Theologically, I am what might termed
'conservative evangelical'.
But this description appears to be getting broader and broader,
so a few have asked for more clarity of description. Well, I am
really 'reformed' but the reformed movement appears to have
developed two clear 'wings'; there is that part of the reformed
movement which feels itself to be in a straight descent from the
Puritans and which is noted for a rather strict and
uncompromising approach.
But there is another wing which while firmly adhering to the
great doctrines of grace, is rather more 'open'; this more left
wing (for the want of a better term) of the reformed movement
has, I feel, rather less of a siege mentality and does not always
insist that they alone have all answers. Again, the more
'puritan' wing would reject a great many modern hymns as well as
only accepting the KJV Bible. Yet many of us who also feel
ourselves to be reformed would have to reject such an austere
approach for, we feel, solid biblical reasons.
I'm afraid that it is also true that the most strict reformed
wing also tends to be a little legalistic and frequently seem
prepared to impose things on congregations which do not recognise
the liberty which we have in Christ. As an example, the attitude
to Sunday will often quickly reveal where such a congregation
stands.
First Day Sabbatarianism is often to be noted in the more strict
reformed churches, while many of us would insist that Sunday is
The Lord's Day and never has been the Sabbath! We believe that
the full meaning of the Sabbath has now been fulfilled in Christ,
with the Lord's Day celebrating His resurrection, but without
unreasonable restriction.
I'm afraid that that most austere and uncompromising wing of the
reformed movement has also very often not explained the
Gospel/Law tension as well as the Dispensationalists. One
reformed writer, for instance, said that while the law cannot
save us, but only Christ can, "we still stand under it in
obedience". While the writer who wrote that is a very sincere
man, that is really a rather poor explanation of the Christian's
stance and failing to correctly understand this point, will tend
to lead one into legalism.
The very fine writing which follows, is highly recommended
reading for anybody not quite understanding this Gospel/Law
relationship in the Christian's life. In short, the Christian is
now under the grace of Christ and the law no longer stands over
such a person. We no longer look to the Old Covenant code but to
the Law of Christ which is summarized in the Sermon on the
Mount.
The article is very long; why not put it on your 'Favourites'
list and come back and read it very gradually? I am very grateful
to Jon Zens for making it available to us.
Robin A. Brace, 2002.
HERE IS THE ARTICLE:
In the context of these excerpts, Pieters made this
observation:
The establishment of this Old Covenant at Mt. Sinai was an event
of the first magnitude in the history of the people of God . . .
but it has not caught the attention of the ordinary Bible reader
because its importance has been over-looked in reverence for the
Ten Commandments, which form a part of the story. The glory of a
part has in this case dimmed the glory of the whole (p.25).
He then goes on to trace "the chief steps in the process of
instituting this Sinaitic Covenant" (p.26).
Accompanied by very terrifying manifestations of earthquake, fire
and smoke, God then announced, in an audible voice, in the
hearing of all the people, the ten great fundamental requirements
of the covenant. That these were really spoken so that the people
heard and understood what was said, is so repeatedly and
emphatically stated, and forms so essential a part of the story,
that it must be accepted by every one who retains respect for the
record as a trustworthy account of what took place. There is no
room here for any figurative or symbolical interpretation.
Afterwards Moses ascended the mountain and received the Ten
Commandments in written form, but their original proclamation was
oral, not by Moses but by God Himself.
The people, greatly terrified by thus hearing God speak to them,
approached Moses and begged that he should intercede with the
Lord, that this should take place no more (Exod. 20:19; Deut
5:23-29). This request received the divine approval, and hence we
read nothing further of any direct voice from heaven until it
occurs three times in the life of our Lord.
In accordance with the request of the people, all further
regulations with regard to the covenant were communicated through
Moses. They were written in a book called, "The Book of the
Covenant" (Exod 24:4-7; Deut 31:24-26).
