the law was transgressed before any system of offerings was required; and the Levitical law was instituted because the pre-existing moral law was transgressed. A priest serves a mediator; but if man were already justified before God, he would require no mediator. Had man kept the law he would have been justified-he would not have had sin, and of course there would have been no necessity for a sin-offering. Here the ministration of the priest, and the law over which he ministers, are clearly distinct. The sin must be antecedent to the atonement for sin. The Levitical law being typical, pointed to Christ, and the death of Christ must have been determined before the types of his work could be instituted. The necessity of his death arose from man’s transgression. “He died for our sins.” But if there was but one law, and that containing types and shadows, then it is impossible to show what that law was given for; and if the moral law that existed previous to the death of Christ, does not exist now, how can he mediate in the new covenant for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant? Hebrews 9:15.MMM 11.4

Again, the difference between the two laws is shown in that the ceremonies of the Levitical law were not acceptable while the precepts of the moral law were disregarded. The types pointed to Christ; but Christ came to save his people from their sins, not in their sins, and to cause grace to reign through righteousness, not through unrighteousness. Therefore if those offerings had been accepted of the Lord, while the person who offered them continued to commit the crimes for which he sought forgiveness, then the Levitical law would not have “served to the example and shadow” of Christ’s ministration. The Lord said, “Hear, O earth; Behold I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts; because they have not hearkened unto my word, nor to my law, but rejected it. To what purpose cometh there to me incense from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far country? Your burnt-offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me.” Jeremiah 6:19, 20. If observing the law consisted in offering sacrifices, then they could not be said to have rejected the law while they made the offerings. The complaint is not that they had not brought sacrifices and offerings, but that they had not hearkened to his law, but rejected it; and for this reason their offerings were not acceptable.MMM 12.1

That God’s law was something entirely distinct from these sacrifices, is further shown in Jeremiah 7:22, 23: “For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices. But this thing I commanded them, saying, Obey my voice and I will be your God and you shall be my people.” When they heard his voice a few days after this commandment was given, he spoke the ten commandments in the hearing of all Israel. Exodus 19:5, 6; 20:1-22; Deuteronomy 4:12, 13.MMM 12.2

The Apostle to the Hebrews says that the law had a shadow of good things to come: then that law was certainly typical. Its offerings could not make perfect, because the blood offered by it could not take away sin. The law of which he here speaks had sacrifices and offerings; but the law of God, the law of moral precepts, does not speak “concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices.” Thus, by comparison, we find that two different laws are spoken of in the New Testament: one which is not made void through faith in Christ, which he came not to destroy; and another which he blotted out, and nailed to his cross. One a spiritual, holy, just and good law, the doers of which would be justified, by which is the knowledge of sin, of which Paul discourses to the Romans; the other, treated of in the epistle to the Hebrews, weak and unprofitable, carnal, making nothing perfect, containing mere shadows of good things to come. By the same method of comparison, we are led to the conclusion that one and the same law is spoken of to the Romans and Galatians; and also by the fact that the declarations in Galatians cannot be made to apply to the ceremonial law.MMM 12.3

The letter to the Galatians is supposed to have been written about two years before that to the Romans, and on that account might have claimed the first investigation; but many are ready to admit that the Apostle to the Romans reasons concerning the moral law, who will not make the same admission respecting his letter to the Galatians; therefore we have given that our first attention, and proved, we trust, that not a single declaration has been found therein which can be referred to the ceremonial or Levitical law. We are now prepared to examine that to the Galatians, and expect that all will agree with us that this treats solely of the moral law, if an analogy can be shown between the main positions in the two epistles. Two expressions are found in Romans, [Chap. 7:23; 8:2,] which do not refer to the ten commandments; nor yet to the Levitical law; but the only place in Galatians where law is used in reference to any thing but the ten commandments, is in Chap. 6:2: “the law of Christ.” If this declaration is found to be correct, and it can be shown that the Apostle’s reasoning tends to prove the perpetuity of the law of which it treats, then the epistle to the Galatians may be considered a strong hold by those who “delight in the law of God.”MMM 12.4

To whom, and under what circumstances, did the Apostle write this letter? His declaration of what he said to Peter at Antioch, some six years before, shows that they had been troubled with judaizing teachers, who did not understand that justification was obtained wholly through Christ “without the law.” Romans 3:19-23. This is also shown in Galatians 4:21; 5:1-4, but this does not prove that they were Jews to whom he wrote, or that judaism was the only error with which they were in danger of being affected. It has been supposed by some that, although this was “written to the churches of Galatia,” these churches were composed of Jewish converts resident in that country; but the expressions of Paul in Chap. 1:13, 14, evidently contradicts this. He told them they had heard of his conversation in times past in “the Jews’ religion.” When speaking of himself and others of his nation, [Acts 26:4, 5,] he used the phrase, “our religion.” Again, in Galatians 1:14, he said, “And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.” This was not his method of speaking when addressing himself to the Jews. At Rome he called the chief of the Jews together, and said, “I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers.” Acts 28:17; 26:5.MMM 12.5

