| |
2. There was no such thing as
two separate laws given to the Jews.
To sustain their doctrine,
Sabbatarians have invented a theory of two laws given at
Sinai; one the moral law, the other the ceremonial.
Adventists attach the utmost
importance to their theory of two laws, as well they may;
for if this is wrong their cause is lost. U. Smith says:
"No question, therefore, more vital to the interest
of Sabbath keepers can be proposed."—Synopsis of
Present Truth, page 258. But that they are wrong on this
vital question is very easily shown.
"Moral law,"
"ceremonial law." Adventists use these two terms
as freely as though the Bible were full of them; yet,
strange to say, the Scriptures make no such distinctions,
and never once do we read of "moral" law and
"ceremonial" law in the Bible. The place to find
these terms is in Adventist literature. In the Bible the
Old Testament is simply called "the law." Had
the primitive Christians stood on the Adventist platform,
when Paul and Christ were preaching concerning "the
law," they would have been frequently interrupted
with "What law?" "What law?" "The
ceremonial or the moral?" But such questions were
never asked, for all knew of but one law—the Pentateuch.
Adventists severely criticize those who happen to use an
unscriptural word or phrase; yet they themselves do that
thing commonly, as in this case. It would be amusing to
hear one of them try to preach on the "two laws"
and confine himself to Bible language. He could not
possibly do it. If there were two distinct laws given to
Israel, so different in their nature, it is strange that
there is no record of it, no reference to it in the Bible.
If one was abolished and the other was not, strange that
Paul should not make the distinction when he has so much
to say about the law. Why did he not say, "we
establish the moral law?" or "the ceremonial law
was our schoolmaster"? No, he just says "the
law," and leaves it there. He seems not to have been
quite as clear on that point as Adventists are!
"Neither Christ nor the apostle ever distinguished
between the moral, the ceremonial. and the civil law, when
they spoke of its establishment or its abolition."—Kitto's
Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, —Art. Law.
Adventists have drawn up a long
list of things which they claim are true of what they call
the "moral law" and an opposite list which they
apply to their "ceremonial law." These two they
contrast and make out two laws. Thus U. Smith: "Moral
law":—"Was spoken from Sinai by the voice of
God and twice written upon tables of stone by his own
finger. Was deposited in the golden ark. Related only to
moral duties."—Synopsis of Present Truth, page 266.
Of course, this was just the Ten Commandments, nothing
more, nothing less. So here we have their "moral
law." Now here is the other one: "The ceremonial
law": "Was communicated to Moses privately and
was by Moses written with a pen in a book (Deut.
31:9)." "Was put into a receptacle by the side
of the ark (Deut. 31:26)." "Was wholly
ceremonial" (same page).
Hence everything not found in the
Decalog belongs to the ceremonial law, and everything
Moses himself wrote in the book of the law placed in the
side of the ark is "wholly ceremonial." Deut.
31:26 reads: "Take this book of the law and put it in
the side of the ark." We enquire, then, how much
"the book of the law" contained. The answer is
easy: It contained all the five books of Moses— Genesis,
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Thus 2 Kings
14:6 says it "is written in the book of the law of
Moses," and then quotes Deut. 24:16, as the book of
the law. 2 Chron. 35:12 says: "It is written in the
book of Moses," and refers to Lev. 3:3. Ezra 6:18
says: "It is written in the book of Moses," and
refers to Num. 3:6. Josh. 8:31 quotes Exod. 20:25, as that
which "is written in the book of the law." 1 Cor.
14:34 refers to Gen. 3:16, as "the law." This
settles beyond question that the book of the law deposited
in the side of the ark was the five books of Moses. Dr.
Scott on Deut. 31:26 says: "This [book] appears to
have been a correct and authentic copy of the five books
of Moses."
This book, Adventists say, is
"wholly ceremonial." It is their ceremonial law.
Yet that very book contained scores of precepts as purely
moral as any in the Decalog. Read these: "Thou shalt
not vex a stranger." "Ye shall not afflict any
widow or fatherless child" (Exod. 22:21,22).
"Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil" (Exod.
23:2). "Ye shall be holy." "Thou shalt not
go up and down as a talebearer among thy people."
"Thou shalt not avenge nor bear any grudge against
the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself" (Lev. 19:2, 16,18). "Thou
shalt not respect persons." "Thou shalt
perfect" (Deut. 16:19; 18:13). These are but a few
among scores of moral precepts not found in the tables of
stone, but in the book of the law. Are all these to be
classed ceremonial because God did not write them on a
stone, but gave them to Moses to write in a book? Surely
not. Then, the nature of a precept was not determined by
the way it was given. God gave them all at different times
as it pleased him.
"The law" embraces the
"whole law" (Gal. 5:3). Of course' in that law,
some precepts refer to moral duties, others to civil, and
others to ceremonial; but all are only different parts of
the same law, called, as a whole, "the law."
Thus, Jesus quotes from Leviticus 19, as "the
law" (Matt. 22:36 40). Now read the whole
chapter, Leviticus 19, and you find moral, civil, and
ceremonial precepts all mingled together, and often in the
same verse.
Another thought: The "book of
the law," which U. Smith calls "wholly
ceremonial," contains the Ten Commandments word for
word twice repeated (Exod. 20 and Deut. 5). G. I. Butler
(Adventist) himself makes this concession: "The book
of the law, which was placed in the side of the ark, or at
the side of it, contained both the moral and ceremonial
laws."—Law in Galatians, page 39. That drops the
bottom out of their theory that the moral law was "in
the ark, and the ceremonial law in the side of the
ark."
