02.11 The Abolishment of the First Covenant (Part Three)

Sunday, February 19, 1899; 7 p. m.

SERMON No. VII. —THE ABOLISHMENT OF THE FIRST COVENANT (PART 3).

Text: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach THEM, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Mat 5:17-19)."

Before entering upon the discussion of this very striking Scripture I desire to clear up some things by way of definition over which we have already passed. I heard a young man say this morning that he was in the school a long time before he fully understood the difference between a Jew and a Gentile, and I presume there are a great many like him everywhere. It is important that you shall be able to understand these terms because they are key-words. If you know what they mean you can turn them and unlock the storehouse of revelation, of knowledge, and of wisdom. We have quite a long array of words that are important and that I have been using promiscuously and freely throughout this series of sermons. On the one hand we have Hebrew, Israelite, children of Israel, the circumcision, chosen or chosen people, or Jew; on the other hand we have Gentile, stranger, barbarian, heathen, uncircumcision, dogs. If you will keep these names and their relation to one another in mind I am sure that the Bible will not appear to you so difficult a book. I will advance another step and say that these distinctions belong to the First Testament or First Covenant rather than the second; although they are frequently used in discussing the subject of the old institution in the new. The ancient Greeks it is said did not have any word for foreigner; that is to say a word meaning a citizen of another country. The word they had was barbarian, signifying that all men from their standpoint who were not Greeks were barbarians. It was about like that with the ancient Hebrews. If a man was not a Hebrew the best they could say for him was that he was a Gentile or a stranger, or a barbarian, or a heathen, or an uncircumcised man, or a dog. Please remember this. All who were in the covenant were Hebrews because Abraham was a Hebrew and they were his children. All who were in the covenant were Israelites or children of Israel because Jacob’s name was Israel and they were his children. All who were in the covenant were called the circumcision because they had been circumcised. All who were in the covenant were the chosen people because God made choice of them. But all others were designated by words indicating that they were outside of the family, outside of the covenant, outside of the law, outside of the administration of the law, under Moses and under the priests. I hope I have made this matter clear. If I have not I advise you without further loss of time to study carefully and try to learn these terms, learn their meaning and their relationship to one another.

Believing, however, that the matter is clear I shall return to the text. Who uttered these words? When were they uttered? Under what circumstances were they uttered? What was the object of their utterance? What do these passages develop under close examination and analysis? I answer they were and are the words of the Son of God. They were uttered early in His ministry and are a part of the sermon on the mount. The object of their utterance was to disabuse the minds of any who had rushed to the conclusion that His object in coming wag to destroy the law of Moses or to destroy the law and the prophets. Let us analyze and particularize and see what we have here. Jesus recognized the law and the prophets. He came not to destroy the law and the prophets but to fulfil!, even to the jot or unto the tittle, that is unto the very smallest mark in any Hebrew letter, in any Hebrew word, in any Hebrew sentence, in any Hebrew law. He went so far in addition to this to say that any one who would break any law of the old institution should be called little in the kingdom of God. He honored Moses, He honored the Covenant, He honored the law, He honored the word of God as the word of God was then written and understood and revealed. Just here it will be well for me to call your attention to something that I presented to you before, and that is this: Jesus was born and lived and died under the law. I will simply give you the reference for this (Gal 4:1-4). There is another subject corresponding to the subject that possibly puts the Saviour’s language more forcibly still. Hear Him: "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail (Luk 16:17)." Move carefully here my brother, you are liable to get into trouble. You are liable to rush to an unwarranted conclusion. The thought that He had in mind, and that is tersely, effectively, and beautifully brought out by Luke was, that it would be easier for the heavens to fall and for the earth to pass than it would be for any part of the law to fail or fall until it bad finished its work. Or as Matthew puts it: "Till all be fulfilled." There is one more point that appears on the very surface of Matthew’s statement: it is this—that beyond any cavil, beyond any doubt, beyond any contradiction, our Lord had in mind a time when the law would be fulfilled, when the law would fill its mission, when the law would fill the place which was ordained of God in its proclamation, and I may add without violence to the text or any irreverence to the Redeemer, pass into eternal record having finished its work. I think I may safely say on this point that we have here very strong evidence of two things: First, either that the law has been abolished some time in the past, or that at some time in the future it will fill its place and be abolished. I will take the first proposition and declare that, having done its work, having filled its mission, having finished its course, it is already abolished —forever done away. An argument that I presented the other day has an extremely important relation to the subject tonight. It is this: That the old covenant was based on the flesh of Abraham. That I proved beyond a doubt. I assert in connection with this tonight that whatever is based on flesh, on mortal man, must in the nature of things pass away. The whole history of the past is pregnant with proof of this statement. Proud cities are buried in the dust, proud families have perished from the pages of history because all flesh is as the grass, or as the flowers of the field—that must fade, must perish, must sink into the embrace of eternal oblivion. This institution was based on flesh, on blood, on Abraham’s flesh, on Abraham’s blood, and that was one of the weaknesses of it and one of the reasons for its abrogation. I present to you a very forcible proof: "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit (Rom 8:3-4)." Again, and this is the testimony of Paul also: "Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also (2Co 11:18)." By glorying in the flesh he meant glorying in his family, in his antecedents, in his pedigree, in his genealogy, that Abraham was his father. Again: "Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe. Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all thing but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord; for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ (Php 3:1-8)." What have we here? There were Christians in the apostolic church who tried to adhere to the law and boasted of their pedigrees, of their relation to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and Moses and Samuel and Isaiah and Jeremiah and David. Paul said if any man had a right to do that he had. His pedigree was all right. He was a Hebrew of the Hebrews—he was bred a Hebrew on both sides of his family. So far as the righteousness of the law was concerned he was blameless and yet he said he counted all of them, family, pedigree, law, covenant, blamelessness or righteousness according to the law—counted all these things as dross that he might gain Christ. Then from Paul’s standpoint there was not anything for a Christian in the observance of the law of Moses; from Paul’s standpoint the Christian was free from the law and under no obligations to observe it either as to its ritual or otherwise, that is, because it was law. He might have done some of the things contained in the law, not because of the law, but because they were right and because Christ who is righteousness was enthroned in his heart.

I come now to what I regard as probably the most forcible argument in all of the New Testament on this subject. By way of introduction let me refresh your minds with a few of the things that have been affirmed, argued, and I may modestly say abundantly demonstrated by the Scriptures in previous sermons. I refer you to the agitation that began in the minds of wicked men some time after Pentecost against the apostles on the ground that they argued that Jesus Christ would change the law and the customs of Moses, and destroy the temple; therefore these men could not endure it. I called your attention last night to the great council at Jerusalem where Apostles and Elders and Christians came together and declared that they were not under the law but under grace or that they were not under obligation to lay on themselves any greater burden than to do the necessary things of the gospel. I declared also that the books of Romans and Galatians and Hebrews had been written for the purpose of counteracting and antagonizing and destroying the influence of these Judaizing teachers, and the argument that I am to present now is the climax I may say of the argument in the Galatian letter. They desired to be under the law. Paul went so far as to criticize them and reprove them because of their desire to be under it, and now that I am to discuss this line by line, passage by passage, argument by argument, I will give it all to you: "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice thou barren that barest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free (Gal 4:21-31)." "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?" If this does not mean all of the law of Moses it does not mean any part of the law of Moses. Look at that statement, "the law." It is just as we have the same statement in the text practically, and it is used a great many times in the New Testament, "the law." What does it mean? What does it comprehend? I answer that it means all of the law, the ten commandments, the statutes of Israel, the administration of the law at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation—it cannot mean am less. If it does not mean all the law I want to know who has the power, who has the authority, who has the knowledge, who has the wisdom to say what part is meant? It either means all absolutely, every statute and every statement, or there is nobody on earth who can determine how much it means or what it means. He demanded, "do you not hear the law?" They understood the law, they knew what the law meant; they had been taught the Gospel, but Judaizing, heretical teachers had come among them and had bewitched them, deceived them and carried them away with their dissimulations and with their false doctrines. "For it is written, that Abraham had two sons; the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of a bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise." What does this mean? To ask that question is to answer it before a body of men who have been reading their Bibles. Here we have in this little bit of history a glimpse of the home life of Abraham: One legitimate wife and one legitimate son, that son born after the promise or in fulfillment of the promise; a concubine and an illegitimate son. son born after the flesh. And here we have the idea that I have been trying to enforce on you during this entire series of sermons, that the first promise to Abraham was fleshly and that the mark of the covenant was in the flesh and that the covenant was perpetuated in the flesh and that the first Israel was fleshly Israel, Israel with the blood of Abraham in the nation, and I also enforced the idea that the second promise was spiritual in its significance. "By promise, " says the apostle here, and this promise culminated in the birth of Jesus, in the Gospel to every nation, kindred, tribe, and tongue. What do these things mean? Why introduce Abraham and Sarah and Hagar and Ishmael into this argument? Paul answers: "Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children." How many covenants? Two. What does