Sabbatarians are continually preaching, talking, writing, and arguing about “the law.” Yet in all the New Testament, while we have “preach the kingdom” eight times, “preach the word” seventeen times, “preach Christ” twenty-three times, “preach the gospel” fifty times, not once is It said “preach the law,” or “preach the Sabbath”; but Paul boldly declares that all those who desire to be teachers of the law understand “neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm” (1 Tim. 1:7). This is really the truth. A clear comprehension of the law will convince all intelligent minds that modern Sabbath worshipers have not a peg in Scripture upon which to hang their doctrine. We shall consider the subjects under several propositions. I quote from Canright:
Proposition 1. “The law” embraces the whole Mosaic law, moral, civil, and ceremonial.
The term, “the law,” when used with the definite article and without qualifying words, refers “in nine cases out of ten, to the Mosaic law, or to the Pentateuch.”— Smith’s Bible Dictionary, Art. Law. Invariably the Adventists use the term “the law” for the Ten Commandments only. They hang up a chart of the Decalog and constantly point to it as “the law” (Matt. 5:17); “the law of the Lord” (Ps. 19:7); “the law of God” (Rom. 7:22). This is their fundamental error on the law. I affirm that “the law” included the whole system of law given to the Israelites at Sinai, embracing all those requirements, whether moral, civil, or ceremonial, Decalog and all. Look at the term “law,” in a concordance, or in any Bible lexicon, dictionary, or encyclopedia. “The law” commonly included the whole of the five books of Moses. Even Butler (Adventist) is compelled to make this confession: “The term, ‘the law,’ among the Jews generally included the five books of Moses, thus including the whole system, moral, ritual, typical, and civil.”—Law in Galatians, page 70. That is the truth exactly.
Now, bear in mind this one simple fact wherever you find the term “the law,” and you will have no trouble with Sabbatarian arguments on “the law.”
Take a few examples of the use of the term “the law” (1 Cor. 14:34). Women “are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.” Where does the law say this? Gen. 3:16. So Genesis is in the law. Again: “The law had said, Thou shalt not covet” (Rom. 7:7). Where? Exod 20:17. So Exodus is in the law. Once more: “Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law?” (Matt. 22:36). Jesus then makes two quotations from the law: First, “Thou shalt love the Lord with all thy heart.” This is taken from Deut. 6:5. So Deuteronomy is in the law. Second, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” This is from Lev. 19:18. So Leviticus is a part of the law. And this: “Have ye not read in the law, how that on the Sabbath Days the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are blameless?” (Matt. 12:5). It is from Num. 28:9. These, then, embrace all the five books of Moses as “the law.” Observe a little where the law is spoken of and you will soon see that it refers indiscriminately to each and all the books of Moses as “the law.” Of course, any verse in any of these books is quoted as “the law,” because it is a part of the law. So the Ten Commandments are quoted as the law because they are a part of the law.
Again, “the law” embraces all parts of the law, moral, civil, or ceremonial. Thus the ceremonial precepts: “The parents brought in the child Jesus to do with him after the custom of the law” (Luke 2:27). That is, to offer a sacrifice (vs. 24). Moral precepts: “The law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers” (1 Tim. 1:9). This is the Decalog. Civil precepts: “Commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?” (Acts 23:3). Notice that every time it is simply “the law.” “Gamaliel, a doctor of the law” (Acts 5:34). Of what law? Every intelligent man knows that the law of which he was doctor or teacher, was the whole Pentateuch, Decalog included. The law, then, is the whole Jewish law, in all its parts. This one point, clearly settled, destroys nine-tenths of all the Seventh-Day Adventist argument for the Jewish Sabbath.
Proposition 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 inquire, 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 be 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 Decalog 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).
- These two great commandments were “in the law.”
- Neither of them is found in the Decalog.
- Both of them are in what Adventists call the ceremonial law.
- Neither of them was spoken by God, nor written by him, nor engraven 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 Decalog 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 (Ecci. 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 Ecci. 12:13 refers alone to the Decalog. 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 Decalog. The Decalog contained moral precepts and ceremonies. The weekly Sabbath was the chief ceremonial of all the Jewish worship (see chap. 3). The Decalog was partly moral and partly ceremonial. So the book of the law was partly ceremonial, and yet contained scores of moral precepts.
