3. The text which says that Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21 are
the “moral law.”
4. The text which says that the rest of the law given through Moses is
the “ceremonial” law.
How can such texts be found when you may search your Bible from the
first word in Genesis to the last word in Revelation and you will find
neither the word “moral” nor the word “ceremonial”? Those words are not
in the Bible. I challenge the Sabbatarians to find either of them.
Even if the first two texts named above could be found, the Adventist
theory would not be established unless the last two could also be found.
In fact, it would be destroyed, for in the very nature of the case the
sabbath commandment is a ceremonial one. There is nothing moral about
it. According to _Webster_ (the _Bible_ doesn’t mention the word) a
_moral_ commandment is one that’s based on common sense and on our
natural knowledge of what rules should guide us in our relationships one
to another. The sabbath commandment does not come in this class. There’s
nothing moral about one day in the week any more than another. Nothing
could distinguish one day from another, except a positive decree from
God Almighty. In that case it would be ceremonial. If you were to sleep
for an indefinite period, upon awaking you wouldn’t know the day of the
week. You couldn’t tell Saturday from any other day to save your life.
As far as our natural senses go, one day is just like another. There is
no authority, Biblical or otherwise, for calling Exodus 20:2-17 and
Deuteronomy 5:6-21 the “moral law” and the rest of the Mosaic code the
“ceremonial law.”
IV
The Sinaitic Law a Unit
The Bible speaks of the law which God gave to the Jews in the wilderness
in the singular, as one law, not two laws. Such expressions as “the book
of the law of Moses,” “the law,” “the book of the law,” and “the law of
God” are used interchangeably in the Bible to designate all of the
Jewish law (See Nehemiah 8:1, 2, 3, 8). They are never used to
distinguish one part of it from another part. “The law of Moses” and
“the law of the Lord” are used interchangeably in Luke 2:21-24. All of
it is called “the law of God” because God was the author of all of it.
It is called “the law of Moses” because it was all given through Moses
as a mediator (Gal. 3:19; John 1:17; Deut. 5:5). It was all written by
Moses (Exod. 31:24-27). Exodus 20:2-17 was originally written by the
finger of God on tables of stone but those tables were destroyed (Exod.
32:19) and it was written the second time by Moses himself (Exod. 34:27,
28). The only thing we know about that law today is what Moses wrote in
the first five books of the Bible. It was all given at the same time,
through the same mediator, to the same people, by the same authority,
for the same purpose, and was all taken “out of the way” at the cross
(Col. 2:14-16).
In an effort to make it appear that God gave two laws (one “ceremonial,”
the other “moral,” one eternal and the other temporal) to the Jews at
Sinai, this pamphlet has arranged, in parallel columns. Scriptures that
apparently do not apply to the same law. This is well designed to
confuse or mislead the untaught; but, in fact, it proves absolutely
nothing. The Bible speaks of many other laws in addition to the one God
gave to the Jews in the wilderness. For instance, “the law of Christ”
(Gal. 6:2); “the law of the Medes and Persians” (Dan. 6:8); “the law of
my mind” and “the law of sin” (Rom. 7:23); “the law of works”; “the law
of faith” (Rom. 3:27); “the law of liberty” (Jas. 2:12); “the royal law”
(Jas. 2:8); etc., etc. In addition to all this, there are the laws or
commandments that God gave to Adam, Cain, Noah, Abraham, et al.
With the Bible speaking of so many different laws, it is not surprising
that you can find references that apparently do not apply to the same
law. It would be surprising if you couldn’t. In order to harmonize such
texts it certainly is not necessary to apply them to two imaginary laws
that are not even named in the word of God. The law of faith was
_established_ at the cross; the law God gave to the Jews was _abolished_
at the cross (Eph. 2:10-22). The law of Christ is written on the hearts
of Christians; the law of Moses was written, in part, on tablets of
stone (Heb. 8:8-11). The author of the pamphlet places three references
from Romans, chapter 7, in his “moral” column. Even if he were correct
in doing this, his theory would still be ruined, for verse 6 of that
same chapter says, “But now we have been discharged from the law ...”
(ARV).
Some of the references placed in opposing columns by the author really
apply to the same law, and present no conflict whatsoever. For instance,
the law which God gave the Jews at Sinai was both _established_ and
_abolished_. It was first established and then abolished. It could not
have been abolished if it had not first been established. It was
established by the life of Christ; it was abolished by the death of
Christ. Christ came not to destroy _the law_ or _the prophets_ but to
fulfill (Matt. 5:17, 18). Jesus said “... all things must be fulfilled,
which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the
psalms, concerning me” (Luke 24:44). Christ fulfilled every prophecy
concerning the Messiah in the law and obeyed every commandment in the
law. In that sense he established the law, and after having done so, he
abolished it when he died upon the cross. Salvation through faith and
obedience to Christ is in fulfillment of the prophecies found in the law
of Moses. In that sense the law of faith establishes the law given to
the Jews at Sinai and abolished by Christ when he was crucified (Col.
2:14-16).
Not a single text listed by the author in his parallel columns serves to
establish the distinction for which he contends. If this is the best he
can do in that respect, it only serves to advertise the weakness of his
contention. Every text he cites refers either to the law God gave the
Jews at Sinai and abolished at the cross, or to the law God gave to the
world through Christ and which went into force when he died at Calvary.