As recorded in Exodus 24, this book was then consecrated and
confirmed by a solemn sacrifice, the blood of the victims being
sprinkled both on the altar and on the people, when they formally
gave their consent to the covenant. The writer of the Epistle to
the Hebrews says that Moses sprinkled the blood also upon the
book; but where he got that information we do not know. No such
thing is found in the Exodus account (Heb 8:29).
Finally, the establishment of the covenant was celebrated by a
formal congratulatory dinner, at which God was the host and the
representatives of the people were the guests (Exo 24:9-11). We
find it difficult to conceive exactly what took place, especially
in view of the statement that they saw God (John 1:18), but in
all probability there was some sort of theophany, similar to
those in Abraham's day, which made the presence of God palpable
and impressive to the assembled elders.
All of this, of course, was a pedagogical method, in which God
condescended to the mental and moral state of the people. Whether
we understand the details or not, the central significance of the
transaction is crystal clear to us, as it was to the people of
Israel at that time. It means that God was making with the seed
of Abraham a new contract of the highest importance, by which
their life was henceforth to be regulated.
To the original Book of the Covenant other laws and regulations
were added from time to time. Strictly speaking, these were not
part of the Old Covenant, but they were given to Israel as now
organized under this Sinaitic Covenant, and by virtue of it. Dr.
John D. Davis, in his "Dictionary of the Bible," aptly says that
the Ten Commandments were the constitution of the theocracy and
the other laws were the bylaws. All of these regulations and
ordinances together constituted the Mosaic Law, called in Hebrew
the "Torah"; which term later came to be applied to the entire
Pentateuch.
Eight Observations Concerning The Mosaic Covenant
1. That it contained laws in regard to the moral life, to the
manner of religious worship, to civil relations, and to the
personal life in matters not readily classified as moral,
liturgical or civil in the ordinary sense of these terms. The
rules in the last four classes are those [such as] planting a
field with two kinds of seed, or wearing a garment woven from two
kinds of yar (Lev 19:19), to food permitted or forbidden, to
personal habits, etc. For some of the regulations we can now
perceive reasons of hygiene, for others no reasons at all. The
chief purpose of their enactment was probably to make the
Israelites a disciplined people, a people conscious almost every
hour of their lives of the distinction between right and wrong,
clean and unclean, things permitted and things forbidden; so that
those who took themselves seriously must be continually relating
their conduct in its most minute details to the will of God. This
made them a supremely God-conscious people.
It also continually gave them the feeling that they were not like
other nations, who stood in no such covenant relation to God; and
this was, no doubt, the second very important purpose of all
these regulations. They hedged in the Israelites so that it was
difficult for them to mingle in social relations with other
races. Ultimately it was their destiny, under the Abrahamic
Covenant, to be a blessing to the whole world, but that time had
not yet come. For the present, the less intercourse the better.
Therefore, Paul calls these ordinances a "middle wall of
partition" between Jew and Gentile (Eph 2:14-15). . . .
It is neither necessary nor possible, in this discussion, to
enter deeply into the nature of the liturgical and civil laws
belonging to the Sinaitic Covenant. The ... civil laws especially
have awakened the admiration of students of ancient law. They
were not absolutely new. Archaeological research has thrown great
light upon this subject, and has taught us that these Mosaic laws
were based upone the legal principles and practices of the
Semitic peoples, with significant modifications and additions.
Particularly noteworthy are the provisions for the protection of
the poor, the criminal, the slave, and the resident alien. Human
rights are given precedence over property rights in may cases, in
a manner unknown to other ancient law, or even to European law
down to comparatively recent times. Moses was not guilty of the
least exaggeration when he said to the people:
What great nation is there that has statutes and ordinances so
righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day? (Deut
4:8).
2. We further observe that among all these laws the Moral Law
stands disctinctly first and supreme. The civil, liturgical and
personal regulations all belonged to the Covenant in a subsidiary
sense, but the Decalogue, having to do primarily, and almost
exclusively, with the moral life, was The Covenant itself.
