02.09 The Abolishment of the First Covenant (Part One)

Saturday, February 18, 1899; 7 p. m.

SERMON No. V. —THE ABOLISHMENT OF THE FIRST COVENANT (PART 1).

Text: "He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second (Heb 10:9).” This is the testimony of the last man who with mortal eyes beheld the Son of God. These are the words of the man who declared that when he became a preacher he did not go up to Jerusalem to consult those who were preachers or apostles before him, but that what he knew and what he preached he received from God (Gal 1:16-17). Therefore these words come to us with all the solemnity and all the authority and all the accountability of the words of God Himself. In the light of much of the theology of our times these are very remarkable words. I may go a step further and say that they are extraordinary words. I ask you to look at them carefully, to analyze them, to weigh them with deliberation and see whether or not you have in the past fully grasped and weighed and comprehended their significance. The introductory word "he" evidently has reference to Jesus Christ. Because the first half of the verse attributes these words to him: "Then said he, Lo I come to do thy will, O God." This notice is followed by the declaration that He who came to do the will of God took away something that He might establish something. If you will reflect on it I am sure that you will see that it is no light matter that we are discussing this night. Whether or not we shall be able to find out what these words mean in their fulness we must unanimously concede that whatever they may mean or whatever they do mean that Jesus Is responsible for them. He it was who took something away. He it was who established something else. As to why He took this away, as to why He established something else I shall not pause to discuss. I shall emphasize the fact that what is here represented as having been done was done by Divine authority, by Divine sanction, by Divine power, and therefore whether it suits our ideas or not, must be accepted as conclusive in every sense of the term.

Let us try to get at the meaning of the text. Notice the numerical order here: First, Second. The first has been removed; the second has been established. It is my desire tonight to go into the details of the proof relative to the taking away or the abolishment of the first. Here is my associate text, if you will allow me the statement: "Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away (Heb 8:13)." I should be glad if you would reflect seriously on the thought suggested by the numerical order here. First, second; old, new. Reflect, as already intimated, that these are the words of the last man who in this world with these eyes or mortal eyes beheld the Lord in His glory. We can well afford to hear a man like that. We cannot under any consideration or any circumstances afford to turn away from a man like that. Two other questions naturally arise here. How much of the first was taken away? How much of the second was established? I wonder if it is possible to torture the first part of the statement into meaning that only part of the first was taken away, was abrogated, was abolished, was fulfilled, was ended? To my mind his declaration is just as full, just as broad, just as elaborate, just as sweeping as the other. When Paul declares that the Lord Jesus took away the first I understand him to mean that He took away all of the first, and when he declares that He established the second I understand him to mean that He established all of the second. It will be doing violence to the meaning, and I may say to the honesty, and to the position of Paul to attempt to make it appear that after having said that God took away the first that he really meant that God took away only a part of the first. It would, I repeat, be treating him with disrespect to say that he did not select his words or weigh his words, and that he therefore spoke at random when he said that the Lord had taken away the first. Taking this view of it I may ask, What was the first? I answer as I have answered already positively, unequivocally, unhesitatingly, that by the first is meant the fleshly promise, the covenant of circumcision, the covenant at Sinai, or the ten commandments, the statutes of Israel, the tabernacle service, the priestly functions and all that pertained unto them; or to put it in other words: Every law, every statute, every priest, every service, every word, every phrase, every jot, every tittle of the old institution is forever done away. I do not hesitate to affirm that by the first he meant all of the first, that which was fundamental, that which was secondary, that which was in their commands, that which was in their service, that which was in their ceremonies, all or nothing. I am aware of the fact that a statement like this would meet with opposition. If by taking away the first is meant only a part of the first is taken away, who is to determine what part remains? I want you to look that statement clearly in the face. Granted for argument’s sake that Paul did not mean what he says, and that in reality he only meant that part of the law, a little part or a his* part, a small part or a great part was taken away, I raise the question in the fear of God and in the expectation of the judgment, who is in the light of the Scriptures and in the light of accountability to God to determine what part was abolished