The Two Laws

AT Mount Sinai, as we have seen, God proclaimed the moral law, speaking it with his own voice, and writing it with his own finger. By his direction, the two tables on which the law was written were placed in the ark of the covenant, which was made on purpose to receive it. Ex. 25:10-22; Deut. 10:1-5. And this ark, containing the law of God, was placed in the second apartment of the earthly sanctuary—the most holy place. Ex. 40; Heb. 9. The top of the ark was called the mercy-seat, because that man who had broken the law contained in the ark beneath the mercy-seat could find pardon by the sprinkling of the blood of atonement upon this place. The whole system of ceremonial law was ordained to enable man to approach again to this broken law, and to typify the restitution of the pardoned to their inheritance, and the destruction of the impenitent.

The law within the ark was that which demanded an atonement; the ceremonial law, which ordained the Levitical priesthood and the sacrifices for sin, was that which taught men how the atonement could be made. The broken law was beneath the mercy-seat; the blood of sin-offering was sprinkled upon the top, and its pardon was extended to the penitent sinner. There was actual sin, and hence a real law which man had broken; but there was not a real atonement, and hence the need of the great antitype of the Levitical sacrifices. The real atonement, when it is made, must relate to the law respecting which an atonement had been shadowed forth. In other words, the shadowy atonement related to that law which was shut up in the ark, indicating that a real atonement was demanded by the law. It is necessary that the law which demands atonement, in order that its transgressor may be spared, should itself be perfect, else the fault would, in part, at least, rest on the Lawgiver, and not wholly with the sinner. Hence, the atonement, when made, does not take away the broken law, for that is perfect; but is expressly designed to take away the guilt of the transgressor.

In the New Testament we find the great antitype of all the offerings and sacrifices—the real atonement—as contrasted with the Levitical one. The death of our Lord Jesus Christ, as the great sacrifice for sin, was the antitype of all the Levitical sacrifices. The priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ in the heavenly sanctuary is the great antitype of the Levitical priesthood. Heb. 8. The heavenly sanctuary itself is the great original after which the earthly one was patterned. Heb. 9:23; Ex. 25:6, 9. And the ark of God's testament in the temple in Heaven, Rev. 11:19, contains the great original of this law. And thus we see under the new dispensation a real atonement, instead of a shadowy one; a High Priest who needs not to offer for himself; a sacrifice which can avail before God; and that law, which was broken by man, magnified and made honorable at the same time that God pardons the penitent sinner.

We shall find the New Testament to abound with references to the essential difference between these two codes, and that the distinction in the New Testament is made as clear and obvious as it is made by the facts already noticed in the Old Testament.

Thus the one code is termed "the law of a carnal commandment," Heb. 7:16; and of the other, it is affirmed, "We know that the law is spiritual." Rom. 7:14. The one code is termed "the handwriting of ordinances," "which was contrary to us," and which was nailed to the cross and taken out of the way, Col. 2:14; the other code is "the royal law," which James affirms that it is a sin to transgress. Chap. 2:8-12.

The first is a code of which "there was made of necessity a change," Heb 7:12 ; the second is that law of which Christ says, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled." Matt. 5:18. The one law was a "shadow of good things to come," Heb. 10:1, and was only imposed "until the time of reformation," Heb. 9:10; but the other was a moral code, of which it is said by John, "Whosoever committeth sin, transgresseth also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law. 1 John 3:4. The one is a yoke we are not able to bear, Acts 15:10; the other is that "law of liberty" by which we shall be judged. James 2:8-12. The one is that law which Christ abolished in his flesh, Eph. 2:15; the other is that law which he did not come to destroy. Matt. 5:17. The one is that law which he took out of the way at his death, Col. 2:14 ; the other is that law which he came to magnify and make honorable. Isa. 42:21. The one was a law which was disannulled "for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof," Heb. 7:18; the other is a law respecting which he inquires, "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea we establish the law." Rom. 3:31. The one is that law which was the middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles, Eph. 2:14 ;the other is that law, the work of which even the Gentiles are said to have written in their hearts, Rom. 2:12-15, and to which all mankind are amenable. Rom. 3:19.