As this identification of the Sinaitic Covenant with the Ten
Commandments is not immediately self-evident and has been often
overlooked, let us pay attention to the Scriptural proof of it.
In Exod. 34:28 we read:
And He [God] wrote upon the tables of the words of the covenant,
the Ten Commandments (cf. Deut 4:13, 9:9, 9:15).
We may learn the same thing by comparison of two passages in 1
Kings 8. In the 9th verse we read the following statement,
occurring in the story of the dedication of the temple:
There was nothing in the ark except the two tables of stone which
Moses put there at Horeb, when Jehovah made a covenant with the
children of Israel, when they came out of Egypt.
In the 21st verse of the same chapter Solomon says:
And there have I set a place for the ark, wherein is the covenant
of Jehovah, which He made with our fathers, when He brought them
out of the land of Egypt.
The second verse of these two texts is repeated in 2 Chron
6:11.
From the above Scripture passages we see clearly that while the
civil, liturgical and personal regulations rest upon the Sinaitic
Covenant, yet they are not the covenant itself: that supreme
position belongs to the Ten Commandments. Because they
constituted the covenant, therefore the golden casket in which
they were deposited was called "the ark of the covenant" (Num
10:33; Jer 3:16, et al.).
Sinaitic Covenant Made Only With Israel
3. Having seen that the Sinaitic Covenant is identical with the
Decalogue, we must also see clearly the following fact: This
Sinaitic Covenant was made by God with the Seed of Abraham, the
children of Israel, and with them only. No part of it was
directed to or intended for those who were outside the Abrahamic
Covenant; nor was any commandment in it, from the least to the
greatest of them, addressed by God to anyone but the Seed of
Abraham alone.
This is so evident from the circumstances of the case that it
seems almost absurd to present an argument to prove it: and yet
this is not superfluous, for it has been widely and insistently
taught that the Ten Commandments are the law of God for all men
everywhere and in all ages, the immutable, proclaimed at Sinai
for the government of the whole human race.
It is not difficult to see how such a mistunderstanding arose,
for obviously all, or at least almost all of the duties required
in the Decalogue do belong to the universal and immutable Moral
Law, and yet thus to identify the two is truly a
misunderstanding, and we shall fall into grave errors unless we
recognize it as such. The duties of the Ten Commandments did not
then for the first time become moral obligations to the
Israelites when God proclaimed them from Mt. Sinai; except the
prohibition of the images and the duty of observing the Sabbath
upon the seventh day of the week. We have only to ask whether
adultery and murder were not wrong in the days of Abraham.
Similarly, the ordinary moral duties required in the Decalogue
have been recognized as moral obligations by the rest of mankind
from the beginning, entirely without reference to the Ten
Commandments. This is not true, of course, of the religious
duties, which are dependent upon the monotheistic faith. For the
rest, even where the Ten Commandments have never been heard of,
men know, and always have known, that they ought to do what is
commanded in them. The Chinese, for example, have not the
Decalogue, but are outstanding in their devotion to what is
required in the Fifth Commandment.
All this is clear from the facts, and is tersely stated for us by
the apostle Paul in the following words:
When the Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things
in the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto
themselves, in that they show the work of the law written in
their hearts (Rom 2:14-15).
The Relationship of Duty To The Decalogue
Hence, this is the way we must think of the matter:
Whatever in the Decalogue is a duty for us or for all mankind, is
such a duty, not at all because the Ten Commandments make it our
duty, but because it was a duty before they were given, and would
have equally been the duty of all men, even if they had never
been given.