and what part remains? I think I hear somebody say that he only means the ceremonial law. Granted for argument’s sake that that is true. Then all the statutes received by Moses on Sinai and proclaimed by him in the ears of the people, and written by him in a book, and by him deposited in the ark of the covenant are obligatory on the church unto this day. Are you prepared for such a statement as that? If it only means that the ceremonial law is taken away then we are forced to the conclusion that all the males of the church of God everywhere must three times a year; at the feast of the passover and unleavened bread, at the feast of weeks, and at the feast of the tabernacles, appear before the Lord in the place where in the ancient days He recorded His name. If it means that only the ceremonial law is done away then we can only sow our fields six years and the seventh must be a Sabbath unto the Lord our God and the land shall rest. If it means only the ceremonial law then the man, whose brother dies and leaves a widow but no children, must take her and raise up children unto his brother. But I hear some one say that it means the ceremonial law and the statutes of Israel embodied in the book of Exodus and followed by Leviticus and Numbers and repeated in Deuteronomy, but it does not mean the ten commandments, that it does not mean the covenant of Sinai. My friends, the covenant of Sinai I have proven to you comprehends all, all the ten commands and all the laws received through Moses, all the administration, all the sacrifices, all the service. If by the first is not meant or is only meant the ceremonial law pertaining to beasts and sacrifices and altars and the statutes of Israel, and if the covenant or the ten commandments stand, what follows then? It follows that cither Paul has made a grave mistake in writing or we have made a grave mistake in exegesis. In the natural order—and here comes a very important point—we have first, the ten commandments, second, the statutes of Israel, third, the tabernacle and priesthood, fourth, the service. If by the first is not meant the entire law then as the ten commandments came first, by "first" Paul means the ten commandments and he does not mean the statutes of Israel and he does not mean the ceremonial law. If by "first" he means precedence in the sense of numerical order, then the ten commandments having come first are taken away and all the statutes of Moses and all the ceremonies at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation stand until this day. How much better, how much more in harmony with the general tenor and drift of the word of God it is for us just to take Paul as he puts it and say that by the first he meant the first, that by the first he meant all of the first, that by the first he meant the ten commandments, the statutes of Israel, the tabernacle, the priests, the altar, the sacrifices, the service, every word and sentence and every jot and every tittle? There I take my stand! God help me, I cannot do otherwise! Amen! In advancing into this argument I want to settle one question. In one sense it is a very long question It was born when God made the promise unto Abraham and it has been a question since that memorable day. You will remember that my arguments all along the line have been to show that the old covenant which Paul now declares is taken away was inclusive when applied to Israel, and exclusive when applied to everybody else, and I intend to keep that before } cm until the end. When I discuss the abolishment of this covenant I shall discuss it only as it relates to Israel, only as it affected Israel, because nobody except Israel was even under the provisions of the covenant in any age. Hear the apostle Paul: "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 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 their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another; In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel (Rom 2:13-16)." Notice here that he declares emphatically that the Gentiles had not the law of Moses. The law was not given to the Gentiles. The covenant was not made with the Gentiles. It was made with Israel and it was not made with anybody else. Again: "What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith (Rom 9:30)." I am right in my contention. Moses and the New Testament bear me out in the deliberate declaration that the covenant at Sinai excluded all other nations save Abraham’s descendants and that as the Gentiles never had the law they were never under the law and I affirm here this night that no mortal man, no mortal association of men can prove either by the Scriptures of the Old Testament, or by the Scriptures of the New, that the Gentiles were ever under any obligations to keep that law or under any accountability for having failed to keep it. You may call that radical but it is not any more radical than the facts in the case. Further: "I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (Rom 9:1-5)." Let me sum up these declarations: Paul was a Jew. He had great sorrow in his heart on account of Israel. He declared that they were his kinsmen according to the flesh and that unto them pertained the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the promises, and the fathers, hut he did not intimate that the covenants and the glory and the promises and the fathers pertained to any other nation, kindred people, tribe, or tongue.