Proposition 3. The Ten Commandments alone are never called “the law of the Lord” nor “the law of God.”
Sabbatarians constantly use these two terms, applying them to the Decalog alone. They are the only ones who keep God’s law, as all others break the Sabbath, the seventh day. But now notice this fact: The word “law” occurs in the Bible over four hundred times, yet in not one single instance is the Decalog as a whole and alone called the law. It is never in a single instance called “the law of the Lord,” or “the law of God.” Of course, the Ten Commandments are a part of the law of God, but only a part, not the whole. Examine a few texts: Luke 2:22, “The days of her purification according to the law of Moses”; verse 23, “It is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb”; verse 24, it is “said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtle doves”; verse 27, “To do for him after the custom of the law.” Here “the law,” “the law of the Lord,” and “the law of Moses,” all mean the same thing, viz.: the law touching the birth of a son.
Again, sacrifices, offerings, sabbaths, new moons, and feasts are all required “in the law of the Lord” (see 2 Cor. 31:3). Scores of texts like this could be cited, where “the law of the Lord” includes sacrifices, circumcision, feast-days, and all the Jewish law. So the law of God is not simply the Decalog, but the whole law of Moses. In Neh. 8:1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 14, 18, they read “in the book of the law of Moses,” “the law,” “the book of the law,” “in the book of the law of God,” “the law which the Lord commanded by Moses,” “the law of God.” The law of God, then, included the whole law of Moses.
No Sabbatarian, therefore, keeps “the law,” “the law of God,” or “the law of the Lord”; for if he did he would offer sacrifices, be circumcised, and live exactly like the Jews. So all their talk about “keeping the law” amounts to nothing, for none of them do it. In their attempt to keep a part of that law they thereby bring themselves under obligations to “keep the whole law,” as Paul argues in Gal. 5:3. But as none of them keep the whole law, they bring themselves under the curse of the law, by constantly violating one part while attempting to keep another. This is the very point that Paul made against Judaizing legalists of his day (see Gal. 3:10). The person who keeps one precept of the law just because the law says so, thereby acknowledges that the law is binding on him. Then if he neglects some other part of the law, he thereby becomes a transgressor of the very law he professes to keep. This is exactly what Sabbatarians do. They keep the Sabbath because the law says so and thereby become “debtors to do the whole law” (Gal. 5:3). Then they neglect many things in the same law, and so are under the condemnation of the law (Gal. 3:10). But we “are dead to the law,” “not under the law,” “but under grace”—the New Testament.
Proposition 4. “The law” was given by Moses and the “law of Moses” includes the Decalog.
Not that Moses was the author of it, but it was through him God gave it to Israel. This is stated so distinctly and so many times that it is useless to deny it. “The law was given by Moses” (John 1:17). “Did not Moses give you the law?” (John 7:19). “The law which the Lord had commanded by Moses” (Neh. 8:14). “God’s law, which was given by Moses” (Neh. 10:29). This includes the Decalog. “Moses said, Honor thy father and thy mother” (Mark 7:10). This is the fifth commandment. Again:
“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?” (John 7:19). The law against killing is here called the law of Moses.
In Heb. 10:28 it is said that “he that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses.” Persons were put to death for violating the Decalog (see Deut. 17:6). They were put to death for breaking the Sabbath (Exod. 31:14), blasphemy, theft, and the like. Hence the Decalog is included in “the law of Moses.”
In Josh. 8:30, 31, we read: “Then Joshua built an altar unto the Lord God of Israel in Mount Ebal, as Moses the servant of the Lord commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of whole stones, over which no man hath lift up any iron.” It says that this about the altar was written in the “book of the law of Moses.” Now turn to Exod. 20:25, the very chapter where the Decalog is found, and there you have the text referred to. This proves beyond denial that the Ten Commandments are in the law of Moses.
Proposition 5. “The law” was not given till the time of Moses and Sinai.
