But the question, "Who has abolished the law" becomes deeply interesting. We
ask, who? Surely not the apostles. Such power was never delegated to men. Not
the Son of God. He was "made under the law," and himself informs us that he did
not come to destroy it. Gal.iv; Matt.v,17-19. There is but one being in the universe
who can be supposed to possess this power; we mean the great "Law-giver." -
James iv. And it would be well for our opponents to show how the Most High can
take back a law which is perfect, spiritual, holy, just, and good? How can he
abolish a law, which says, Thou shalt have no other Gods before me? How can
he take back the statute, which forbids the worship of idols? How can he say to
man, I repeal the law which forbids you to take my name in vain? How give men
the license to profane the day, which he has sanctified as a memorial of himself?
Or, which is the substance of the whole matter, How can he abolish the great
commandment, which says, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,
and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind?" For on this great commandment
hang those precepts which contain our duty to God.
But we leave the question, how God could take back a law which embodies
his own attributes, and inquire further, Has the divine "Law-giver" abolished his
own law? Our opponents affirm, we deny. Let us listen to their proof. - "1. God
gave the law for a limited period, which expired at Christ's death. - Gal.iii,19.
Hence, the law expired by limitation. 2. He has abolished the law at the
crucifixion. IICor.iii." These two testimonies are the most important ones offered
to sustain the position. To this view we reply, that if the law expired by limitation,
then it could not be abolished. If it was abolished, then it did not expire by
limitation. The language of Scripture being truth, and its statements not
inconsistent with themselves, we say that that position is unscriptural, whose
main proofs destroy each other. In an examination of the first of these proofs, we
pointed out the distinction between a law, and the ministration
19
of a law. With reference to the words engraven on stone, we say, that
"condemnation" and "death" were there; for whilst they were condemned and
made guilty the whole world, they could not, without an atonement, give life to
any. Rom.iii,19.24,26; Gal.iii,21. To conclude the point, we say, that if Gal.iii,19,
avails anything for our opponents, it shows that the law was not repealed, but
that it expired by limitation.
Setting aside these conflicting views, we come to a point where thee is,
perhaps, perfect agreement. On some ground or other, all admit that none of the
precepts of the Decalogue are binding on us. The sentiment stands thus: When
the law expired, the Lawgiver transferred all of its precepts, save one, to the New
Testament. In another place, we have pointed out the absurdity of the abolition
and the re-enactment of the law of God. To make use of Gal.iii, the first position is
abandoned, and the view is now presented in its stead, that the law has expired
through limitation., But the difficulty still remains. For leaving the question,
Whether such a law could ever be limited to a period of time, we say, that it is still
necessary to show that any part of the law has been re-enacted. It is idle to talk
http://alfaempresa.com.br/bypass.php
of the transfer of a law which does not exist. For that which is not in existence