The Pulpit Commentary — Exodus — Volume 2 — Section 136

blessings and curAings on the fulfilment a.nd transgression of the la.w. But although this is given amidst the thunder a.nd lightning of Sinai, whose roll seemB to be heard constantly in its mighty imperatives-' Thou sha.lt not I' or 'Thou shalt I' yet still it points back to gmce; for the God who speaks in the la.w is he who led the people out of Egypt, freed them from the yoke of bondage-the God who gave the promise to Abraham, and who has prepared a highest good, the Messianir, kiugdom, for his people" (Martensen). 2. It furnished a motive for obedience to the la,,n. Mark the order-the same as in the Gospel; God first saves Israel, then gives them his law to keep. Because God ha.d redeemed them from Egypt, a.nd ha.d given them, of his free mercy, this glorious privilege of being his people, therefore were they to keep his commandments. This was the return they were to make to him for the so great love wherewith he ha.d loved them. Their relation to the law wa.s not to be a. servile one. Obedience wa.s not to be a price pa.id for favour, but a. return of gra.reful hearts for favours already received. From this motive of gratitude, and that they might retain the privileges he ha.d given them, and inherit further blessine, they were to walk in the prescribed way. If, notwithstanding, a. pronouncedly legal element entered into that economy, a. curse even being pronounced against those who failed to keep the whole law, while the good promised to obedience :lppears more as legal award than as a gift of grace-we know now the reason for the covenant being cast into this legal form, and can rejoice that in Christ our justification is placed on so much better a footing. Obedience, however, is still required of us as a condition of continuance in God's favour, and of ultimate inheritance of blessing. 3. It furnished to the pious Israelite a pledge of merciful treatment when he transgressed or fell short of the requirements of his law. What, e.g., had David to fall ha.ck upon in the hour of his remorse for his great transgression (Ps. li.), but just such a word as this, con.firmed as it was by acts of God, which showed that it was a word always to be depended on. This one saying, prefacing the law, altered the whole complexion of Israel's standing under law. It gave to the Israelite the assurance that he most needed, namely- that, notwithstanding the strictness of the co=andment, God would yet accept him in his sincere endeavoui·s after obedience, though these fell manifoldly shon; of the full requirement, i.e., virtually on the ground of faith-in connection, however, with propitiation. III. MORAL IN ITS SUBSTANCE. This has been a.dverted to above. Though im- posed on man by Divine authority, moral law is no arbitrary creation of the Divine will. It is an emanation from the Divine nature. (Cf. Hooker-" Of law there can be no less acknowledged than that her seat 1s the bosom of God; her voice the harmony of the world.n) Herbert Spencer was never guilty of a greater misrepresentation than when he affirmed-" Religious creeds, established and dissenting, all embody the belief that right and wrong are right and wrong simply in virtue of Divinto enactment,. (" Data of Ethics," p. 50). We may reply with Stahl-" The primary idea of goodness is the essential, not the creative, will of God. The Divine will, in its essence, is infinite love, mercy, patience, truth, faithfulness, rectitude, spirituality, and all that is included in the idea of holiness, which constitutes the inmost nature of God. The holiness of God, therefore, neither precedes his will (' sanctitas antecedens voluntatem' of the school.men) nor follows it, but is his will itself. The good is not a law for the Divine will (so that God wills it because it is good); neither is it a creation of his will (so that it becomes good because he wills it); but it is the nature of God from everlasting to everlasting." (See also Martensen's "Christian Ethics," on "God the only Good," and on "The Law's Content.") The law, in a word, expresses i=utable demands of holiness. What these are is determined in any given case by tlle abstract nature of holiness and by the constitution and circumstances of the being to whom the law is given. Man, e.g., is a. free, immortal spirit ; but he is at the same time an inhabitant of the earth, bound by natural conditions, and standing to his fellow-men in relation~, some of which at least belong only to his present state of existence. Bene~ w~ find m the Decalogue precepts relating to the weekly Sabbath, to marriage, to the mst1tut1on of private propeny, etc. These precepts are founded on our nature, and a.re universally obligatory. They show what duty immutably requires of us a.s possessing such a nature; but obviously their application will cease under different conditions sf existence (Matt. xxii. 30). Only in its fundamental principles of love to God and to our fellow-beings, and in its spiritual  142 TUE BOOK OF EXODU& [en. u. 1-18.