The texts quoted prove this. “The law was given by Moses” (John 1:17). “Did not Moses give you the law?” (John 7:19). “For until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed where there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses” (Rom. 5:13, 14). The entrance of the law is here located at Moses. Every attempt to place it back of that time contradicts the plain testimony of these texts. The Bible locates the law under the Levitical priesthood. “If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, for under it the people received the law” (Heb. 7:11). This drops the bottom out of Sabbatarianism. So the giving of the law is located “430 years after the covenant with Abraham.” “And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul” (Gal. 3:17). This brings us to the very year the children of Israel came out of Egypt and arrived at Sinai. “And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the self-same day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt” (Exod. 12:41). Beyond dispute, then, what the Bible calls “the law” was not given till Moses, 2,500 years after Adam, or nearly half the history of the world.
Proposition 6. Their fathers did not have the Decalog as worded on the tables.
This Moses directly states. Deut. 4:12, 13 says God spoke to the children of Israel from heaven, and declared to them “his covenant,” “even ten commandments.” Chapter 5:2, 3 says: “The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us.” Then he repeats the Ten Commandments as that very covenant (vss. 4-22). That their fathers had the law as worded and arranged at Sinai is directly denied by Moses.
Proposition 7. The law was given only to the children of Israel.
This is so manifest in every item of the law that it needs no argument to prove it. Moses says (Deut. 4:8) that no nation has a law so good “as the law which I set before you this day.” Then he names the Ten Commandments as a part of it (vss. 10-13). “This is the law which Moses set before the children of Israel” (vs. 44). Then no other nation had the law. This is stated a hundred times over. It was addressed to the Israelites, and to them only.
The very wording of the law proves that it was designed only for them. The Decalog is introduced thus: “I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Exod. 20:2). To whom is that applicable? Only to the Israelite nation. Neither angels, Adam, nor Gentile Christians were ever in Egyptian bondage. Then, the law was not addressed to them. Paul plainly states to whom the law was given. “Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law” (Rom. 9:4). It was given to Israel. In Mal. 4:4 it is clearly stated that the law given in Horeb was “for all Israel.”
All these things show that this was a national law worded to fit the condition of the children of Israel at the time.
Proposition 8. The Gentiles did not have the law.
This has been proved already; but Paul directly says so (Rom. 2:14): “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law,… these having not the law, are a law unto themselves.” This is too plain to need arguing. The Gentiles did not have the law. The law in letter as worded in detail on Sinai was never given to them.
Proposition 9. The rewards and penalties of the law were all temporal.
There are no promises of future rewards, nor threatenings of future punishments, in all the Mosaic law. Every careful student of that law must be aware of this feature of it. The reason is clear. It was a national, temporal law, given for a national, temporal purpose. As a sample of all, see Deut. 28:1-19. If they keep the law, they shall be blessed in children, in goods, in cattle, in health, etc. If they disobey, they shall be cursed in all these. Stoning to death was the penalty for theft, murder, Sabbath-breaking, etc. Hence it was the “ministration of death written and engraven in stones” (2 Cor. 3:7), and “is done away” (vs. 11).
Paul states that the promise of the future inheritance was made to Abraham four hundred and thirty years before the law was given. From this he argues, and forcibly, too, that the keeping of the law was not necessary in order to receive Christ and the inheritance. “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise” (Gal. 3:16-18). “For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the ‘law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect” (Rom. 4:13, 14).
This plainly states that the law was not given with reference to the future inheritance. Surely Abraham did not keep the law, which was not given for several hundred years after he died. But Abraham is the father of the faithful, and not simply of those who were “of the law” (Rom. 4:13-16). This point alone ought to open the eyes of those who contend so earnestly for the keeping of the law as necessary to salvation. We are the children of Abraham (Gal. 3:29) and “walk in the steps of our father Abraham,” who was never under the law (see Rom. 4:12-16). We are under the covenant of promise made to Abraham four hundred and thirty years before the law (Gal. 2:15-19; 3:15-19), and not under the covenant of the law from Sinai, which is bondage (Gal. 4:21-31).
Proposition 10. God’s eternal law of righteousness existed before the law of Sinai was given.