This is the same as saying that no moral duty for us arises out
of the Ten Commandments. They were not addressed to us and impose
no obligation upon us. They were for the Seed of Abraham under
the Sinaitic Covenant, and for them alone. There were no others
present and addressed nor do we find in the Bible any command to
make them known to other nations; nor are other nations ever
blamed for any violation of them. They constituted a covenant by
virtue of which God made Israel to be a peculiar people for His
own possession. Now the very essence of being peculiar is to be
different. The law, therefore, or covenant, which was intended to
make Israel a peculiar people, by that very fact is seen to be
something in which other peoples had no share.
The wording agrees with this state of affairs. Listen to the
prologue:
I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt,
out of the house of bondage.
This is like the address of a letter. If by accident a letter
falls into my hands addressed to someone else, I know at once
that it is not intended for me. So it is here. In the Fifth
Commnandment we read: "That your days may be long in the land
which the Lord your God gives you." What land is that? The land
of Canaan, of course, It is not the United States of America.
Read the reason for observing the Sabbath given in the
Deuteronomy form of the Decalogue, and the same thing is
clear.
The Crucial Difference Between "Profitable for Instruction" and
"Legally Binding"
Now, do not misunderstand me. This insistence of mine that the
Ten Commandments were given to the Seed of Abraham only, and not
to the rest of mankind, is not intended to disparage this grand
law, or to discourage the reading of it in our churches and the
use of it for religious instruction. Not at all. The apostle
says:
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable
for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness (2 Tim 3:16).
If this is true of the whole Old Testament, manifestly it is true
in the highest degree of the Decalogue, and so has been found to
be in use; but this being "profitable for instruction" is not the
same as being directly and legally binding. The general civil
laws of Israel are very much worth studying, and thus are
"profitable for instruction," but no one imagines that they are
of legal force for us.
The Right Use of the Ten Commandments
What, then, is the right use of the Ten Commandments? It is to
look upon their contents as, for the most part, a limited and
temporary formulation of universal moral principles, together
with some things applicable to Israel alone. In themselves, and
as they stand, they were intended for Israel only and but for a
time. Since they constitute the covenant made at Sinai, they lost
their legal force with the passing away of that covenant; but the
moral principles contained therein are universal and
immutable.
We have said that the Ten Commandments contain universal moral
principles "together with some things applicable to Israel
alone." One of those things is the prohibition of making images
or pictures....
Another such thing is the position assigned to the wife in the
Tenth Commandment, as a part of her husband's property, together
with his slaves, his ox and his ass.
A third thing is the commandment to observe the seventh day of
the week, which we shall discuss later.
To some people the distinction made above between the Ten
Commandments themselves and the moral principles which they
embody will no doubt seem vague and unimportant, something little
better than theological hair-splitting; but this is far from
being the case. If a man recognizes certain moral principles as
binding upon him, without an express commandment, he is free to
work out the application of such principles for himself; but if
he believes that a certain divine commandment is addressed to
him, he has no such liberty, but must obey it exactly as given.
To be guided by moral principles is therefore the state of a
moral adult; to be told by way of commandment what he has to do,
is the state of a servant or a child, as St. Paul points out in
Gal 4:1-3.
The Example of the Sabbath Commandment
Let us take the Fourth Commandment as an illustration of these
principles. Say that this commandment embodies something of
universal and permanent value, namely that the welfare of men and
the public worship of God require a weekly day of rest, and our
Sunday is as good an observance of it as the seventh-day Sabbath.
Call that a commandment, on the other hand, a divine order
addressed to us, and there is no excuse for substituting another
day of the week. Upon that basis the Sabbatarian position of the
Seventh-Day Baptists and Adventists is, in my judgment,
impregnable; but their premise is wrong. They rest their whole
case upon the contention that the Ten Commandments, in manner and
form as given, are permanent and are God's law for the whole
world, not understanding that they are identical with the Old
Covenant, made with Israel only, and that this covenant has been
done away in Christ. . . .
The Mosaic Covenant Not Opposed To The Abrahamic
Covenant.
