On page 58 is a paragraph which contains some points that I wish especially to notice, and so I quote it entire. It is the following:— 58
“In verse four, where Paul speaks of God’s sending forth His Son, made of a woman, we have the expression, ‘made under the law.’ We have already considered the meaning of this term, ‘under the law,’ and have already shown that it does not always mean under the condemnation of the law, but rather under the authority of the law, or under obligation to keep it. The term evidently has this meaning here. Both the revised version and the Diaglott translate ‘made under the law,’ ‘born under the law.’
Greenfield, in the definition of the original word, which has a great variety of significations, quotes its use in this fourth verse with the definition, ‘subject to the law.’ This evidently is the correct sense in which it should be used. It is not true that our Saviour was born under the condemnation of the law of God. This would be manifestly absurd. That he did voluntarily take the sins of the world upon Him in His great sacrifice upon the cross, we admit; but he was not born under its condemnation. Of Him that was pure, and had never committed a sin in His life, it would be an astonishing perversion of all proper theology to say he was born under the condemnation of God’s law.”
1. Concerning the meaning of the term, “under the law,” you say that you have shown that “it does not always mean under the condemnation of the law, but rather under the authority of the law, or under obligation to keep the law.” I have carefully reread all previous references to it, and while I find several assertions to that effect, I find not one item of proof.
To be sure you quote from Greenfield, but I don’t consider his assertion as of any more value than that of any other man. I cannot take the space here to quote all the occurrences of the term, “under the law,” and show its meaning; but I wish to make this point: In Romans 6:14, 15, and Galatians 5:18, the expression occurs, and there cannot be the slightest doubt but that it means “condemned by the law.” You would not dare give it the meaning, “subject to the law,” in those places. There can be no controversy concerning its use in those texts.
Now it is a fixed principle in biblical interpretation that controverted texts must be settled by appeal to texts which are uncontroverted. Moreover, consistency requires that any term should have the same meaning wherever it occurs in the Bible, unless the context shows beyond question that it must have a different meaning.
Now there is no place in the Bible where it does not make good sense to interpret “under the law” as “condemned by the law.” But in the texts which I have just referred to, it cannot possibly mean “subject to the law.” If the limits of this review would warrant it, I would show by positive evidence from Scripture, and not by quotations from commentaries; that “under the law” invariably means “condemned by the law,” and that it cannot by any possibility mean anything else. Of course I except the two places, 1 Corinthians 9:21 and Romans 3:19, where it is not found in the original.
2. I must protest once more against your dependence upon the opinion of commentators. You say: “Greenfield, in the definition of the original word, which has a great variety of significations, quotes its use in this fourth verse, with the definition, ‘subject to the law.’ This is evidently the correct sense in which it should be used.”
Why is it evidently the sense in which it should be used? Because Greenfield says so? Must we accept everyone of Greenfield’s opinions as of final authority in matters of faith? I am not prepared to do this. Do not misunderstand me. I am not casting any reflections upon Greenfield as a lexicographer, but as a commentator. When Greenfield gives a simple definition of a word, it is to be accepted, provided it agrees with the definition given in the classical lexicons; for words are not used in Scripture in a special, scriptural sense, but in their ordinary acceptation. But when Greenfield, or any other man, says that a word which has several different shades of meaning is used in a certain sense in any specified text, he is simply giving his opinion, not of the meaning of the word, but of the meaning of the text. And when he does that, anybody may challenge his opinion, and demand the proof.
If we are to quote the opinions of men as authority, on points of doctrine, we might as well turn Papists at once; for to pin one’s faith to the opinions of man is of the very essence of the Papacy. It matters not whether we adhere to the opinions of one man, or to the opinions of forty; whether we have one Pope or forty. Because a man has written a commentary on the Bible, or on any part of it, that is no reason why his opinion should pass unchallenged. He is only a man still. Seventh-day Adventists, of all people in the world, ought to be free from dependence upon the mere opinion of men. They should be Protestants indeed, testing everything by the Bible alone.
3. Now as to the rendering of the expression “under the law,” in Galatians 4:4. I have no fault to find with the rendering, “born under the law,” but think that it is the correct rendering. I will go farther than you do, and will offer some Scripture evidence on this point. John 1:1, 14: “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” The word rendered “made” is the same as that in Galatians 4:4, and evidently signifies “born.” The Word was God, yet was born flesh of the Virgin Mary. I don’t know how it could be so; I simply accept the Bible statement. Now read Romans 8:3, and you will learn the nature of the flesh which the Word was made:— “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.” Christ was born in the likeness of sinful flesh.
Philippians 2:5-7: “Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men.” Revised version. Now note the next verse: “And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross.” And now compare the above with, Hebrews 2:9: “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that He by the grace of God should taste death for every man.”
These texts show that Christ took upon Himself man’s nature, and that as a consequence He was subject to death. He came into the world on purpose to die; and so from the beginning of His earthly life He was in the same condition that the men are in whom He died to save.
Now read, Romans 1:3: The gospel of God, “concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David accord ing to the flesh.”
What was the nature of David, “according to the flesh”? Sinful, was it not? David says: “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Psalm 51:5.
Don’t start in horrified astonishment; I am not implying that Christ was a sinner. I shall explain more fully in a few moments. But first I wish to quote, Hebrews 2:16, 17: “For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.”