This proposition is self-evident. Surely God had a law by which to govern his creatures long before Sinai. But “the law,” as worded in the Decalog and in the “book of the law,” was not given till Moses, 2,500 years after the creation of man. Hence moral obligations did not begin with that law, nor would it cease if that law was abolished. “All unrighteousness is sin” (1 John 5:17); and “sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). This text is used by Sabbatarians to prove that every possible sin is always a violation of the Ten Commandments. But, 1. “The law” is the whole Mosaic law, not merely the Decalog. 2. A correct translation entirely spoils this text for them. The word “law” is not in the text in the original. The Revised Version gives it correctly: “Sin is lawlessness.” This is the true meaning of the text. Sin is lawlessness, a disregard for some law, but not necessarily the same law.
Adam “sinned” long before that law was given (see Rom. 5:12-14). Cain sinned (Gen. 4:7). The Sodomites were “sinners (Gen. 13:13), and vexed Lot with their unlawful deeds” (2 Pet. 2:8). Surely none of these violated “the law,” which was not given till Moses. To say that they must have violated the principles of that law is not to the point. When the Jews killed Stephen (Acts 7:59), they violated the principles of the law of Michigan which forbids murder; but did they violate the “law of Michigan”? No; for it was not given for eighteen hundred years after, and they were not under it anyway. So neither Adam, nor the Sodomites could have transgressed the law of Sinai, for it was not yet given. Abraham kept God’s laws (Gen. 26:5), but surely not “the law which was four hundred and thirty years after” (Gal. 3:17). All this clearly shows that God had a law before the code of Sinai was given.
Jesus, under the gospel fifteen hundred years later, in naming the commandments, gives them neither in the same words nor in the same order as found in the Decalog. Further, he mingles them with some precepts from the book of the law as of equal importance with the Ten. Thus: “Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honor thy father and mother” (Mark 10:19). This shows that the mere form and order of the commandments is of no consequence as long as the idea is given. The two editions of the Decalog in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 vary much in the wording; yet one is as good as the other.
In whatever form or manner God chose to communicate his will to men, this would be “his commandments, his statutes, and his laws” (Gen. 26:5). Paul says: “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers” (Heb. 1:1, 2).
A disregard for his revealed will would be lawlessness—sin. But to claim that God gave the patriarchs his law in the exact form and words of the Ten Commandments is a proofless assumption, contrary to reason and all the clear testimony of Scripture.
Proposition 11. The original law is superior to the law of Sinai.
When asked, “Which is the greatest commandment of the law?” Jesus said: “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. 22:37-40). Neither of these is in the Decalog; but that law hangs on this higher law, and so is inferior to it. These principles, clad in the armor of eternal immutability, lay back of the Mosaic law and existed as they had existed before and exist now.
In its very nature this great law of supreme love to God, and equal love to fellow creatures, must be as eternal and everlasting as God himself. This law governs angels, governed Adam, the patriarchs, the pious Jews while “under the law,” and governs Gentile Christians now. It is applicable to all God’s creatures in all ages and all worlds. This great law might be worded in different ways at different times and yet the same essential idea be preserved. Thus, Jesus stated the second great commandment in another form: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets”(Matt. 7:12). The idea is the same as “thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Evidently this supreme law must have been known to Adam and to the patriarchs, but in just what form we are not told. To say that it was in the exact words of the Decalog is to affirm what can in no wise be proved.
Proposition 12. The Mosaic law was founded upon the higher and original law.
Jesus directly affirms this: “On these two commandments hang all the law.” The principles of this great law were interwoven all through the law of Sinai, being the life, “the spirit,” or “the righteousness” of “the law” (Rom. 2:26-29; 8:4). As an example, Leviticus 19. Here you have the second great commandment (vs. 18), and the principles of every one of the Ten Commandments. Thus: 1st commandment (vs. 32); 2nd (vs. 4); 3rd (vs. 12); 4th (vs. 30); 5th (vs. 3); 6th (vs. 17); 7th (vs. 29); 8th (vs. 13); 9th (vs. 11); 10th (vs. 35). Mingled among these are commandments about sacrifices (vs. 5); harvest (vs. 9); clothing (vs. 19); priests (vs. 22); first-fruits (vs. 23); wizards (vs. 31); Gentiles (vs. 34), etc. All these are founded upon this higher law and can be changed to fit circumstances without affecting the supreme law, which is ever the same.