When this is so clearly the case, isn’t it strange that a preacher would
try to make it appear that these Scriptures apply to two imaginary laws
that are not even named in these texts or at any other place in the
Bible?
Since the law given at Sinai was a unit, every Scripture which teaches
that it was taken away at the cross, indeed teaches that it was taken
away as a whole, in its entirety. Please listen again then to Ephesians
2:11-18: “Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the
flesh ... ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of
Israel ... but now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are
made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made
both [Jew and Gentile] one, and hath broken down the middle wall of
partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the
law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of
twain [Jew and Gentile] one new man, so making peace; and that he might
reconcile both [Jew and Gentile] unto God in one body by the cross,
having slain the enmity thereby ... for through him we both [Jew and
Gentile] have access by one Spirit unto the Father.”
The entire law of Moses, and _especially the sabbath commandment_ (Ex.
31:16, 17), was the middle wall of partition between the Jews and
Gentiles. The Holy Spirit says in the text just quoted that it was
_broken down_, _abolished_, at the cross. This text is a sample of the
many additional texts that could be cited to show that the entire
Sinaitic law was taken out of the way at the cross, but even one is
enough to convince all who love the truth. In Colossians 3:13-16 the
Holy Spirit clearly teaches that this law has been taken out of the way,
and that, _therefore_, the Jews themselves are no longer required to
keep the sabbaths of the Old Testament. Since the middle wall of
partition has been broken down, there is neither Jew nor Gentile in
Christ, but all are one—Christian.
V
The Law of Christ
The fact that the law of Moses in its entirety, including even the Ten
Commandments, has been taken out of the way does not mean that
Christians are without restraint, guidance and law. God hath “spoken
unto us by his son” (Heb. 1:1-2). This word that God hath spoken unto us
through Christ is called “the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2) or the testament
of Christ (Heb. 9:13-17). It is the law of love (Rom. 13:8-10). The law
of Christ, which has been applicable to all the world since his death,
contains several commandments that were never included in any other law
given to man. For instance, the commandment to be baptized for remission
of sins (Acts 2:38); the commandment to lay by in store on the first day
of the week (1 Cor. 16:1, 2); and the commandment to eat the Lord’s
Supper (1 Cor. 11:23-26; Acts 20:7).
The law of Moses forbade murder; the law of Christ forbids not only
murder but even needless anger (Matt. 5:21-22). The law of Moses forbade
adultery; the law of Christ forbids looking upon a woman to lust after
her (Matt. 5:27, 28). The law of Moses forbade false swearing; the law
of Christ forbids all swearing (Matt. 5:33-37). It was wrong for the
Jews to work on Saturday, for the law of Moses forbade it (Deut.
5:12-15; Exod. 20:8-11). It is not wrong for a Christian to work on
Saturday, for the law of Christ does not forbid it (Col. 2:16). The law
of Moses did not require the Jews to engage in special worship on the
first day of the week; the law of Christ _does require_ Christians to do
so (1 Cor. 16:1-2; 11:17-30; Acts 20:7; Heb. 10:24, 25). It is wrong for
Christians to steal, kill, covet, etc., not because Moses said so, but
because the law of Christ says so (Rom. 3:8-10).
There was a time to hear Moses but that time has passed. On the mountain
of transfiguration, a cloud overshadowed Moses and the voice of God said
concerning Jesus, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased;
HEAR YE HIM” (Matt. 17:5). Christians should obey Christ, not Moses.
“For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus
Christ” (John 1:17). “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath
appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly
lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present
world” (Titus 2:11, 12).
Friends, would you believe me if I were to tell you that the Seventh Day
Adventists deny the existence of the word spoken through Christ? Well,
just let me read it to you from the last section of the pamphlet under
review.
“The abolition of the Ten Commandments would nullify the gospel of
Christ, and render both grace and the atonement void. ‘Sin is not
imputed when there is no law’ (Romans 5:13). Since ‘where no law is,
there is no transgression’ (Romans 4:15), it follows that if the law
[meaning the ten commandments] were abolished, there would be no
transgression, and hence no need of a Saviour.”
I can’t believe the author meant to say that, but he said it. According
to that, the “ten commandments” are the _only_ commandments now in
force. That quotation plainly says that if the “ten commandments” are
not now in force there are no commandments to disobey, no chance to sin,
and no need of a Saviour. The author has flatly denied every commandment
in the gospel. According to him, Christ gave no commandments and it is
folly to talk about _obeying_ the gospel (See 2 Thess. 1:8). If the
author was aware of what he was saying, he has deliberately denied the
word of Christ. If he said it inadvertently, it simply illustrates the
absurdities and inconsistencies into which one falls when he undertakes
to teach error.
VI
Summary
Summarizing what was said last Lord’s day and what has been said today,
I am earnestly requesting the Seventh Day Adventists to furnish the
following Bible texts which are essential to the support of their
theory:
1. The text that commanded any one to keep the sabbath during the period
from Adam to Moses.
2. The text that commanded the Gentile nations to observe Saturday as a
day of rest, even during the Mosaic dispensation.
3. The text in the new covenant, or will of Christ, that commands
Christians to rest on Saturday.
4. The text which says that any one ever ate the Lord’s Supper on
Saturday.