4. This Sinaitic Covenant, being given to the Seed of Abraham,
did not in any way alter the terms of the Abrahamic Covenant,
under which they already were, nor did it supersede or annul that
covenant. For this we have the word of the apostle Paul:
Now this I say, a covenant confirmed beforehand by God the law,
which came 430 years after, does not disannul, to make the
promise of none effect (Gal 3:17).
The statement of the Scofield Reference Bible, already referred
to, that by their acceptance of the Sinaitic Covenant the people
of Israel "exchanged grace for law," is directly contrary to this
apostolic doctrine. Whatever grace they enjoyed before the
institution of the Sinaitic Covenant was their portion unaltered
after that had taken place.
5. The next point to be remembered is this: As the covenant at
Mt. Sinai was made with the Seed of Abraham only, and with no one
else, so it was made with all the Seed of Abraham. No one under
the Abrahamic Covenant could refuse to accept this new
supplementary contract without losing his standing as a member of
the Abrahamic group.
The Sign of the Mosaic Covenant Was The Sabbath
6. Our next observation concerning the Sinaitic Covenant is that
it had a sign, and that this sign was the seventh-day Sabbath. As
the covenant with Noah had a sign - the rainbow; and as the
Abrahamic Covenant had a sign - circumcision; so the Sinaitic
Covenant also had its sign, and it was the observance of the
Sabbath according to the Fourth Commandment. This is another
thing that is commonly overlooked, but it is definitely stated in
the Holy Scriptures. We read as follows:
Verily you shall keep my sabbaths, for it is a sign between me
and you throughout your generations; that you may know that I am
Jehovah who sanctifies you (Exod 31:13; cf Exo 31:16; Exek
20:11-12; 20:19-20).
What is a sign, or badge? Is it not a mark of some kind to
distinguish people who have the right to wear it from others who
have not? No one but a soldier has the right to wear the uniform
of a soldier, for it is a sign that he is a soldier. No one but a
policeman has the right to wear a policeman's badge. No one but a
member of a certain fraternal order has the right to display the
badge or distinguishing sign of that order.
So it is here. The Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment was a sign
of the Sinaitic Covenant, and it was definitely intended, not for
the world, but to be the distinguishing mark of the Seed of
Abraham under the Old Covenant, to be observed by them and not by
others, so long as that covenant lasted. Hence we see that Calvin
was absolutely right, after having spoken of the creation
Sabbath, in saying:
Afterwards, in the Law, a new precept concerning the Sabbath was
given, which should be peculiar to the Jews, and but for a season
(Commentary on the Book of Genesis, chapter 2:1. Trans. by the
Rev. John King. Published by the Calvin Translation Society,
Edinburgh, 1847, Vol. I., p. 106. Republished by Eerdmans,
1948).
Not only is no one under any obligation to observe the Fourth
Commandment who is not an Old Covenant Israelite; no one else has
the right to observe it. It is the sign, the distinguishing
badge, of that covenant.
The Distinction Between "Moral," "Ceremonial," and "Civil"
Laws Is Not Valid As Used By Most Theologians
7. The entire Mosaic legislation, being all included under the
Sinaitic Covenant, is one body of law, and every part of it rests
upon the same divine authority. It has been very commonly divided
into three codes: the Moral Law, the Ceremonial Law, and the
Civil Law. To this there can be no objection if it is thereby
meant that there are moral, civil and ceremonial elements in the
Mosaic legislation. Certainly there are. They may be found side
by side in almost every part of it; but if it is intended to
affirm that these are three separate codes, the Moral Law, by
which is meant the Decalogue, the Civil Law, which was applicable
to the civil life of Israel, and the Ceremonial Law, by which
their public worship was regulated, it is not correct. Such a
division is then made the basis for holding that the civil law,
of course, became obsolete when the Israelites lost their civil
independence, and that the ceremonial law passed away in Christ,
but that the Moral Law, the Decalogue, remains in force and is
binding upon us today.