Doubtless in reading the New Testament you have often found in Paul’s arguments that he uses the personal pronouns "you, " "us" and "we" a great many times, and I want to call your attention to this because a great many people are in error on this line. There are Gentiles, many of them professed Christians, who talk about the law being "our" schoolmaster to bring "us" to Christ. I affirm here brethren that the law never did or never can bring any Gentile to Christ. God never designed that it should. No Gentile has ever lived under the law in any age or any time unless he was incorporated into the body of Israel by the covenant of circumcision: blood or purchase, and the mark in the flesh as proof of it. I will give you two illustrations of this so that you can carry it out for yourself. Allow me to read. Notice carefully the pronouns. Paul is addressing not promiscuously Gentiles and Hebrew Christians but particularly Christians who had originally been members of that covenant and had recognized that fact and had come out and become members of the second, but wanted to go back to the other. Hear him: "But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a school-master. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:23-26)." Observe, he does not say that the law "is, " present tense, our school-master. The day of the present tense applicable to the law had passed even then. He declares that the law was "our" school-master, that is the law was the school-master of Israel, but he did not say that the law was the school-master of Israel then, of Israel now or of the Gentile world now. Observe he did not say that the law was the school-master of every nation, kindred, tribe, people, tongue and generation, but was their school­master; the school-master of Israel. I might say that Noah Webster was the school­master of this republic. He has been so considered but he is no longer. He is out of date, he has passed away and the old blue-back spelling book is no more. Paul had the same thought in mind when he uses the pronouns "we, " "I, " "us." Referring only to himself and to his brethren in Israel, who, with longing eye had beheld as the smoke of the sacrifices at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation arose to God, the promise of better things. Again: "Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all: But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons. God hath sent forth the spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father (Gal 4:1-6)." Summarizing:, all Israel was under the law as children are under their tutors and governors. When the fulness of time came God sent His Son, under the law. The design of God in sending His son was that He might redeem those that were under the law and bring them out from under it. I think with these suggestions you can read Paul with more interest, with a better understanding, and with a better devotion unto Christ, for Christ hath removed the first which was bondage, and has brought in the day of the second, which is liberty.

Why was the first taken away? There must be some reason for it. Paul gives vis a very graphic idea I think in his Hebrew letter. Why do we take a dead man away? Because he is dead. There is no other reason for it. And he declares that the first was taken away because it had waxed old and was ready to vanish. Did God intend that this covenant should last all the way through to the end? I think not. I think I can demonstrate beyond a doubt that He only intended that it should last for a time, filling a mission, filling a place in the great educational system that God had inaugurated by the call of Abraham, perpetuated in Moses, elaborated in the prophets and in the sweet singer of Israel, to bring on the day when men should realize that the kingdom of God is in them. There are two very strong statements relative to God’s object in giving the law. Hear the apostle Paul: "Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator (Gal 3:19)." Analyze that passage. These Galatian brethren desired still to be under the law, to observe the law, to observe the days, and the feasts, and the sacrifices. He turned to them with all the authority of an apostle, telling them that he had received his information direct from heaven. Then he said, Brethren, why do yon serve the law? He then proceeds to tell them why the law was given: that it was added to the promise doubtless because men were sinners, and ordained of angels in the hand of a mediator but only ordained and only given and only administered until the seed should come. Again: We have a more elaborate argument on this subject. After declaring that the first covenant had ordinances of a divine service and a worldly sanctuary, after going into particulars and details and carrying us as on the very crest of the wave of his mighty argument, the apostles comes down and gives us a graphic and a beautiful review of the institution that I am now undertaking to prove to you has forever passed away: "The Holy Spirit this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances imposed on them until the time of reformation (Heb 9:8-10)." Question, When were these things imposed on them? At Sinai. Question, By whom were these things imposed on them? By the law through Moses. Question, How long were these things to he imposed upon diem? Until the time of reformation When is that time of reformation or when was that time of reformation? I will let the Bible answer: "But Christ being come an High Priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us (Heb 9:11-12)." The time of preparation or the time for which the law was added Paul said was until the seed should come. And here he says that when the seed came and shed His blood and became a priest in a more perfect tabernacle that the time of reformation was attained, and I think that is true beyond a doubt.