It has also been supposed that Galatians 4:8-10, refers to the ceremonies of the Levitical law, and must have been written to those who had observed that law-“When ye knew not God, ye did service to them which by nature are no gods;” and in referring again to this service he says, “Ye observe days and months and times and years.” The ceremonies of the Levitical law were never contrary to the knowledge of God; never observed by those who knew not God; nor was their observance indicative of a “service to them which by nature are no gods;” inasmuch as they were required in the service of the true God under the former dispensation; so that these expressions plainly prove the contrary. But of this we shall speak more at length when we come to an examination of this chapter.MMM 12.6

It is declared in Romans 3:23, that all have sinned, and this declaration is based on the authority of the scriptures; and let it be remarked, that in the New Testament dispensation the Apostle quotes from the Old Testament to prove that Jews and Gentiles were alike sinners. But this scripture could have no bearing on the point, if the Gentiles were not amenable to the law in the Old Testament. Neither would it be in point if the law which existed at the time the scripture was written had passed away before the Apostle quoted it; yet he has adduced it as the proof, and we are satisfied to rest it there, and consider them sinners on that authority. As Jews and Gentiles are all sinners, the Jew has no pre-eminence, but must come to Christ for justification the same as the Gentile. But Peter “was to be blamed,” because he separated himself, and compelled the Gentiles to live as the Jews, thereby building again the distinction which had been destroyed by the manifestation of God’s righteousness through faith in Christ. Romans 3:21-23; Ephesians 2:13, 14. The remarks respecting the law, in this chapter are parallel with those in Romans. By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. For I through the law am dead to the law that I might live unto God. Galatians 2:16, 19. See Romans 3:20; 6:11; 7:4, 9. It might be inferred from Galatians 3:2-5, that he is no longer speaking of the moral law; but we must remember that justification cannot be obtained by a law, however holy and just it may be, after it is transgressed; and those who receive the Spirit, or work miracles, must necessarily do so by faith, and not by the works of the law. But this argues nothing against the law, as it does not cease to be holy because it does not justify the transgressor; on the contrary, we could have no regard for a law which had not power to hold the transgressor under condemnation. If the transgressor of a law can justly escape its penalty, then the law itself is unjust, and should not be enforced. That which our opponents urge against the law, viz., that it holds men under the curse, is a strong argument for its justice and perpetuity.MMM 12.7

As Abraham was justified by faith, made perfect by works, so we are the children of Abraham, if we are of faith, and do the works of Abraham: not merely believe the word, but “walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham.” Romans 4:12. The gospel was preached to Abraham-the promise made of a blessing to the nations, because God would justify the nations through faith. So then they which be of faith, whether they are circumcised or not, are blessed with faithful Abraham. Romans 4:11; Galatians 3:7, 9. As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse. Verse 10. Does this mean, that as many as do the works of the law, or keep the law, are under the curse? Surely not. Paul says, the doers of the law shall be justified; and James says, Whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, shall be blessed in his deed-not cursed. The law was ordained unto life, but the wages of sin, or transgression of the law, is death. It is because they have not kept it, or continued therein, that they are cursed, as the quotation in verse 10 proves:-“For it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them.” Compare Deuteronomy 27:10, 26; 28:1, 2, 15; Psalm 119:21. That the Apostle is here speaking of the moral law, is evident, as it is a law that not only curses the transgressor, but by observing which a man would live. Verse 12. See Leviticus 18:5; Ezekiel 20:11, 21. From the curse of this law Christ has redeemed us, being made a curse for us, that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ. Verses 13, 14. Two important points are presented in these verses: (1.) Christ has redeemed the Gentiles from the curse of this law. (2.) The curse of this law, unless removed by Christ, stands between us and the blessing of Abraham. That the work of redemption reaches the Gentiles none will deny; but that it reaches beyond the jurisdiction of this law, cannot be shown. This law holds the Gentiles under the curse, because by it is the knowledge of sin, and by it both Jews and Gentiles are proved sinners. But if the law was not given to the Gentiles, we fail to see how Christ can redeem them from its curse. Then the argument may be stated thus: The redemption of Christ reaches those only who are under the curse of the law; the law curses those only who transgress it; and those only can transgress it who are amenable to it, or to whom it was given. But it was a Jewish law, and not given to the Gentiles; therefore the redemption of Christ does not reach the Gentiles!!MMM 13.1