Now the trouble with this line of reasoning is that there is
absolutely no Scriptural basis for it. No such division into
three distinct codes can be discovered in the text. The three
element lie side by side, all having the same origin and the same
authority. The 19th chapter of Leviticus will be found to be an
interesting example of such a commingling of these elements.
Moreover, in the New Testament the indivisibility of the law is
strongly insisted upon. St. James says:
He that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now
if you do not commit adultery but kill, you are become a
transgressor of The Law (James 2:11).
Similarly, St. Paul says to those who wished to be
circumcised:
Yes, I testify to every man who receives circumcision that he is
a debtor to do the whole law (Gal 5:3).
That is to say: Place yourself under the law at one point, and
the indivisibility of the law forces you to accept the whole.
Quite so, the argument is unimpeachably sound. Therefore, we may
with equal right say: "He that said, Do not commit adultery also
said, You shall not round the corners of your heads, neither
shall you mar the corners of your beard" (Lev 19:27). It is all
commanded by the same God, with one and the same authority. The
reason for this untenable and artificial division of the Mosaic
legislation into the Moral Law, the Civil Law, and the Ceremonial
Law is the misunderstanding of the Ten Commandments and the
over-estimate of their significance to which reference has
already been made. This distinction then seems to justify the
teaching that the civil and ceremonial laws, to be sure, have
passed away and need not be observed by us, but that the
Decalogue abides as God's law for us. The underlying idea is
substantially right, but it cannot be justified by this kind of
reasoning. All of the Mosaic legislation stands or falls
together, and the Decalogue is the center of it. If the
permanence and the universal authority of the Moral Law is to be
maintained, it must be done, not by identifying it with the Ten
Commandments, but by distinguishing it from them, which were only
temporary and elementary moral precepts for the Seed of Abraham
under the Old Covenant.
The Elementary Morality In The Decalogue
It may suprise some to have me call the Decalogue elementary
morality, but I have good authority for it. When the Lord Jesus
was asked, "What is the greatest commandment of the Law?," He did
not reply by quoting any one of the Ten Commandments, but by
taking one passage from Deuteronomy 6:4 and another from
Leviticus 19:17. "On these two commandments hang all the law and
the prophets." These two commandments overtop the Decalogue as
the Rocky Mountains overtop the foot-hills.
Often it is said that these great commandments are a summary of
the Decalogue, and possibly the idea is taken from Rom
13:9:
For this, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You
shall not steal, You shall not covet, and if there be any other
commandment, it is summed up in this word, namely, You shall love
your neighbor as yourself.
The apostle does not say that to love your neighbor is the sum of
all the commandments, but that they are summed up in it, that is
to say, are included in the scope of it. The two great
commandments are much more than a summary of the Ten, and this is
evident, for a summary is always derived from the document that
is summarized, is of less authority than it, and can never
contain anything that is not included in it; where as the two
great commandments quoted by Christ far exceed the Decalogue in
every way. You might as well say that the Pacific Ocean is a
summary of San Francisco Bay as to say that the two great
commandments . . . are a summary of the Ten given at Mt.
Sinai.
The Old Covenant Temporary
8. One more observation: The Sinaitic Covenant, while it was a
grand work of God for a high and holy purpose, namely to train
for Himself a people in whom and through whom He might carry on
His redemptive enterprise for the whole world, was in its nature
and purpose temporary, to be superseded when its work had been
accomplished. This bold statement I should not dare to make on my
own authority. It is made for me in the prophecy of Jeremiah
31:31ff., where it was announced that a new covenant should be
made, not after the manner of the covenant made at the exodus . .
. . it belongs to a complete discussion of the Sinaitic Covenant
to point out its temporary as well as its strictly national
character.
COROLLARIES
In mathematics a corollary is a proposition that is obviously and
certainly true if the main proposition, to which it is attached,
is itself true. In this chapter we desire to point our certain
corollaries of our main proposition.