Before proceeding with the argument I desire to refresh your minds somewhat along the line of the ground we have gone over. I do not want you to forget that God’s object in calling Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and Israel and in the giving of the law, and the giving of the tabernacle, and in the giving of the service, and in the giving of the prophets was that He might prepare a nation for Himself, that men by experimenting with Him and with His promises might learn His faithfulness, His power, to know Him and be able to testify of His power and faithfulness in the world. The law was an educator, a school-master. While it was limited in its application to one nation or one tribe, or one people, and while it was imperfect in many ways and wholly inadequate to meet their wants in the removal of sin, yet it is a fact that under that institution there lived some of the mightiest men, some of the grandest men, some of the most glorious and self-sacrificing men, that have ever walked through the valleys and shadows of time. They are witnesses of God. Abraham is a witness for God; Isaac is a witness for God; Jacob is a witness for God; Moses is a witness for God: Joshua is a witness for God; Samuel is a witness for God; David who has tuned his harp to a greater variety of song and sentiment and glory than any men before or after him is a witness for God, and all the prophets who lived and died in the old dispensation were witnesses for Him, and therefore the Scriptures of the Old Testament come to us sanctified by the experiences and by the testimonies of those who tried these things for themselves. You say if there is so much good in it why is it taken away? I answer because it had filled its purpose. Why is it that the young man who has finished his course in the academy does not go back and take the course again? Because his ambition leads him to the college, or to the university, or to the post-graduate course in the university. Why is it that the sun arises in the morning and sends his flood of light into the world, why is it that the moon seems to hide in the very azure depths? I answer not because the academy is imperfect or does not meet the wants of the young man at that time, not because the moon is not glorious in her place as she marches along the battlements of heaven; and I answer that the law was taken away not because it failed to do absolutely what it did do but because it did what God said and what God designed, and prepared Israel and thence the world for something better. Is the first covenant abolished? Is the law ended? Has the tabernacle service passed away? Have all the things in the law of Moses filled their places and passed into the eternal record? These are questions that I want to answer and by your indulgence, and by your attention, and by your prayers and by the grace of God I will. The first witness I call is one whose testimony ought to settle and really does forever settle this question. But before I call my witness I want to repeat my proposition ’again. I do not propose to be at all of a hesitating character on this subject. I want to come right out, fully, freely, radically, and state my position: The old covenant, the law of Moses including the ten commandments, including the tabernacle, including the priesthood, including the service, including the temple of Solomon, including the rebuilt temple, including the last temple that was here when Jesus was here; the whole thing every jot and tittle and every sentence is done away. Certainly that is plain enough. No man can misunderstand that—no man can dispute that I have made it clear and that I am honest in coming out fully and freely. To the proof: The text ought to be proof enough. Hear the apostle; "He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second." If Jesus were here we would interrogate Him but He is gone, He is beyond the reach of mortal vision but we cannot ask Him save as He has left it on record, But he called men to bear witness to what He wanted done, and how He wanted it done, and under whom He wanted it done, and I will call these witnesses, some of them tonight. Let us have the testimony of Peter first, or rather of Jesus concerning Peter. I could give you a kind of synopsis but I prefer to give it to you in the exact words of Scripture: "When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Mat 16:13-16)."

What does this mean? It means that Peter confessed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that Jesus said on that confession He would build His church—a church that should stand against the assaults of death and hell. It means that Peter in a pre-eminent sense—while all the other apostles had power to bind or unloose— had the keys of the kingdom with the assurance that whatever he bound or unloosed on earth should be ratified in heaven. Never was such honor, such authority, before given to mortal man. If you want to know what Moses meant, or what Moses taught, or whether or not Moses belongs to the new institution, or the new covenant, or the gospel, surely Peter is the man to settle the question forever. I want you to look at that. Jesus said He would give Peter the keys of the kingdom and if the kingdom of Christ and the law of Moses, or the old covenant and the new are the same, Peter should make it all plain to us beyond a single doubt. When did Peter begin to use the keys of the kingdom? Not during the life of Jesus because he did not understand what was meant by the keys of the kingdom up until the last day of the Lord’s sojourn on earth. Well I think I hear you say I do not know whether that is so or not. Listen. Just after the Lord said He would give him the keys of the kingdom He told him that He was going to Jerusalem and that they would put Him to death: "Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me; for thou savourest not of the things that be of God, but those that be of men (Mat 16:22-23)." Peter did not understand the nature of His kingdom right down until the very last, because he wanted to fight. He took out his sword and cut off a poor man’s ear (John 18:10). Peter did not understand the keys of the kingdom even when the Master was on trial, for he said repeatedly he did not know Him. and then he swore that he did not, and went out from