On close examination, every text on
which they rely for two laws will fail them. That the
"book of the law" did contain moral
precepts is settled by Gal. 3:10: "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." Where
in the book of the law is this written? In Deut. 27:26.
Turning there, we have a curse against images (vs.
15): disobedience to parents (vs. 16): adultery (vs. 20);
murder (vs. 24); bribery (vs. 25); then comes the verse
quoted as "the book of the law." So if the
Decalogue contains moral law, then the book did too. This
shows the utter fallacy of their theory of two laws.
The following passage alone
overturns the two law theory of Adventists: "Master,
which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto
him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,
and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the
first and great commandment. And the second is like unto
it: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two
commandments hang all the law and the prophets"
(Matt. 22:36-40).
1. These two great commandments
were "in the law." 2. Neither of them is found
in the Decalog. 3. Both of them are in what Adventists
call the ceremonial law. 4. Neither of them was spoken by
God, nor written by him, nor engraver on stones, nor put
into the ark. Both were given by God to Moses privately,
and he wrote them with a pen in the book of the law which
was placed in the side of the ark. And yet these two
precepts are the greatest of all. Jesus said of the first
one that it is "the first of all the
commandments." Of the two he said, "There is
none other commandments greater than these," and
"on these hang all the law." So the greatest
commandments are in the book of the law, not on the tables
of stone. This utterly demolishes the Adventist two law
theory. The Ten Commandments on tables of stone, then,
were not superior, but inferior, to commandments that were
given through Moses in the book of the law.
We shall examine a few more of
their contrasts of the two laws as they arrange them.
"1. Moral: Existed in Eden
before the fall. Ceremonial: Was given after the
fall."
Answer: Where do they read that the
Decalogue was given in Eden ? Nowhere. This they assume
not only without proof, but against the plain record of
Exodus 19, 20, and Deuteronomy 5, that it was given at
Sinai. So their very first comparison is a failure.
"2. Moral: Was perfect (Ps.
19:7). Ceremonial: Made nothing perfect (Heb. 7:19)."
This they regard as one of their
clearest proofs of the two laws. But where is the proof?
Does it follow that if the law is perfect it will or can
make sinners perfect? If it could, then, as Paul says,
"righteousness should be by the law" (Gal.
3:21). And "then Christ is dead in vain" (Gal.
2:21). The law itself could be perfect, and yet fail to
make anybody perfect. However, we believe that Ps. 19:7 is
pointing forward to the "truth which came by
Christ," the new testament, "the law of
Christ." David's Psalms are full of sparkling
prophecies of the accomplishments of the gospel. So there
is no proof of two laws in the Old Testament, after all.
"3. Moral: Contains the whole
duty of man (Eccl. 12:13). Ceremonial: 'Stood only in
meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal
ordinances' (Heb. 9:10)."
This is fallacious. There is not a
particle of evidence that Eccl. 12:13 refers alone to the
Decalogue. It manifestly embraces all God's commandments
on all subjects. There are scores of duties we owe to God
and men not even hinted at in the Decalog. Heb. 9:10
refers only to the service of the priests in the temple,
which service "stood only in meats and drinks,"
etc. Here they fail again. Their "two laws" are
made out: 1. By pure assumptions. 2. By misapplications of
Scripture. 3. By detached phrases here and there taken out
of their proper connections. This is
"scrapping."
But they assert that such opposite
things are said of "the law" that it cannot be
the same law all the time. To this we reply: Particular
expressions about the law were spoken from widely
different standpoints. To apply the Adventists' rule on
other Bible subjects would certainly make bad work. Paul
said he was "a Jew" (Acts 21:39), and again that
he was "a Roman" (Acts 22:25). The Adventist
argument for two laws would prove that there were two
Pauls. So Christ is "a Lion" and "a
Lamb" (Rev. 5:5, 6); "the everlasting
Father" (Isa. 9:6), and "born of a woman"
(Luke 2:7); "Prince of Life" (Acts 3:15), yet
died through weakness (2 Cor. 13:4); "a child" (Isa.
9:6), and yet God (Heb. 1:1-8). Came to bring "peace
on earth" (Luke 2:9-14), yet "not peace on
earth, but rather division" (Luke 12:51). Two Christs.
If Adventist arguments are sound, there must of necessity
be two Christs. It would be much harder to reconcile the
apparently opposite things said of Christ, than it would
be the different things said about the law. There were
different sides to Christ's nature, yet he was but one
person. So there were different sides to the law, but it
was only one law. Viewed in the light of its ultimate
design, viz., to prepare the way for Christ, Rom. 10:4;
Gal. 3:23-25; in its spirit, Rom. 7:6; in its
righteousness, Rom. 8:3, 4— it was "holy and just
and good" (Rom. 7:12). But viewed from the side of
its mere letter, Rom. 2:29; 7:6; 2 Cor. 3:6, 7; its
numerous rites, ceremonies, penalties, and rigorous
exactions—it was "the ministration of death"
(2 Cor. 3:7), and a "yoke of bondage" (Gal.
5:1-3; Acts 15:1-10). Yet it was all one law, simply
"the law."
The book of the law contained the
Decalogue. The Decalogue contained moral precepts and
ceremonies. The weekly Sabbath was the chief ceremonial of
all the Jewish worship (see chap. 3). The Decalogue was
partly moral and partly ceremonial. So the book of the law
was partly ceremonial, and yet contained scores of moral
precepts.
|
|