covenant mean? Testament. How many testaments therefore? Two. Not one as a continuation of the other, not one as an outgrowth of the other, not one grafted on another, but two! One from mount Sinai in Arabia which gendereth to bondage. Did I not prove to you that God made a covenant with Israel at the foot of Sinai? Did I not prove to you that the covenant was a covenant that required people to obey the law and that to that law there was the penalty of death? I certainly did. Mark you this expression. It did not contain a guarantee of liberty or life, but Paul says: "it gendereth to bondage, " That was the old covenant, that was the first covenant, that was the law—the law of Moses, and he says that this covenant answereth or correspondeth to Jerusalem which now is in bondage with her children. "But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." I shall not discuss that at length for I expect to call it up in a future sermon. Only I will say this much: There are two covenants—one began at Sinai, was dedicated at Sinai. The other was dedicated at Jerusalem, it began at Jerusalem, was unfolded at Jerusalem, was administered at Jerusalem the first time in its history. "For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband." This is a quotation from the prophet indicative of the fact that the barren Sarah, the mother of Isaac, was to become the mother of an innumerable company, not simply by the flesh but by the spirit (Isa 54:1). Brethren we are as Isaac was, the children of promise; not the children of the law, not the children of the flesh, not the children of the old covenant, but the children of promise. What promise? "In thee and thy seed shall all families of the earth be blessed (Gen 12:3)." Hear me: "But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now." Here we come to a most interesting incident in the life of Abraham our father. Polygamy has always brought trouble in the family and in the nation and I think it always will. Abraham tried to hasten the fulfillment of the promise of God. His ideas were all right but his methods were wrong. He had two sons, one born after the flesh, the other after the promise or by the Spirit of God. Isaac grew, Ishmael grew, but there was jealousy there. There never has been and I do not think there ever will be, a house big enough to hold two families very long. Sarah knew she was the head of the house and she knew that by the promise of God Isaac was Abraham’s heir, and the heir of God. Here comes the interesting point. I want to give it to you. I intimated to you that there was trouble in the family. When Isaac was weaned—I do not know how old he was but he was a lad of some years perhaps, Ishmael was older and he mocked Isaac. The heir after the flesh mocked the heir of promise. That was more than Sarah could stand or more than any other woman who has pluck could stand. She made up her mind that she would not endure it any longer and here is what she said to Abraham: "Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac (Gen 21:10)." What does this mean? It means that up that time Sarah and Hagar and Isaac and Ishmael had lived in this house on terms of perfect equality. It means that if things had gone on without friction, humanly speaking, Ishmael would have been an heir of Abraham’s property along with Isaac. But Sarah said that Ishmael and Hagar should be cast out and Abraham did as she demanded, and they were cast out. That means this, that he who was an illegitimate son was no longer a member of that family or an heir to the property of Abraham his father. Paul brings a beautiful lesson out of that for us, and I have gone into the particulars that I might make it forcible. But before I present it as Paul presents it I want to sum up just a little: Here were these brethren desiring to be under the law. He referred to the fact that Abraham had two sons, one born after the flesh, one born after the spirit or by promise; that these represented the two covenants, one from Sinai, the other from Jerusalem, one representing liberty, the other representing bondage; one persecuting the other, and step by step he comes clown to this climax: "Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman." What does that mean? Hear me: It means this—that just as Ishmael was cast out, just as Ishmael was disinherited, just as he was driven out of the family of Abraham and could no longer claim anything on the ground of his flesh, so the covenant of Sinai was cast out and the children of that covenant and the regulations and statutes of that covenant were cast out. "So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the five." The bondwoman was cast out, the illegitimate son was cast out, fleshly Israel was cast out. the first covenant was cast out, and—"So then, brethren, we"—Paul himself had been a member of that old covenant and many of these Galatians, perhaps a majority of them, had been members of that covenant at one time but he says: "So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free." Not children of Sinai but children of Jerusalem: not children of the fiftieth day after the departure from Egypt but children of the new Pentecost. If I hid been dividing the New Testament into chapters I certainly would not have cut off the chapter there Paul is working to a climax. He always works to the end or to the conclusion of an argument that is irresistible. So in the first verse of the fifth chapter, having demonstrated that they were not under the law any more, having demonstrated that they were rot children of the bondwoman but of the free, having demonstrated that they were like Isaac children of the promise, he says: "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. 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. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace (Gal 5:1-4)." Take the argument, weigh it, weigh it as a juror on your oath with a fearful accountability of those who are to go out to preach the Gospel and I ask you to answer this question and answer it truly as God gives us light: If a man in apostolic times could not go back and undertake to keep the law without falling from grace how can a man keep the law now without falling from grace?

