remained several days. Luke says: “And
on the Sabbath we went out of the city
by a river side, where prayer was wont
to be made; and we sat down, and spake
unto the women which resorted thither.”
The statement is sometimes made that
Paul did his preaching on the Sabbath
because that was the only day the
synagogues were open so that he could
get an audience of Jews. But in Philippi
there doubtless was no synagogue, and a
Sabbath service was held beside the
river. Thus the Sabbath-keeping custom
of Paul and his associates was so strict
and well-established that they held re-
ligious services on the Sabbath even when
they could not visit a synagogue.
In Acts 17: 1, 2 we are informed that
when Paul and his company reached
Thessalonica the apostle followed his
regular custom of Sabbathkeeping by
visiting the synagogue three Sabbath
days in succession and ‘reasoned with
them out of the Scriptures.” Greeks as
well as Jews attended his meetings.
Verse 4. In Acts 18: 1-4, 11 is recorded
Paul’s visit to Corinth, where for 18
months he was the guest of Aquila and
Priscilla. With them he wrought on the
six working days at the tentmaking
trade, and ‘reasoned in the synagogue
every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews
and the Greeks.” “And he continued
there a year and six months, teaching the
word of God among them.” This means
that 78 Sabbaths were observed by Paul
and his fellow Christians in that one
place.
Can any person by the utmost stretch
of the imagination conceive of such a
record as this being possible if the Sab-
bath had been changed by Jesus? For a
year and a half Paul and his companions
labored in Corinth during the working
portion of the week, and attended divine
services on the seventh day, with not even
“a hint that another day had supplanted
the Sabbath as the day of worship. What
an unmatched opportunity it was for the
Holy Spirit to have mention made of the
change if it had been commanded by
Christ or by the apostles. Reason unites
with divine revelation in insisting that no
such change took place in New Testa-
ment times.
When the apostle Paul arrived in
Rome as a prisoner, he called the chief of
the Jews of the city together and said to
them: “Men and brethren, though I
have committed nothing against the
people, or customs of our fathers, yet was
I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into
the hands of the Romans.” Acts 28: 17.
It would not have been possible for Paul
to say truthfully that he had done nothing
against the customs of the Jews if he
(Continued on page 14)
August — 1944
E HEAR some people saying much
about the abolition of the law of God.
We are told that it ended at the death of
Christ on the cross, that it expired by limitation
when Jesus died on Calvary.
We know that in legal matters some statutes
are enacted to meet certain emergencies, and that
such enactments are operative only for a stated
length of time. Also laws are repealed for various
reasons. When a law is repealed, or when the
time expires during which it is declared to be
operative, it ceases to exist just as completely as
if it had never existed. Such things are not un-
common in the modern administration of law,
and there are sufficient reasons why such might
be the case with the imperfect legislation of men.
Jesus has said: “It is easier for heaven and
earth to pass, than for one tittle of the law to fail.”
Luke 16: 17. The devil would be glad to see the
government of God on earth overthrown. Since
he has never been able to do this, he doubtless is
well pleased when he can make people think the
law of God has ceased to exist. This is why he
continually suggests theories to make men bold
in ignoring and violating it.
Feeling the need of legal advice in answer to
questions concerning the repeal of law, I once
entered a law office and was invited to make free
use of the large library with the attorney’s
assistance. I was seeking information especially
in answer to two questions: First, if a law is re-
pealed, or expires by limitation, what effect does
this have on the persons who are still serving
sentences for offenses committed while the law
was in force? Second, what effect would the repeal
of a law have on those who had committed
offences while the statute was in force but had not
yet been convicted and sentenced?
In regard to the complete ending of a law that
had expired or had been repealed, we read the
following:
“The legislature, however, may limit the time
in which a statute shall be operative, and when
the time so limited expires, the statute ceases to
operate as completely as if it had never existed.”
—*“American and English Encyclopedia of Law,” Vol.
26, p. 715.
We have an example of this in war taxes on
certain articles for a stated period of time. The
point is also illustrated in the Medo-Persian law
prohibiting prayer for thirty days. (Daniel 6:
6-9, 12.) It will be seen from the reasoning in the
quotation given, that if the Ten Commandments
were abolished by the death of Jesus on the cross,
they passed completely out of existence, and can
never have any bearing on the decisions of the
coming judgment day.
Place this thought with the following statement
found on page 755 of the same authority on law:
“When a statute prescribing a punishment for a
crime is repealed after such erime is committed
but before final judgment of conviction, though
after a verdict of guilty, no punishment can be im-
posed, because the act must be punishable when
judgment is demanded.”
That is, when a law expires or is repealed, even
at the last moment of the trial before judgment is
rendered and sentence is pronounced, the person
REPEALED
By I. A. Crane
guilty of violating that statute cannot be pun-
ished, because there remains no law to condemn
him. This is made plain also by the following:
“It is well settled that a party cannot be con-
victed after the law under which he may be prose-
cuted has been repealed although the offence may
have been committed before the repeal.”’—
““ American Decisions and Law,” p. 596.
This agrees perfectly with the scripture which
says: “Sin is not imputed when there is no law.”
Romans 5: 13. (See also Romans 4: 15.) There-
fore this principle is not only verified by English
and American legal decisions, but it is also
scriptural and reasonable.
Now let us apply this sound principle of law to
the Ten Commandments and the final judgment
day. The people of Old Testament times had not
yet been judged when Christ died on the cross.
Christ told the Jews of His generation that people
of the past would stand a better chance in the
judgment than they. (Matthew 12:41, 42;
11: 24.) Paul spoke of a judgment to come, and
said God had appointed the day for it to begin.
(Acts 24:25; 17:31.) If, therefore, the Ten
Commandments came to an end at the cross,
not a sinner in Old Testament times can be condemned
and punished. The law which they transgressed
had passed away more than 1900 years before
they were to be judged. And even if a new law
had been instituted later, they would not be
amenable to it. This would be to them an
““ex post facto law,” the very thing which is pro-
hibited in the fundamental law of American
government. (See Art. 1, Sec. 9 of the U. S.
Constitution.) And even if, as some claim, the
people of Old Testament times had been judged,
and were now serving sentences, they would have
been pardoned when the law ended, for “the
repeal of a law imposing a penalty is of itself a
remission of the penalty.”’—“American Decisions
and Law,” p. 598. :
According to these sound principles of law,
which have been set forth by unquestioned de-
cisions in both American and English courts, no
one living in Old Testament times can be con-
victed in the day of judgment unless the Ten
Commandments under which they lived are still
in force.
That is not all. Most of those who declare that
the Ten Commandments came to an end at the
death of Christ on the cross, say that the sup-
posed new law did not go into effect until the day
of Pentecost, which was 50 days later. If this
were true, then there was no moral law at all existing
tn the universe of God for a period of fifty days! Think
what this would mean! It was during this time
that the soldiers who guarded the tomb saw
Christ as He rose in glory, and hastened to the
city to tell the story, but were intercepted by the
priests and bribed to perjure themselves and lie
about Christ, the Son of God! (Matthew 28:
11-15.) Here was a case of bribery, lying, and
deception, but no law to condemn it! What incon-
sistency and what a reproach upon the character
and wisdom of God does the theory of the abol-
ished law entail!
The Bible reveals but one supreme standard of
moral law, the Ten Commandments. (James
2: 10-12.) It reveals but one plan of salvation.
(Acts 4: 12.) When man sinned in the beginning,
he violated the law, for “sin is the transgression of
(Continued on page 17)
PAGE 7