Adventists make a great ado over the absurdity of the idea that God should abolish his law at the cross and then immediately reenact nine-tenths of it. They say, “As well cut off your ten fingers to get rid of one bad one, and then stick nine on again.” So they go on with a whole jumble of absurdities involved in the position that God’s moral law was abolished at the cross and a new one given. But this is only a man of straw of their own making, hence easily demolished. We hold no such absurd position. But the Mosaic law from Sinai was only a national one founded upon the principles of God’s moral law. Even while it existed it did not supersede God’s higher law; and when it ended, it in no way affected God’s law, which continued right on, unchanged and unchangeable. To illustrate: The State law of Michigan forbids murder, theft, and adultery. In these items it is founded upon God’s moral law. Now abolish the law of Michigan. Does that abolish God’s law? No. So with the state law of Israel. Neither its enactment on Sinai nor its abolition at the cross in any way changed God’s great moral law by which he will judge the world. The Adventist absurdity grows out of their own false theory, that is all. The particular wording of the law as adapted to the Jewish age was “the letter” or “form” of the law for the time being. If a Jew loved God with all his heart, he obediently circumcised his sons, offered burnt sacrifices, paid tithes, kept the Passover, the new moons, the Sabbath, and attended the temple worship, for this was “the law of the Lord” (2 Chron. 31:3; Luke 2:22-27). But if a Christian loves God he will be baptized (Acts 2:38); take the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:24); wash the saints’ feet (John 13:1-16; 1 Tim. 5:10); attend meetings (Heb. 10:25); and observe the law of Christ, which is much different from the law the Jews observed. Hence “there is made of necessity a change also of the law” (Heb. 7:12). Those who make the mere letter of the Jewish law an iron rule, and contend for the exact wording under all circumstances and in all ages, miss the spirit of the gospel, and are in bondage to a system out of date (Gal. 3:19-25; 4:21-25; 6:1-3, 14; 2 Cor. 3:3-15).
Proposition 13. The law of Sinai was given to restrain criminals who would obey God only through fear.
Consider this proposition well. A failure to understand this simple fact is the cause of all the blunders Sabbatarians and legalists in their extravagant and unscriptural praises of “the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones” (2 Cor. 3:7). On this point hear Paul state why the law was made and notice that it is of the moral precepts of the law that he speaks. “Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for man-slayers, for whore-mongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:9, 10). The apostle here refers directly to the code of Sinai, including the Ten Commandments, that which prohibited murder, theft, lying, etc. This law, he says, was not made for a righteous man but for the lawless. Of this law in another place Paul says: “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgression” (Gal. 3:19). Again, “The law entered that the offense might abound” (Rom. 5:20), and, “until the law sin was in the world” (vs. 13). It is manifest that sin, offense, and transgression existed before “the law” was given, and that it was given to prohibit already existing crimes. Evidently God put the race on trial from Adam to Moses under the same eternal law of right and love to be governed holy men. But mankind failed shamefully. They did not live by that rule. They became lawless. Disregard of God and open violence toward men were increasing till life and property were insecure. Then God selected one nation, the Hebrews, and gave up the rest to their own ways (Rom. 1:20-28).
Up to this time God’s people had not been a nation by themselves, but had dwelt among other nations and had been subject to their civil laws which prohibited or violence and protected life and property. But as soon they became a nation by themselves, it became absolutely necessary to have a national law of their own which would prohibit and punish open crime, such as murder, theft, adultery, etc. Life and property would not have been secure without this, because many among them were wicked lawless men, “stiff-necked and rebellious.” If all had been righteous, if all had loved God and their neighbors, there would have been no need of a prohibitory law with a death penalty. We can readily see why Paul says “the law was not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless. “These lawless ones would have robbed and murdered the righteous ones had there been no national, temporal law to protect them; for these wicked men would have cared little about God’s higher law, which pertains to the future judgment. But as the Jewish government was a theocracy, one in which God himself was ruler, the law required and regulated service to him as well as duties among themselves.