Jesus our Waster said that the law would last until it was fulfilled; that you might try to shake heaven, that you might try to shake earth and possibly succeed, but you could not succeed in shaking the smallest point in the law of Moses, until it had finished its work. I will call your attention to Paul’s words: He was a great lawyer, not only a great preacher and teacher and apostle, but the greatest lawyer of his day. A man who in the courts of justice, a man who as the expositor of the law of Moses might have made for himself a fortune in serving his day and generation, hear him: "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth (Rom 10:4)." Again, I call your attention to Paul’s statement. After having done what he could to prove to these Galatians that they were not under the law he uses these words: "But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of Sin? God forbid. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live: yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain (Gal 2:17-21)." Again: "As many as desire to make a fair show in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised: only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh. But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world (Gal 6:12-14)." I raise another question and I think that the arguments already adduced justify me in doing it for if anything is capable of demonstration, I rune demonstrated that the law is abrogated that even the Jews, Hebrews, Israelites, unto whom it was originally given were in apostolic times under no obligations to keep it; that it had passed into eternal record and was then vanishing from the minds of men.

Then I may raise this question: When, where, under what circumstances, by whom, was the law abrogated or by whom was the law done away? Back to the text for a moment: Our Master said it would not be done away until all things in it should fill their course. Let us see if we can find when the law filled its place or finished its course. Jesus was hanging on the cross and here are the words of John concerning Him: "After this Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst (John 19:28)." Take the two together. Hear me: In His ministry He said that the law had to stand until all was fulfilled. On the cross knowing that all things were fulfilled according to His own desire, according to His own plan, according to His own purpose said: "I thirst." To say the very least of it that brings us down to the cross of the Lord and we have something definite before us, positive before us, unequivocal before us. I affirm that the law—meaning by the law the ten commandments, the statutes of Israel, the law pertaining to the priesthood and the tabernacle—every jot and every tittle and every phrase and every sentence of it was abrogated at the death of Messiah on the cross. That is clear enough I am sure. Where is the proof says one? The proof is bountiful, the proof is abundant, the proof is conclusive. Hear Paul again: "Know ye not brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth: but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law: so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God (Rom 7:1-4)." What does this mean? It means that the Jews were under the law, obligated to the law until Christ died upon the cross and that by that act, just as a woman is freed from her husband when he dies, they were freed from the law, and that by the act of emancipation consummated by His death on the cross they were liberated from it and therefore in a position to be married unto Him that was raised from the dead. That ought to be conclusive, that ought to be enough. It is conclusive—it is enough. But I promised to make this investigation thorough, exhaustive, irresistible, so I will give you another proof. Our definitions will come in well now: On the one side Hebrews, on the other Gentile; one the one side Israelite, on the other side stranger; on the one side chosen, on the other side barbarian; on the one side children of God or circumcision, on the other side dogs. Allow me now to introduce a fitting climax to that definition or to that contrast—the words of Paul: "For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace (Eph 2:14-15)." The middle wall of separation was in the flesh and blood of Abraham, in the covenant, in the law, in the tabernacle, in the priesthood, in the ministration. God set it up. It fenced the Israelites in and it left the Gentiles out, arid that wall of separation on the one side of which was one little family, on the other side of which was every family, on the one side of which was a tribe, on the other side of which was every tribe but one—I repeat and assert with ascending emphasis, that the middle wall of separation existed and subsisted until Jesus died on the cross! Says one, "Plow do you know that?" I know it because Paul says He abolished in the flesh, the enmity, even the law of commandments. But I hear you say: "He could have done that without dying—it was in His flesh and He had flesh when He was born." We will take the next verse and see what it says: "That he might reconcile both in one body by the cross having slain the enmity thereby." How nicely, how beautifully, how fully, and how effectively this corresponds to Paul’s statement that the Jews or Hebrews were divorced from the law by the death of Christ on the cross. Again, and here we have a stronger argument I think still. Speaking of the Master dying on the cross, to his own brethren in Christ Paul says, and I want you to mark every word of this, for there is much in it for you: "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And, having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days. Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ (Col 2:14-17)." What? He nailed to the cross with His body the ordinances of the law. What were the ordinances? Oh, you say, the ceremonies. Not by any means. Ordinances are things ordained, laws, precepts, statutes—you cannot restrict the definition, all or none! I affirm here brethren that you cannot divide it and say part was nailed to the cross and part was left out. "The handwriting’ of ordinances, " what does that mean? It means all that God wrote and all that Moses wrote. Listen: "The handwriting of ordinances" —God wrote with His own finger, and Moses wrote with his own hand. What did God write? He wrote the ten commandments. What did Moses write? He wrote all the laws of Israel. What did Jesus nail to the cross? All the ordinances; all that God wrote, all that Moses wrote; therefore all there was in the law from the beginning to the end. Nothing left out, nothing omitted, nothing compromised. Just a little further on there are some peculiar statements. These things were nailed to the cross. abrogated in the body of the Lord. Just as He was crucified they were crucified and in His dying there upon the cross that institution died—passed away. Paul says that under the circumstances, these things having been nailed to the cross, he did not want his brethren at Colosse to allow am man to judge them in meat or drink. Says one, "I do not see anything in that." If you do not it means one of two things, either that your eyes need to be anointed and opened, or that you have not been looking with the eyes you have. Let us put that along with a statement in the Hebrew letter and sec what you will find. Speaking of the law: "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation (Heb 9:10)." The time is passed when a man can be judged in meats or drinks or in respect to a holy day or of the coming of the moon again or of the sabbath day. I want you to nail that down and clinch it! No longer are men to be judged by the law with respect to its ordinances or with respect to anything else in it, and here we have it plainly implied that what was nailed to the cross was both the commandments and what people popularly term the "ritualistic law." Says one, "I do not see that." Look again, and perhaps yon shall. Let no man judge you with reference to meats and drinks. That would undoubtedly be classed as ceremonial law. That was nailed to the cross. Says one, "I will admit that but I am not going to admit that anything else was nailed to the cross." Hear me again: Let no man judge you in reference to the sabbath day. What was the commandment? To remember the sabbath day to keep it holy! It was nailed to the cross. If you cannot see that may God have mercy on you! If you cannot see that may God deliver you from prejudice! Again, and here I want to give you a favorite thought. What was the significance of the nailing of the law to the cross? It was this: For hundreds of years, say in round numbers twenty centuries, Abraham arid his children had been the favorites of God. He had been dealing with them, committing His oracles unto them, revealing Himself to them, pouring out His blessings on them, opening the very windows of heaven to them, but when Jesus Christ was nailed to the cross and when the middle wall of separation came down in His death every relationship that had existed before that time was dissolved and every nation, kindred, tribe, and tongue stood on an equal footing before God. Says one, "I would like to see a little proof for that." Well you understand that I never say a thing unless I can prove it, and here is the proof: "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law; that every mouth may be slopped, and all the world may become guilty before God (Rom 3:19)." Our Lord and Master abrogated the old institution, took it out of the way, nailed it to the cross, and the Jews were no longer God’s chosen people on account of the law, and the ministration ended and the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom and the light poured into the holy of holies from which the light had been excluded from generation to generation. What then? Hear the apostle in the grandest climax in all the history of man. After laying down one argument after another showing that the law is ended, he rises to the sublimest sublimity in these words: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male or female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:28)." Are you convinced, are