We have found that God established, through His covenant with
Abraham, a certain visible community, consisting of men, women
and children, to be known as His own people. Also, that, six
hundred years later, He made with that community a second
contract, or covenant, imposing upon them numerous ordinances to
regulate their lives. Further, that He made in Christ with the
same group still a third contract, known as the New Covenant, in
which that made at Sinai was abolished: which New Covenant
community is now commonly known as The Christian Church.
We have now to see what follows if this main doctrine, as
outlined, is accepted to be true.
FIRST COROLLARY
Because of the abrogation of the Old Covenant, nothing in the Old
Testament Scriptures has any legal authority in the Christian
life.
This has already to some extent been pointed out, especially with
regard to the Decalogue . . . . but it belongs here also, as a
corollary of the doctrine set forth. There is much in the Old
Testament that is profitable to the Christian for instruction (2
Tim 3:16), but nothing that is legally binding as a command of
God to Him. It will be understood that we speak now of regulative
ordinances, not of the fundamental moralities that belong to
human life as such. These do not depend for their validity upon
any kind of covenant law, but are written in the nature of man
and are acknowledged as such by all mankind (Rom 2:14-15).
Becoming a Christian makes a man more sensitive to these
fundamental moral obligations, not less so. "Is Christ a minister
of sin? God forbid!" The reference is to the things commanded in
the Mosaic law that have nothing to do with morality as such, bu
were instituted in the time of spiritual childhood, for
disciplinary training: such things as what foods might be eaten,
what kind of clothes might be worn, regulations about bathing,
fasts and feasts, the cleansing of houses, various washings of
pots and pans, the use of animals in work, the sowing of
different kinds of seed in one field, the reaping and threshing
of grain, the giving of tithes, the observance of the Sabbath,
the offering of sacrifices, relationships within which marriage
is permitted or forbidden. . . .
All such regulations, whether found in the Decalogue or
elsewhere, must be regarded as having lost their legal force as
commandments to be kept, when the Old Covenant was done away in
Christ. This is very distinctly taught in the New Testament.
Christ did away with the "middle wall of partition" between Jew
and Gentile, "having abolished in His flesh the law of
commandments contained in ordinances" (Eph 2:14-15; Col 2:14). In
Gal 4:1-11, Paul, with the utmost clearness and earnestness,
draws a contrast between conditions under the Old Covenant and
the New, by the figure of the position occupied by a child or
servant, as compared with that of an adult man. The child and the
servant are told what to do and must do as they are told; while
the adult son decides for himself how to please the father. It is
not that the son is less eager to do the will of the father - he
is more so - but that he must decide for himself what course of
action this requires.
The Doctrine of Christian Liberty
This is that great doctrine of Christian liberty which is so
prominent a feature of the New Testament, which the early
Christians prized so highly, which has been so abused and
perverted by the antinomians, which was lost in the Roman
Catholic Church, and recovered (although partially and
imperfectly) by the Reformation, and which is still so poorly
understood by the majority of Christian people.
That the early church did prize it highly is evident. It was the
thing at stake at the Council of Jerusalem, and St. Peter there
called the law of the Old Covenant "a yoke, which neither our
fathers nor we were able to bear." St. James is equally conscious
of the new state of affairs, for he says:
So speak, and so do, as men who are to be judged by a law of
liberty (James 2:12).
What is this strange thing, "a law of liberty," according to
which men are to be judged? It is the obligation to right conduct
coupled with the duty of judging one's self, in existing
circumstances, what the obligation to right conduct
demands.
St. Paul will have nothing to do with regulations made to govern
the life of a Christian.
If you died with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as
though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to
ordinances: handle not, nor taste, nor touch? (Col 2:20-21; cf.
Col 2:16; Gal 5:1, 4:13-14).