Hence to this nation God gave the law of Sinai (Exod. 20:2). Would it have been given had they obeyed God without it? Paul has settled that point. “The law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless” (1 Tim. 1:9). This, then, is not God’s original law by which he prefers to govern men. It was a law of prohibitions, threats, pains, and penalties. Its object was to restrain open crime, protect men in their natural rights, and preserve the knowledge of God in the earth till Christ should come (Gal. 3:19-25). In order to keep that nation separate from all others, many burdensome rites were incorporated into the law, which made it a yoke of bondage (Acts 15:10; 5:1-3).
When Christ came, and the Jewish nation was rejected and dispersed, and their national law overthrown, and the gospel went to all nations, that law had served its purpose, and so passed away as a system (Matt. 5:17, 18; Rom. 10:4; Gal. 3:24; Heb. 7:12-19). Now Christians are not under the Aaronic priesthood, nor the Jewish law (Heb. 7:14-19), as was Abraham our father (Gen. 14:18-20), who never had “the law” of Sinai (Gal. 3:17,) but walked by the higher law which governs holy men (Gen. 26:5). The Jewish law being removed, we now come under the same law by which Enoch and Abraham “walked with God.”
Now, as in the days before Moses, God’s people are not a nation by themselves, but are scattered among all nations, where they are governed and protected by the civil law of those nations. Hence the New Testament provides no civil law for the government of Christians, no temporal penalties for criminals. It would be directly contrary to the nature of the gospel to do either. All this is left to the rulers of nations where Christians happen to be. Criminals are turned over to the magistrates and laws of the land. Paul makes this very plain and puts the question beyond dispute. “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing” (Rom. 13:1-6).
Here is the prohibitory law for “the lawless.” This punishes their crime against society. Their offenses against God’s great law will be recompensed at the judgment; but the saints of God must be governed by the higher law, the law of supreme love to God and equal love to fellows. Such obedience can come only from a heart renewed by the Spirit of God (2 Cor. 3:3); and “if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law” (Gal. 5:18).
Is any man a Christian who refrains from murder, theft, and adultery, simply because the law says “Thou shalt not”? No, indeed; he must refrain from these from a higher motive than that. Then he is governed by a higher law than the Decalog. “Love is the fulfilling of the law” (Rom. 13:10). The dispute concerning the Jewish Sabbath involves this point, the obligation of the letter of the Jewish law.
Proposition 14. The letter of the law is not binding upon Christians as a coercive code.
If the letter of the law is binding, then we must be circumcised, offer sacrifices, keep the seventh day, and all the Jewish ritual, for “the law” included the “whole law” (Gal. 3:10; 5:3).
The “righteousness” of the law and the “spirit” of the law is one thing, while “the letter” and outward service is quite another. “Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God” (Rom. 2:26-29).
Paul argues that Christians must be circumcised, but not “outwardly in the flesh,” as formerly, but “inwardly in the spirit, not in the letter.” By this he illustrates the difference between keeping the law now and formerly. So, further on: “Ye are not under the law, but under grace” (Rom. 6:14). In the next chapter he says: “But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter” (Rom. 7:6).
How can anyone misunderstand language so plain? Now, under Christ, we are delivered from the law; that law is dead, and we serve Christ in the spirit, “not in the old letter.” The higher law of God, namely, supreme love to God and equal love to our neighbors, upon which the Jewish law hung, was the “spirit,” “righteousness,” or real intent of “the law.” This “first and great” law Christians do keep, while free from the mere letter of the law, which was bondage.
“For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law” (Gal. 5:13, 14, 18). “Not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart.” “Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life” (2 Cor. 3:3, 6). The law for Christians is not that written in the book or on tables of stone—the letter. That which was “written and engraven in stones” is “done away” (vs. 7). It is “that which is abolished” (vs. 13). Christians are under “the law of the Spirit of life”—the new testament.
All chapters from The Sabbath and the Lord’s Day.
The Sabbath and the Lord’s Day. By H. M. Riggle, 1922. Life Assurance Ministries, Inc.
- The Sabbath and the Lord’s Day - October 2, 2021
- 27. Sunday-Keeping is Not the Mark of the Beast - July 8, 2020
- 26. The Pope and the Sabbath - July 2, 2020
Love that opening paragraph!