you satisfied? Says one: "I am satisfied but if there is any more on the subject let us have it." The only difficulty in the matter brethren is, that I do not know where to quit, I do not know where to end; there is no end. The New Testament is full of it. A large part of the Epistles were written to get people out of the erroneous ideas that I have been combating here today. Here is a strong argument showing that Jesus abrogated the old institution when He died. I will give it to you in the exact words of Paul: "For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; How much more shall the blood of Christ who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth (Heb 9:3-17)." Let us briefly view these statements. The blood of animals at best could only effect temporary relief or temporary salvation, or a temporary rolling back of sins—back for one year. If by the blood of goats and calves that much could be done surely the blood of the Son of God who offered Himself having no spot upon Him could purge even the conscience and enable men henceforward to serve the living God. Not only this, but Jesus by the act of His death and by entering in upon His Father’s presence became the Mediator not only of the new covenant but in a sense of the old because by the act of His death He redeemed those who had done the best they could under the first testament that they might, with us, enter upon an eternal inheritance. A testament, or a covenant, cannot be enforced during the life of him who makes it. This is apparent in the dedication of the law. Moses did not attempt to administer the law until the animals had been sacrificed and until the blood had been spilt and until the blood had been applied according to the requirements of Jehovah. While Jesus was here He was unfolding His covenant or testament but that covenant or that testament could not be opened, could not be enforced, could not be unfolded fully, until He ratified it by His death. Again, speaking of the Gospel and contrasting it with the law of Moses, Paul brings us to this: "And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel (Heb 12:24)." We have not come to Sinai, we have not come to the blood of goats and calves, we have not come even to the life of the Lord on earth, but we have come to the cross, we have come to the death of the testator, we have come to the shedding of the blood, we have come to the ratification of the covenant by that act and in this act of dedicating a new institution I find an irresistible argument for the abolishment of the old. I proved to you last night that there are or were two covenants and it stands to reason that both covenants could not be enforced at the same time. The covenant of Jesus or the new covenant, or the new testament, could not be enforced until the old was taken out of the way. The old was not taken out of the way until Jesus nailed it to the cross. It was not nailed to the cross until He was nailed to the cross, and when He was nailed to the cross and shed His blood He died for the remission of transgressions that were made under that covenant, and forever took it out of the way.

Another argument tending to prove, I think, beyond a doubt, the abolishment of the first institution, with all that pertained to it, I base upon the fact that the law of Moses, using the phrase in its most comprehensive sense, was never absolutely necessary to salvation. You may count that a radical proposition but I think that it is abundantly borne out in the word of God. Statements without proof, however, will not convince any one, therefore I turn to the proof. It is a fact that Abraham believed whatever God said to him even when the way was dark, even when he could not reason out how it was possible for God to give him an heir in his old age, he staggered not at the promise of God by unbelief but he believed in the Lord and He counted it to him for righteousness (Gen 15:6). This is endorsed in the New Testament, quoted I may say. First: "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness (Rom 4:3)." Second: "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but In uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also (Rom 4:8-11)." Mark you, he was justified by faith in God and that faith implied doing what God said, even before he had the mark of the covenant of which I have been so earnestly insisting that it is done away. Again: "For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith (Rom 4:13)." Let us pause and study that a little. That Abraham would be the heir of the world no one hesitates to believe; that he was to be the father of a great family according to the flesh everybody admits, that all Jews of every age are his children according to the flesh; and that all Christians of every age are his children according to the Spirit, everybody believes. Hear the apostle, he says plainly and emphatically that this was not to Abraham through the law of Moses, not through the ten commandments, not through the statutes received by Moses, not by the tabernacle sen ice, not by the smoking sacrifice upon the altar