The one is the law of commandments contained in ordinances, Eph. 2:15; the other law is the commandments of God, which it is the whole duty of man to keep, Eccl. 12:13, which are brought to view by the third angel, Rev. 14:12, which the remnant of the seed of the woman were keeping when the dragon made war upon them, Rev. 12:17, and which will insure, to those who observe them, access to the tree of life. Rev. 22:14.

Surely, these two codes should not be confounded. The one was magnified, made honorable, established, and is holy, just, spiritual, good, royal; the other was carnal, shadowy, burdensome, and was abolished, broken down, taken out of the way, nailed to the cross, changed, and disannulled, on account of the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

That the ten commandments are a perfect code of themselves, appears from several facts: 1. God spake them with his own voice, and it is said, "He added no more," Deut. 5:22, as evincing that he had given a complete code. 2. He wrote them alone on two tables with his own finger, another incidental proof that this was a complete moral code. 3. He caused these alone to be placed under the mercy-seat, an evident proof that this was the code that made an atonement necessary. 4. He expressly calls what he thus wrote on the tables of stone, a law and commandments. Ex. 24:12.

The precepts of this law are variously interspersed through the books of Moses, and mingled with the precepts of the ceremonial law. And the sum of the first table is given in Deut. 6:5; and that of the second, in Lev. 19:18; but there is only one place in which the moral law is drawn out in particulars, and given by itself with no ceremonial law mixed with it, and that is in the ten commandments.

An examination of the royal law in James 2, and of the handwriting of ordinances in Col. 2. will further illustrate this subject; the one is in force in every respect, while the other is abolished.

"If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty." James 2:8-12.

1. The law here brought to view is an unabolished law; for it convinces of sin men who transgress it. 2. It is an Old Testament law—it is taken from the Scriptures. 3. The second division of the law is quoted, because he was reproving sin committed toward our fellowmen and hence he takes the second of the two great commandments, the sum of the second table, Matt. 22:36, 40; Rom. 13:9, and cites his illustration from the second table of stone. 4. His language shows that the ten commandments are the precepts of the royal law; for he cites them in illustrating the statement that he who violates one precept becomes guilty or all. This is a most solemn warning against the violation of any one of the ten commandments. 5. He testifies that whoever violates one of the precepts of this code becomes guilty of breaking the whole code. 6. And, last of all, he testifies that this law of liberty shall be the rule in the Judgment. The unabolished law of James is therefore that code which God gave in person, and wrote with his own finger.

"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; ... Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." Col. 2:14, 16-17. If this handwriting of ordinances is the same as the royal law of James, then Paul and James directly contradict each other. But they wrote by inspiration, and each wrote the truth of God. We have seen that James' unabolished law refers directly to the ten commandments. Hence it is certain that the law which Paul shows to be abolished, does not refer to that which was written with the finger of God. It is to be noticed that the code which is done away was a shadow extending only to the death of Christ. But we have already seen that the law shut up in the ark was not a shadow, but the very code that made it necessary that the Saviour should die. Not one of the things abolished in this chapter can be claimed as referring to the ten commandments, except the term sabbaths; for the term holy day is, literally, feast day (Gr., heortes), and there were three feasts appointed by God in each year. Ex. 23:14. The term sabbath is plural in the original. To refer this to the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is to make Paul contradict James. What are the facts in the case?

1. The ceremonial law did ordain at least four annual sabbaths; viz., the 1st, 10th, 15th, and 23d days of the seventh month. These were besides the Sabbath of the Lord, and were associated with the new moons and feast days. Lev. 23:23-39. These exactly answer Paul's language. Hence it is not necessary to make Paul contradict James.

2. But the Sabbath of the Lord was "set apart to a holy use" (this being the literal meaning of sanctify) in Eden. It was "made for man" before he had fallen. Hence it is not one of the things against him and contrary to him, taken out of the way at Christ's death.

3. It was not a shadow pointing forward to the death of Christ; for it was ordained before the fall. On the contrary, it stands as a memorial pointing backward to creation, and not as a shadow pointing forward to redemption.

It is plain, therefore, that the abrogation of the handwriting of ordinances leaves in full force every precept of the royal law, and also that the law of shadows pointing forward to the death of Christ must expire when that event should occur. But the moral law was that which caused the Saviour to lay down his life for us. And its sacredness may be judged of by the fact that God gave his only Son to take its curse upon himself, and to die for our transgressions.