We have seen what it was to obey the voice of God, and what he commanded when his voice was heard. Deuteronomy 27:10. Moses said, “Thou shalt therefore obey the voice of the Lord thy God, and do his commandments and his statutes;” and in verse 26, it is said, “Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them.” Paul certainly refers to the same law, inasmuch as he quotes this scripture, and applies it to the Gentiles. But if any yet deny that this is spoken in reference to the moral law, or affirm that the Apostle includes the whole system of law under the former dispensation, it will be time to answer them further when they show what connection the Gentile nations had with the Levitical law, or what was its curse, and how they were brought under it.MMM 13.2

But God has promised that in Abraham and in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed. Genesis 22:18. Christ is the seed referred to in the promise; [Galatians 3:16;] and he redeems the nations from the curse of the law in order to fulfill the promise, or that the blessing of Abraham may be conferred on them. Some have contended that the law itself is a curse, standing between us and the blessing of Abraham; but this view is contradicted by verse 21, which directly declares that the law is not against the promises of God. It is not the law that withholds the blessing, but it is the curse of the law; and this falls only on the transgressor; therefore the transgression of the law deprives the transgressor of the blessing of Abraham; and this is a strong confirmation of what we have proved from other scriptures; viz., that the law is the condition of the Abrahamic covenant, and that the faithfully obedient secure the promised blessings. And on the supposition that the law stands disconnected from that covenant, or is not the condition on which it was based, it cannot be shown why the transgressor of the law is not entitled to the blessing of the covenant without redemption from the curse of the law.MMM 13.3

If this law had been kept by all, none would have been under its curse; and then no mediator would have been needed to secure to man the blessing of God. When the law is transgressed it is not set aside, neither are they who have transgressed it justified by future obedience. Then it becomes necessary to keep, not only the Commandments of God, the great and universal Law-giver, but also the Faith of Jesus, the Mediator between God and man, the Redeemer from the curse of God’s violated law. In order to understand the Apostle’s argument in Galatians, the object of this redemption should be kept in view, which is, that the blessing of Abraham might come on those who are redeemed. The covenant under which these blessings are given, was confirmed in Christ; as he is the seed to whom the promises were made, in whom all nations were to be blessed. Verses 16, 17. This is also shown, in verse 8, to be the gospel covenant. As the promises of the gospel were made to Abraham, he is constituted the father of all believers; and as before shown, the condition being violated, the blessing is conferred on those only who can claim them on the promise of God through faith in the Mediator. Compare Romans 4:12-16, with Galatians 3:17, 18. In considering verse 19, we would refer the reader to our remarks on Romans 5:20, where it is evident that the same law entered that was transgressed, otherwise it would not have the effect to cause the offense to abound. Here it is said that the law was added because of transgression. What was transgressed? Not, as some have vainly contended, the promise made to Abraham; for man cannot transgress the promise of God, though they can his law. It will be noticed that Paul does not introduce another law in verse 19, but speaks throughout of “the law,” so we must consider him as speaking of the same law unless there is something in the argument which renders it positively necessary that another law should enter or be added because of transgression. But in Romans 5:20, it is seen to be necessary that the same law that was transgressed should enter to cause the offense to abound; so in Galatians 3:19, when we inquire into the nature and office of the law that was added, there will be no difficulty in viewing it as the same that was transgressed. The law was added to serve as a school-master to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified through faith: justification by the law being impossible by reason of transgression. Here it is evident that he refers to the moral law; for none but a moral law could bring us to Christ. He is the only Saviour from sin; and as the sick need a physician, so the sinful need a Saviour. But in order that the sinner come to Christ, he must be made sensible of his sinful condition; this can be done only by the law; for “by the law is the knowledge of sin.” So “the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul;” perfect as a standard of right, convincing of sin, and thus bringing us to Christ, the way of salvation. Such conversion is genuine and complete. Thus it is evident that the law spoken of in Galatians 3:19, 24, is a moral law, one that will detect and convince of sin.MMM 13.4

But it is asked, was the law added to the law? No: “the covenant confirmed before of God in Christ” is the subject of the Apostle’s discourse; and it was this to which the law was added. But it has been clearly proved that the law was also the condition of that covenant; neither was it added so as to become the condition of the Abrahamic covenant a second time, but as the condition of another covenant, the blessings of which did not rest on the promise of God through Christ, but on the obedience of those with whom it was made. As they had all transgressed, by entering into a covenant of works, or obedience, their weakness and sinfulness was made manifest; and thus the law brought them to a reliance on Jesus Christ for freedom from the curse which they had incurred by disobedience. Through Christ the Gentiles also receive the adoption of sons, being Abraham’s seed by faith, where there is neither Jew nor Greek, but all one in Christ; the Gentiles being “fellow-heirs, and of the same body, partakers of his promise in Christ, by the gospel,” [Ephesians 3:6,] according to God’s word to Abraham.MMM 14.1