at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, but by faith in God, and by faith in His promised Son who has revealed Him to men— to us. Therefore all who believe in every age, in every land, can be the children of Abraham, for his real children, his best children are the children of the spirit—promise, faith! I drop a thought right here: "And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise (Gal 3:29)." Lying back of the law, back of circumcision, Abraham believed, and God by that act on Abraham’s part made him the heir of the world and so it comes to pass in our time that every one who believes in Christ and obeys Him is a child of Abraham. Again, I want to make this very clear and I will give you further proof: "He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham? And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham (Gal 3:5-9)." I invite your special attention to the statement that the Scripture foresaw that God would justify the heathen by faith—that He would make all the Gentiles, all the foreigners, all thy uncircumcision, all the dogs from the Jewish standpoint, heirs according to the promise—hence God preached antecedent to the Gospel. He did not preach the Gospel but prior to the Gospel, antecedent to the Gospel, before the Gospel, He preached unto Abraham telling him that in his seed all the families of the earth should be blessed. That is to say everyone who would choose or accept the blessing on the conditions laid down. If Abraham our father was justified without the works of the law, and if he became the father of all who believe without the works of the law, then it follows as light follows the sun—and I want to burn it into your very heart—that we, his children can be justified without the works of the law. Do you see that? Let me repeat and state it another way: Antecedent to the law Abraham believed God and obeyed God and was accepted of God as God’s child, and he was made the father of the faithful and recognized as the friend of God. If Abraham could come to the Father without the law then it follows certainly beyond any doubt that the children of Abraham, or those who would become the children of Abraham, may also become his children or the children of God by faith and obedience without the works of the law. Stated in another way: Before the law was ever thought of Abraham was justified by faith and obedience. Eighteen hundred years after the law was nailed to the cross of Calvary, we may be justified by faith and obedience without a thought of the law. But let me put it in still another form: Abraham our father was justified, not by law, but by faith, therefore Abraham’s children may be justified, not by law, but by faith. Let us have a little more proof on that: "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them (Gal 3:10-12)." Returning to that same proposition relative to Abraham and his justification even in uncircumcision, and our justification since the law in uncircumcision, and without obedience to the law, I want to make another argument or another statement that to my mind will clear it up very much. There were men who were justified by faith during the administration of the law who were not under the law, just as Abraham—by doing the will of God apart from His will expressed in the law—was justified, and just as we are justified. I want to get that clearly before you. Abraham was justified before the law—four hundred years before the law! My contention is that men are justified since the law without obedience to it, and as a further proof that a man can be justified now without obeying the law I give you the proof that men were justified without being under the law or without obeying the law even when it was in force: "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and til sir thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another (Rom 2:14-15)." This refers to the Gentile world while the law was in force in Israel. Men who were honest, men who were true, men who tried to do right, and. who though never having heard the law found out what was right by their experiences and did it, Paul says they were justified. What then? If Abraham our father was justified in uncircumcision, without obedience to the law, if the honest Gentile who served God and did the things that were contained in the law without having the law, were justified, then it follows irresistibly that you may be justified, that I may be justified under the Gospel without circumcision, without the law, with the tabernacle, without the Levitical priesthood.

What is the condition of matters now? If the law is done away and I think I have proven it over and over, what about the righteousness of God? How is it manifested now? Let the apostle answer: "But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets (Rom 3:21)." "Without the law" means independent of the law, apart from the law, separate from the law, unto this age, in this time under Christ, God’s righteousness is manifested, exhibited and made effectual without the law of Moses. Again hear Paul: "For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore (Heb 7:28)."

