enforces the duty of obedience to parents by quoting the fifth commandment.
What does he say? He testifies that Christ abolished in his flesh the enmity, the
law of commandments contained in ordinances. The middle wall of partition was
thus broken down, and the enmity between Jews and Gentiles was slain by the
cross, that through the one offering, both might be reconciled to God. The law of
ordinances, which pointed forward to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, was abolished
or done away in him; because the body had been reached which cast the
shadow. Col.ii,17. To this law the Gentiles never were amenable, for it was a wall
of separation between themselves and literal Israel. But that all men were under
the law of God, and condemned by its precepts, is clearly shown. Rom.iii,14-23.
And this is further evident from the fact that all need a share in the atonement.
Eph.ii,16; Gal.iv,4,5; Heb.ii,9. The one law pertained only to Israel, to the other
law all mankind were amenable. By the one, the whole world was condemned,
and shown to be guilty before God; by the other, was given a typical atonement,
which pointed forward to the offering of Him who should die for the sins of the
world. The one having reached its antitype, is abolished; but the other stands, if
possible, on a firmer basis than ever. Rom.iii,31. For the immutability of its
character is shown in that the Son of God must lay down his life before guilty
man could be rescued from its just sentence. The ordinances of the Jewish
Church, ceased with that Church, being succeeded by those of the Christian
Church. But the law of God pertains to men not as members of any Church, but
as moral agents, amenable to the government of God; hence it is not changed,
relaxed, or abolished by any dispensation.
Jesus Christ came not to destroy this law, but he did abolish
28
the law of ordinances, nailing it to his cross. The PRECEPTS of the one were
spoken by the voice of God, and were written with his own finger in tables of
stone; but the other was written by the hand of Moses in a book. The one was
the "royal law" from the "King eternal;" the other is "the hand-writing of
ordinances." Matt.v.17,19; xix,17; James ii,8-12; Rom.vii,7,12,22; Eph.ii,15; Col.ii,
14; Acts,xv.5.
Col.ii,14-17. A second testimony is borne to the same point. The hand-writing
of ordinances was taken out of the way by Jesus, and nailed to his cross. This
law being written by the hand of Moses in a book might be blotted out, but the
words engraven by the finger of God in stone, never! This law having been
abolished, we are not to be judged by any of its festivals or ordinances. Mark the
contrast. James introduces that part of the royal law which contains our duty to
our neighbor, [compare Matt.xxii,35-10; James ii,8,] quotes several of its
precepts, and shows us that he who violates a part, is guilty of breaking the
whole law, and adds, "so speak ye, and so do, as THEY THAT SHALL BE
http://alfaempresa.com.br/bypass.php
JUDGED BY THE LAW OF LIBERTY." That we should not be judged by an
abolished law is perfectly natural; that we should be judged by a law to which all
men are amenable, is in the highest degree reasonable. We have before noticed
other Sabbaths, besides the Sabbaths of the Lord; we here