under the piercing eye of Jesus and poured out his soul in bitterness and tears (Mark 14:66-72). Peter did not understand what was meant by the keys of the kingdom or how to use them, because in one of the very last interviews when he came with the others unto Jesus he propounded this question: "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom unto Israel (Acts 1:6)?" Remember this was after Jesus arose from the dead. Remember that it was just before Jesus went up on high. Where did Peter use the keys of the kingdom? Hear me! On the day of Pentecost, in the city of Jerusalem. Again: Where did Peter use the keys of the kingdom? I answer at the house of Cornelius, the Gentile (Acts 10:1-48), in obedience to the commission of God, and in pursuance of the command of the angel of the Lord to Cornelius to send for Peter to come and open unto him the words of life— "He hath taken away the first that he may establish the second!" What did Peter say about the First Covenant or about the Law, or about the Ten Commandments, or about the keeping of the Sabbath day? What did he say about it at Pentecost or at the house of Cornelius? Not one single word. Did he not have the assurance that whatever he would bind upon the people of God on Pentecost or anywhere else should be bound in heaven? Yes. Did he bind the ten commandments? No, sir. Did he bind the statutes of Israel? No, sir. Did he bind the tabernacle service? No, sir. Again: Peter not only spoke on Pentecost, he not only spoke at the house of Cornelius, but he wrote the Epistles, First Peter and Second Peter, we call them. And here is a broad proposition and I challenge your investigation and your attention: You may take Peter’s sermon on Pentecost. Peter’s sermon at the house of Cornelius, take the Epistles of Peter from the first word to the last "amen" and you cannot prove that such a man as Moses ever lived or ever gave the law, or that such a thing ever existed as the administration of the first covenant. Conclusion: If Peter did not bind that institution on the church no other mortal man had the authority to do it. Conclusion number two: If Peter did not bind the ten commands and the administration of the first institution on the church they never have yet been bound and they never will be bound until the end of time. You thought when I laid down the proposition a while ago and made it so positive, so unequivocal, so radical and so sweeping, that it was very strong. The reason I did it was I had a strong argument to come and I have only begun. Peter was the man. He was an apostle of the Lord. Pie had the command to do it if any one had He had the authority to do it if am one had. He had the responsibility to do it if any had. And you may read his sermon on Pentecost, and his sermon at the house of Cornelia and read his Epistles, and all you can get out of them is this that we have a new law-giver even Jesus, that there are life and salvation and hope and remission of sins in Him and in no one else under heaven, above the heavens, or under the earth. I do not like to dismiss Peter. Oh, I love Peter! I love him because he was a man of courage. Oh, he was an undaunted hero, an undaunted believer in God and in Christ, willing to go at any length, any time, in the name of the Lord. It is recorded by tradition of him that when he came down to die they were going to crucify him like his Lord and Master, and he said: "I am not worthy, crucify me with my head down." Oh he was a good man, a glorious man, and he unlocked and he locked, and he bound and he loosed, but he did not bind the ten commandments or the old covenant. Here is a peculiar thing: Beginning with the first chapter of Acts and closing with Paul’s ministry in Rome, we have a period of history of many years covering apostolic labor, just how many I cannot say. The Gospel was preached with earnestness, with power, with fire, with love, with the Holy Spirit and there is not an intimation for a long time concerning the law or any part of the law, no discussion of the question. Do you know how that arose? It did not arise by the agitation of a number of good men like it is carried on now. The agitation began in the hearts of wicked men. They were men who were so in love with tradition that even in the days of Messiah on earth they invalidated the word of God with their traditions and they were not satisfied with the simple gospel. The way was too easy! There was too much liberty in it and therefore they were not satisfied. Peter preached with power. Three thousand were converted. Peter preached again and thousands more were converted and the word of God grew and the name of the Lord was glorified and they could not endure it. Then there was another mighty preacher whose name was Stephen. He was filled with the spirit of God. Every muscle, every bone, every nerve, every sinew was afire with love for God and man and he preached with such power that they could not withstand him and hence the agitation on this very subject that makes the necessity of these lectures apparent, the agitation began with wicked men and culminated in this good man’s death. I will just call your attention to it as it is in the Book; "Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen. And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake. Then they suborned men, which said. We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God. And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council. And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law: For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us. And all that sat in council, looking steadfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel (Acts 6:9-15)." Hear me! Stephen was doubtless a disciple of Peter. Peter had the keys of the kingdom. We know what Stephen preached. We know that he preached Christ, and the accusation that they brought against him was that they had heard him preach that Christ would change the customs delivered unto them by Moses. Not only this, but He was going to sweep that mighty temple from the face of the earth and all of the ritual, and all that pertained to it, from the minds and hearts of the children of men. Notice this, that in order that they might overturn Stephen, that they might resist Stephen, that they might vanquish