As the heir, while yet a child, differs in nothing from a servant, so we, before we were redeemed from the curse of the law, and received the adoption of sons, were in bondage under the elements of the world, and by nature the children of wrath, even as others. In what respect we were under the elements of the world, we learn from Ephesians 2:1-3. “Were dead in trespasses and sins; wherein in time past ye walked, according to the course of this world, according 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, and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.” Thus we see that to be in bondage under the elements of the world is being in a state of sin, which is compared to that of a child who is under tutors and governors; so we were under a school-master, under the law, which has been shown to be under condemnation. The following expression of the same idea from the pen of Bro. J. N. Andrews, may be found in the Review and Herald, Vol. 2, page 29:-MMM 14.2

“The bondage of the Jewish church did not consist in that God had given them his law, but because they were its transgressors-the servants of sin. John 8:33-36. The freedom of the children of ‘Jerusalem which is above’ does not consist in that the law has been abolished, but in that they have been made free from sin. Romans 6:22.”MMM 14.3

We have all been in bondage under the elements of the world, [Galatians 4:3,] and Christ was made under the law, [verse 4,] to redeem them that were under the law, [verse 5,] and God hath given us the spirit of his Son; [verse 6;] wherefore we are no longer bond-men, but sons and heirs through Christ. Verse 7. The expression in verse 8, as we have shown, does not refer to the Levitical law. As that law was not contrary to the knowledge of God, it was never observed by those who had not the knowledge of God; its observance did not indicate “service to them which by nature are no gods,” but was required in the service of the true God under the former covenant. Then it is evident that turning back to the weak and beggarly elements, to which they wished again to be in bondage, [verse 9,] would be returning to a life of sin. Neither does verse 10 refer to the Levitical law, but to the former customs of the Galatians, who were Gentiles or heathen; and therefore they could not have lived in the observance of the law given to Israel through Moses. This conclusion is not only reasonable, but unavoidable, when we consider that the observance of times was a heathen custom, strictly prohibited by the Lord at the same time that the law of Moses was enjoined.... [End of extract pp. 69-83] [Extract from pp. 108, 109] ... the different conditions of those who are under them. We have found him convincing of sin by the moral law; proving that the Gentiles are under the law, from the curse of which Christ redeems them; and that by effecting this redemption he constitutes them heirs of the promise made to Abraham and children of the Jerusalem above; and we cannot see how any one can doubt that the bondage of the children of old Jerusalem consisted in that they were transgressors of God’s law, the servants of sin; and the liberty in which we are exhorted to stand fast is freedom from sin-the liberty we enjoy in Christ while we follow that form of doctrine whereto we were delivered. Romans 6:17; margin.MMM 14.4

As it is evident that none but the moral law is spoken of in Galatians 3, and that the redemption in Chap. 4, is from the curse of that law, if, as has been supposed, the Apostle speaks of the law of Moses in the first part of Chap. 5, he has changed his subject very abruptly and without any apparent reason. But we think it is clear that the liberty spoken of in chapter 5:1, is freedom from sin, and that the “yoke of bondage” has no reference to the Levitical law; and if a change is made from the moral to the Levitical law, in verses 2-5, we must find place for another change when we come to verse 14; for the great principle there quoted, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” is developed solely by the moral law. See Matthew 22:39, 40; James 2:8. Compare Galatians 5:18-23. But arbitrary changes of this kind are not allowable, as, if allowed, they would be destructive to the force of any argument that might be adduced; therefore if such changes are made from one law to the other in a continuous discourse, a clear necessity will be apparent in the connection.MMM 15.1

The main reason for supposing that the law of Moses is referred to in Galatians 5:2-5, is the fact that it stands in the text connected with circumcision; but this of itself can be no reason at all with those who have carefully examined the epistle to the Romans. “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.” Galatians 5:2, 3. We learn from Romans 4:11, that circumcision was given to Abraham as a sign of the righteousness of his faith; but as the doers of the law would also be justified, if any did the law, they too would be righteous, and circumcision would to them be valid as a sign; for Paul says in Romans 2:25, “Circumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the law:” not a part of it, but the whole law; but if the whole law is not kept, circumcision becomes a useless and unmeaning ceremony; for, he adds, “If thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.” Therefore if they claimed any profit from circumcision they thereby acknowledged themselves in fact “debtors to do the whole law.” No one can for a moment suppose that Romans 2, either in whole or in part, refers to the law of Moses; yet the connection between circumcision and the law is the same as in Galatians 5. And again it is said in Romans 4:4, that “to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace but of debt;” but the works must be of such a kind as to merit a reward. [End of extract from pp. 108, 109.]MMM 15.2

DELEGATES IN ATTENDANCE AT MINNEAPOLIS

Stephen Pierce in The Review and Herald, October 8, 1857