Let us set up a few points or a few light-houses along the line of our investigation. First, Jesus declared that you could move heaven and earth easier than you could move one jot or tittle of the law until all would be fulfilled. On the cross He said that all things concerning Him were fulfilled. Paul declares that the word of the oath after the law, since the law, subsequent to the law, made the Son of God a priest forever more. He did not say under the law, he did not say at the abolishment of the law, but he said "since the law." Then from Paul’s standpoint, looking back, there was a time when the law ended and there was a time when grace began and there was a time when the new Priest entered on the tabernacle not made with hands, eternal, and in the heavens. Finally I call your attention to this fact that the Gospel is the dispensation of favor. We are no longer under the law of Moses, no longer under the ministration of death. Indeed we as Gentiles were never under the law, but I will say that Israel is no longer under the law. Proof: "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ (John 1:17)." If law and grace are identical, if the law is as good as grace, if grace is as good as the law, what follows? It follows, it seems to me, that we have an unnecessary book and that we might easily dispense with the New Testament and go back to the law. Again, these are Paul’s words: "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace (Rom 6:14)." Not under the law any more. The law is fulfilled, nailed to the cross, abolished, done away, and we are not under the law anymore—men are not under the law of Moses any more: they are under the grace of God, God’s favor to the children of men. Again; "For by grace are ye saved through faith: and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast (Eph 2:8-9)." Mark that! He says that men are justified by the favor or by the grace of God and not by works. Says one, "Do you mean to say that all obedience is excluded?" Oh, no! He is only arguing what he has argued all the time, and what I have argued all the time, that men are justified by faith without obedience to the law, without the works of the law. Let us have some proof on that point: "Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay; but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeing it is one God which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith? Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law (Rom 3:27-31)." How do we establish the law? We establish—not perpetuate—the law in its place in God’s economy that He designed to put it in and we are not justified by the works of the law. You cannot go back and make out a list of the many animals you have used for sacrifice or presented at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation—that is works—and say: "Lord I have done that and I want to be saved." You cannot enumerate the long years that you have gone up to the Feast of the Passover and the Feast of Weeks and the Feast of Tabernacles and other feasts and say, "Lord I have done that and I want to be justified." You cannot go to your long genealogical table and trace your pedigree back to Abraham and say. "Lord [ want to be justified on that." The Gospel excludes that kind of works. But not the good works, not the works of faith, but the works of the law, and we are not justified by the law or by the works of the law, and we cannot be. That is certain. Again: "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men. Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world (Tit 2:11-12)." Again: "For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. Tint after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward men appeared. Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life (Tit 3:3-7)." Saved, not by works, hut saved by grace, saved by the mercy of God, saved on the conditions laid down by Jesus and His apostles, but not saved by the works of the law. Not only this, but he tells us that when a man goes back and by working under the law tries to find justification that he falls from the grace of God. I will give you proof of that; "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law: ye are fallen from grace (Gal 5:4)." I think now brethren that I may modestly claim that if anything is capable of demonstration that I have demonstrated that the old institution is done away; that it has forever finished its work and filled its place, and I may appropriately, as the cap-stone of this argument, give you the words of the apostle in his letter to the Corinthian brethren concerning himself and the other preachers: "Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life (2Co 3:6)."

I would not discredit Moses for he was faithful in his day and faithful in his generation No other mortal man was ever honored in life and death as he was honored, for on the height of Pisgah he viewed the land that God promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He died and He who made and governs the world buried and left him there and I say, "Noble man of God, noble toiler, self-sacrificing, self- forgetting, servant of God, rest! Thy labor is done, thy laurels are won. I will not detract from thy glory." But he to whom I pay tribute said that the day would come when God would raise up one whom men should revere in all things (Deu 18:15; Deu 18:18). He has come and the angels from the mighty hosts of heaven came clown to earth to sing the sweetest of lullabies in the records of time over the cradle in the manger of Bethlehem. He lived and walked and taught among men and finally the shadows of death settled down upon His pathway. He was our pilot toward the promised land; He who forgot Himself and unselfishly labored for others came down to the lowest depths that men might live. He died for them. The weight of the world’s woe broke His tender heart; the sun went out in darkness and the very earth that He made by His own Omnipotent power reeled like a drunken man or like a storm-tossed ship. But He came up again and He has gone to be with God; He has entered heaven by His own blood. Sleep on Moses! Reign on Messiah! On thy brow, O Moses, I press the chaplet thou didst so well and honestly win. Reign on Messiah! I press on Thy noble brow the combined diadems, the combined crowns of all the kings, of all the emperors, and of all the rulers of earth! Reign on Messiah until all the hearts of earth and heaven shall be attuned to Thy praise! Reign on Messiah until all the kingdoms of this world shall be swallowed up in Thy kingdom! Reign on Messiah until every knee shall bow and every tongue confess! Reign on Messiah until earth rises to Thee and heaven comes down to us and in Thy glory we shall behold Thy face and join with all the sanctified in every age in singing the song of Him who slept near Pisgah’s height and to the Lamb that was slain! Reign on Messiah until there shall not be any rebellion, any sin, any sorrow, any graves, any funerals in all Thy vast domain, when the kingdom shall be Thine and the glory snail be Thine, and when the New Jerusalem,, shall come down and we shall see Thy face and go out no more. Amen.