Stephen, they actually employed dishonest and rascally men to swear that Stephen had preached against Moses and the law. It is a truth beyond a doubt, but they did not have the convenient witnesses to establish the fact. The agitation that started then, a short time after Pentecost, after the introduction of the Gospel, after the setting up of the church, went on; and the Pharisees, the friends of Judaism, took a hand and the agitation went on and on for a number of years until after the Gentiles were converted and then they began, not only to affirm that the converts from Judaism, but also that all Gentile converts should also be circumcised and keep the law. That was the idea, that was the doctrine, that was the contention. Listen: The greatest enemies to the apostolic church were Judaizing Christians. There was only one great convention of Christians held in apostolic times and it was held for the very purpose of discussing the very question that I am discussing tonight, over eighteen hundred years after that convention met. I will give you a statement concerning it from the testimony of Luke: "And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissention and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders, about this question (Acts 15:1-2)."These heretics were going about teaching that the Gentile Christians should be circumcised and keep the law of Moses. How did Paul take that? Luke says that Paul had no small contention and disputation with them on the subject. Does that mean that Paul endorsed their doctrine, their tradition, their speculation, their heresy? No. It means that like the man of God he was he stood up and fought it, and fought it from the shoulder, for he was that sort of a man. Again, I will read at length: "And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe (Acts 15:6-7)." Allow me to break my quotation long enough to say that Peter here recognized the fact that he had the keys of the kingdom. "And God which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Spirit, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they (Acts 15:8-11)." I have declared that by Peter’s sermon on Pentecost, at the house of Cornelius, and in his Epistles we could not prove that the law ever existed. Here he comes forward to testify that having the keys of the kingdom of God had made it possible for him to declare that all of these teachings by these men who had come down from Judea were heresies of the rankest type. Notice: Here they are now, Paul, Peter and the other apostles and the ciders of Jerusalem considering the very question of whether or not Christianity is engrafted on Judaism, to consider the very question of whether the new covenant is the outgrowth of the old, or whether it has its roots struck down into the depth of the living God. Here it is: "Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up; That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them which from among the Gentiles are turned to God; but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day (Acts 15:12-21)." What is the testimony of Paul? His idea was that the law of Moses had no place in the Gospel. The testimony of James; what was his idea? That the law of Moses has no place in the Gospel. And here are the apostles many of them and the elders, the men of age, and the men of experience in the great and only church that ever was at Jerusalem that was apostolic, and here is the letter they wrote: "And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: For as much as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law; to whom we gave no such commandment: It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you, with our beloved Barnabas and Paul. Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well (Acts 15:23-29)." Notice this, that they declare that they gave no such commandment as that the law of Moses should be kept. The Gentiles were never under it and they were determined that they never should be under it, and in order that they might have further assurance they sent chosen men with Paul and Barnabas to carry the news among the Christians everywhere. Oh well, says one, I see where you are mistaken; that was the ceremonial law. You can not find such a statement inside the lids of the Bible. We might as well pull the thing up root and branch. Oh, you say, the idea is there. Well, if the idea is there the words ought to be there. But for argument’s sake I will grant it and I will take the thing up by the roots still. Hear me! Hear the word rather: "Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law; to whom we gave no such commandment (Acts 15:24)." He did not tell them to be circumcised, he did not tell them to keep the law and let us see what we can make out of that. Beside that I will lay Paul’s statement about keeping the law and circumcision. Then we will know because Paul said he did not learn it from Peter or the other apostles, he learned it from God: "This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. 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 (Gal 3:2-6)." Further: "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 (Gal 5:2-3)." "Again!" What does he say "again" for? Because from Jerusalem to the regions round about Illyricum he preached the Gospel of Christ and testified that they were not under Moses but under Jesus. It could not be the ceremonial law simply that they were contending had passed away. It could not mean the statutes of Israel simply, it could not mean the ten commandments merely, because Paul says if a man is circumcised he is in debt to do the whole law. That means every word in the ritualistic or ceremonial law if you are bound to put it that way and also the ten commandments and the statutes. There is no way out of it. All or none. Every word, every jot, every tittle, every sentence, every statute or none. Which will you take? The roads are before you and you are a free moral agent. You can take your choice. God help you! God gave new commands. Where is the man since Pentecost who has had the authority that Peter had? He had the keys of the kingdom. Where is the man since Paul who had the authority that he had? He is the last man on earth who beheld and heard Jesus. They agree that the First Covenant is no part of the new.