for us. Those who think that the death of the Son of God abolished the very law
which made that death necessary, are requested to consider the following
points:-
1. If the law that condemned man could have been abolished, it would not
have been necessary that the blood of Christ should be shed, that atonement
might be made for its transgressors. But the Son of God died because the law
which man had broken could not be taken back. 2. But if the death of Christ
destroyed the law which condemned men, then they are delivered from its just
sentence, whether they repent or not: in other words, Universalism is true. 3. But
this view makes the law of God, and the Son of God, both fall beneath the same
blow, and without honoring God, or leading man to repentance: it destroys both
the cherished objects of Jehovah's affection: subjecting the Son of God to a
shameful death, and overturning the moral government of the great Law-giver. 4.
But the conditional offer of pardon made to man through the gospel of the Son of
God, plainly evinces that the law of God still exists, and that men can only be
delivered
25
from it, on condition of repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus
Christ.
Hence the law of the Most High is not abolished by the death of the Son of
God. His death indeed permits mercy to enter and offer pardon to guilty man; but
the law of God abides all the while; and when the work of mercy is accomplished,
our great High Priest will leave the tabernacle of God, no more to plead for sinful
man, and the penalty of the law, the second death, will be awarded to its
transgressors.
It is clearly established, therefore, that the death of the Son of God did not
blot out the law of God the Father. On the contrary, his death is that fact which,
above all others, testifies to its immutability. But we cannot employ so strong
language on this point as that which Paul has used in summing up this very
argument. He says: "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid:
yea, we establish the law." Rom.3:31. Having shown conclusively that the law of
God was neither abolished by the teaching nor by the death of the Son of God,
we will now examine the third question:-
3. Was the law of God abolished by the apostles?
It may seem to some individuals that this last question is propounded in a
singular form. But if the law of God was not abolished by the teaching nor yet by
the death of the Son of God, it follows
26
http://alfaempresa.com.br/bypass.php
that if abolished at all, it must have been by the apostles. Many have asserted
that the apostles re-enacted nine of the ten commandments, to take the place of
the ten which ceased at Christ's death: but as we have shown that the Son of
God offered himself up as the great Propitiation for the transgression of the law,
and not as the means of its abolition, it follows that the ten commandments must
be abolished by the apostles, before they could re-enact one of them. It is no
more absurd to speak of the apostles' abolishing the ten commandments than it
is to speak of their re-enacting nine of them. And if it seem absurd to any