His being made in all things like unto His brethren, is the same as His being made in the likeness of sinful flesh, “made in the likeness of men.” One of the most encouraging things in the Bible is the knowledge that Christ took on Him the nature of man; to know that His ancestors according to the flesh were sinners.
When we read the record of the lives of the ancestors of Christ, and see that they had all the weaknesses and passions that we have, we find that no man has any right to excuse his sinful acts on the ground of heredity. If Christ had not been made in all things like unto His brethren, then His sinless life would be no encouragement to us. We might look at it with admiration, but it would be the admiration that would cause hopeless despair.
And now as another parallel to Galatians 4:4, and a further source of encouragement to us, I will quote, 2 Corinthians 5:21: “For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.”
Now when was Jesus made sin for us? It must have been when He was made flesh, and began to suffer the temptations and infirmities that are incident to sinful flesh. He passed through every phase of human experience, being “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”
He was a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief.” “He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows” (Isaiah 53:4); and this scripture is said by Matthew to have been fulfilled long before the crucifixion. So I say that His being born under the law was a necessary consequence of His being born in the likeness of sinful flesh, of taking upon Himself the nature of Abraham. He was made like man, in order that He might undergo the suffering of death. From the earliest childhood the cross was ever before Him.
4. You say:
“That He did voluntarily take the sins of the world upon Him in His great sacrifice upon the cross, we admit; but He was not born under its condemnation. Of Him that was pure, and had never committed a sin in His life, it would be an astonishing perversion of all proper theology to say that He was born under the condemnation of the law.”
It may be a perversion of theology, but it is exactly in harmony with the Bible, and that is the main point. Can you not see that your objection lies as much against your position as it does against mine?
You are shocked at the idea that Jesus was born under the condemnation of the law, because He never committed a sin in His life. But you admit that on the cross He was under the condemnation of the law. What! had He then committed sin? Not by any means. Well, then, if Jesus could be under the condemnation of the law at one time in His life, and be sinless, I see no reason why He could not be under the condemnation of the law at another time, and still be sinless. And Paul declares that God did make Him to be sin for us.
I simply give Scripture facts; I don’t attempt to explain them.
“Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness.” I cannot understand how God could be manifest in the flesh, and in the likeness of sinful flesh. I do not know how the pure and holy Saviour could endure all the infirmities of humanity, which are the result of sin, and be reckoned as a sinner, and suffer the death of a sinner. I simply accept the Scripture statement, that only so could He be the Saviour of men; and I rejoice in that knowledge, because since He was made sin, I may be made the righteousness of God in Him.
What a wonder! Christ had all the glory of Heaven; we had nothing; and so He “emptied Himself,” became nothing, in order that we might be glorified together with Him, and inherit all things. Christ was sinless, the very embodiment of holiness; we were vile and full of sin, having no good thing in us; He was made sin in order that we might be partakers of His righteousness. Christ was immortal, having life in Himself; we were mortal, doomed to eternal death; He suffered death for us, in order that we might share His immortality. He went to the very lowest depths to which man had fallen, in order that He might lift man to His own exalted throne; yet He never ceased to be God, or lost a particle of His holiness.
5. Again; why was Jesus baptized? He said that it was “to fulfill all righteousness.” We may not say that it was simply as an example; for that would be really denying the vicarious nature of the atonement. It must have been for the same reason that He died, namely, for sin. Not His own sin, but ours; for as in His death, so in His life, our sins were counted as His. And thus it is that He could be all His life, even from His birth, under the condemnation of the law. It was not on His own account, but on ours.
I think that I have shown clearly, by abundance of Scripture testimony, that Christ was born under the condemnation of the law, and that this was necessarily incident to the fact that He was born of a woman; “for man that is born of woman is of few days, and full of trouble;” and this was literally true of Christ. He was in all things like His brethren, in His life of temptation and suffering, and even to length of days; for His earthly life was exactly the length of an average human life.
6. I must make one more argument, taking your standpoint. I will allow for the moment, what is not true, that “under the law” means “subject to the law,” and that the law referred to is the ceremonial law. Now the statement is that Christ was made “under the law, to redeem them that were under the law.” He redeems none who were not in the condition which He was made. And since only the Jews were subject to the ceremonial law, your theory would make it that He came to save only the Jews. I am glad that a proper interpretation does not oblige us to limit the plan of salvation in this way. Christ died for all men; all men were under the condemnation of the law of God; and so He was made under its condemnation. By the grace of God He tasted death for every man.
7. But this requires that I should show another absurdity in which your theory lands you. The ceremonies of the Mosaic ritual were simply the gospel ordinances for that time. They were the things by which the people manifested their faith in the gospel of Christ. But your theory, besides making Christ die for the sole purpose of allowing the Jews to stop offering lambs, etc., makes Him die to deliver them from the gospel. If that were true, what kind of state would they then be in? And again it makes Christ die to redeem men from that which had no power to condemn. In short, it nullifies the whole plan of salvation, and makes nonsense of it. And so it is most positively proved that Galatians 4:4, 5 cannot by any possibility refer to what is commonly called the ceremonial law. It does refer to the moral law, by which all men are condemned, and from the condemnation of which Christ redeems all who believe in Him, making them sons and heirs of God.