In Romans 14, the apostle argues elaborately for the right and
duty of private judgment. Some Christians think it wrong to eat
meat, others do it; some think it a religious duty to observe
certain days, other think God is to be served equally on all
days. St. Paul does not say that these things are "adiaphora,"
matter of no moral significance. Had he so ruled, he would have
decided the dispute, which he pointedly refuses to do. Every such
problem must be decided by the individual Christian for himself,
because he is a renewed creature, and therefore, if he seeks it,
will be given wisdom "to prove what is the good and acceptable
and perfect will of God" (Rom 12:2). . . .
This is not doctrine tending towards loose living, but to very
careful and godly living. It is a very high ideal, yet without
any regulative external ordinance. This is Christian Liberty, not
license to do right and wrong indiscriminately, but liberty to
decide for one's self in the presence of God what is right and
wrong.
An Example of Confusion Brought About By A Misunderstanding of
"Law"
That Christian men have often not understood this, and that many
do not understand it today, is evident from the wrong use of the
Old Testament that is constantly made by devout and earnest men.
A good illustration of this is an incident that occurred in
pioneer days in the Classis (Presbytery) of Holland. A man had
died, leaving a young wife, one or two children, and an unmarried
brother. His brother proposed to marry the widow, which was an
excellent way of providing for her and her children, under the
circumstances; but the question was raised whether this was
lawful. Upon the basis of Lev 18:16, the Classis decided that it
was not. The man did it anyhow, and was excommunicated. No one
thought to inquire whether all the ordinances of the Mosaic law
are still binding upon Christians, and if not all of them, why
this one? The Classis evidently proceeded upon the theory that
the Old Testament as well as the New remains authoritative in
detail for the Christian community. It was in the Bible,
therefore it must be the law of God for us!
The Seventh-Day Adventist Church, with its insistence upon
observing the seventh day of the week and its demand that people
pay tithes, is of the same order, but by no means the only
offender. To use the Old Testament ordinances as "profitable for
instruction" and as inspiring examples, or to discern in them
permanently valid moral principles is one thing; to insist upon
them as regulative ordinances governing the life of the child of
God, is quite another. Of those who do this, we make bold to say
in the language of the Bible that although they desire to be
teachers of the law, they understand neither what they say nor
whereof they confidently affirm (1 Tim 1:7). And also: "Do they
not therefore err, because they know not the Scriptures?" (Mark
12:24).
SECOND COROLLARY
As the ordinances that governed the life of the Seed of Abraham
under the Old Covenant are abrogated; and as God has neither
imposed new ordinances of that kind nor appointed any one else to
make them, every attempt by church assemblies, bishops or Pope to
establish such ordinances, binding upon the conscience, is
usurption, and ought to be resisted.
The Roman Catholic Church has not offended against the first
corollary, as has the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, but is has
offended greatly against the second. It recognizes fully the
abrogation of the Mosaic law; but it has arrogated to itself the
right to make other laws, more burdensome that those of the Old
Testament, and to bind them upon the conscience by the most awful
sanctions. . . .
Other churches, however, have done the same thing in lesser
measure. Frequently Protestant churches have made rules
forbidding card playing, dancing, attendance upon the theatre,
Sabbath desecration, the wearing of jewelry, smoking tabacco,
drinking alcoholic liquor, membership in secret societies, etc.,
etc., and have made these tests of church membership, as if the
church had the right to decide moral questions for the
individual. Church discipline there must be, certainly, when the
fundamental moralities are outraged by scandalous conduct, and on
such points there is no difference of opinion among Christians,
but for the church - any church - to make rules for the private
Christian life is usurpation, and ought to be resisted. To make
rules for the transaction of its own affairs is the right of
every such body, of course, and so long as a person is a member
of such a body ought to respect and observe such rules; but it is
not within the authority of any church to decide what is right or
wrong in personal conduct. I have never smoked tabacco, and do
not desire to smoke, but if my church should be so ill-advised as
to forbid it, I should make a bee line to a tabacconist and turn
myself into a smoke stack, as do others, in indignant protest
against such an invasion of Christian Liberty.