02.06. The Sabbath: The Law, of which the Sabbath was a Part, was Done away in Christ

CHAPTER VI
THE LAW, OF WHICH THE SABBATH WAS A PART, WAS DONE AWAY IN CHRIST I. My first witness is Jer 31:31-34 :

"Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they break, although I was an husband unto them saith the Lord: but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord: I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

Now when we read Heb 8:6-13, we have Paul quoting this and applying it to the covenant of Christ. He shows by the quotation that the covenant made with the fathers was old when Jeremiah wrote this language; not only that it was old, but that it was ready to vanish away. Hence, according to the promise of God, it had vanished away, and a new covenant had come to take its place. Between the covenant made by Christ and that made with the fathers at Mount Sinai, there are several dis­tinctions.

But they tell us that this covenant made with the fathers was the ritual and judicial law, and not the law of the Ten Commandments. This, however, is only assumed. God never divided the law, nor made any such distinctions in it as they do.

Again they say that the covenant here spoken of was "made," and that the covenant of the Ten Commandments was a covenant that was "commanded." This is a distinction without a differ­ence. All covenants that have been given by the Lord, have been commanded. When God gave the seed of Abraham the covenant of circumcision, he gave it in the form of the impera­tive. So it was with all the features of all the covenants which he has ever made with his creatures. On one side of the con­tract, God has made certain promises, and on the other, he has required certain duties. Then it has been left to men to say if they would accept of the conditions or not. Hence, all their talk about covenants “made “and covenants “commanded “darkens counsel by multiplying words.

Exo 34:10-11 : "And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the Lord: for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee. Observe thou that which I command thee this day." This is the usual form: God makes his promises to them, on the one hand, and commands their obedience to his will on the other.

Read Exo 34:27-28 and we will find the very word "made" employed in reference to the Ten Commandments:

"And the Lord said unto Moses, Write these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a cove­nant with thee and with Israel. And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments."

Here the ten’ commandments are said especially to be the cov­enant which God "made" with Moses and with Israel. We have already seen in Deu 4:8; Deu 5:3-15, that this very covenant of Ten Commandments was included in the contract which God made with his people. "Made" is the word which God himself selected by which to indicate the giving of the Ten Commandments.

Still further, it is evident that the Decalogue is not supposed to be absent in this reference of Jeremiah, for he puts in con­trast or antithesis, the writing of the new covenant in the hearts of the people, and the writing of the old covenant in some other way. This is so much like the reference to the same subject in Paul’s second letter to the church at Corinth, in which the antithetical writing was said to have been done on tables of stone, that it is most natural to give it that meaning here. In every way, therefore, our first witness stands secure. And he leaves us without doubt concerning the fact that the law, as an entirety, was to be taken away in Christ, and that it was taken away when he was crucified.

II. Paul, in his letter to the Hebrews, furnishes the testimony which we next introduce:

Heb 7:11-12 : “If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." Of course the defenders of the Sabbath feel that they have done enough when they have denied that the law here referred to includes the Ten Commandments. But this denial is utterly without reason. There are no evidences to be found in the whole epistle that the apostle thought of such a separation of the law as that which they make in order to sustain their theory. He shows that the whole system has been changed, and that a change in one respect made the change in every other, an abso­lute necessity.

Exo 24:4-8 : "And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord. And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words." In this law there was the Ten Commandments and an amplifi­cation of them. To see just what this roll contained, we should turn and read from the beginning of Exo 20:1-26. This dis­course contained the teaching of God to that people as a funda­mental law, or a constitution for them in their national organi­zation, and was what Moses wrote in a book and enjoined upon them.

Now we turn to Heb 9:15-19 :

"And for this cause he is the Mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the First Testament (covenant), they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator (testament sacrifice). For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it hath no strength at all while the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the First Testament was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you."

Here Paul can have reference only to that law spoken of in Exo 24:1-18. Hence he has now very clearly before him the First and the Second Testaments: The one given by Moses, and the New Covenant—of the Messiah. This First was the Ten Commandments and a proper elaboration, showing their bearing upon all the details of life. But now what is said to have been done with this old covenant, this First Testament? Read right along till you reach the 9th verse of the 10th chapter, where he shows that Christ became the sum of all divine authority, for whose cove­nant the first was removed. This is what is said:

"Then said he: Lo, I come to do thy will, 0 God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second." The only first and second of which the apostle has spoken in this whole connection, are the two testaments, that given through Moses, containing the Decalogue, and that given by the Christ. Hence, with these facts clearly before us, when Paul says, “He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second," he means, for there is nothing else that he can mean, that he took away that old institution, Decalogue and all, that he might establish the New Covenant, the covenant of Christ.

III. My third witness is Paul in his letter to the Ephesians.

Eph 2:14-15 “For he is our peace, who hath made both 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 one new man, so making peace."

Here, as in his letter to the Hebrews, Paul shows that all that held that old national organization together and made it distinctive, was removed, that in Christ, both Jews and Gentiles might be united in one body, in which peace should obtain IV. A fourth witness is the testimony of Paul to the brethren in Galatia. In Gal 2:19, he says: “For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God."

Gal 3:16-25 :

“Now to Abraham and to 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. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordain­ed by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But since that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster."

Now if it is possible for human speech to contain the thought, this language clearly announces the fact, that the law had served its purpose and had stepped aside. In Gal 5:4, he says: “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace."

Adventists satisfy themselves by saying that the ceremonial law is here meant. No doubt that it is included, but it is not all that is referred to in the language. The righteousness of the law speaketh on this wise: They that do these things shall live by them. It was not therefore alone in the atonement of the law that they were told not to trust, but in the deeds of the law.

Hence, the law as a whole is said to have served as a school­master, and, having fulfilled the appointment, he was taken out of the way to make room for the law of Christ. But as the Galatians were peculiarly troubled with Judaizing teachers, Paul gave a great deal of space in this letter to this subject, that they might know they were not under the law that was given their fathers at Mount Sinai, but that they were under law to Christ. But I will conclude this testimony by one more quotation from Gal 4:21-31 :

"Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free woman But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the free woman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not; for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath a husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh, persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the Scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free." In this, as in the most the author has said in this epistle and in other places, he makes no difference in the law, but puts all that was in the Sinaitic covenant into one system and represents it by Hagar, and then puts the whole system of redemption in Christ in the other, and represents it by Sarah. And then he says that the bondwoman was to be cast out for she and her son should not be heir with the free woman and her son. Hence, those disciples who were disposed to mix Judaism and Chris­tianity were wrong; these two covenants could not live together.

V. Paul’s indifference to the law, is our fifth witness.

1Co 9:20-21 :

"And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without the law, as without the law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ), that I might gain them that are without law." From this it is certain that if Paul was not a hypocrite, he was perfectly indifferent as to keeping the law of the Old Testament. He regarded doing these things as innocent enough, that he could conform to the regulations and prejudices of any commu­nity, either to keep these things or let them alone. As he did in the case of Timothy, in circumcising him because of the Jews in those quarters, so he regarded the whole question. The only law he recognized was the law of Christ. Through his law alone he was under law to God. No Adventist could speak thus of himself. Nor would anyone of them ever cite Paul as having made any such a statement as that. It shows that Pat. 1 could not have been a Sabbatarian. If some keeper of the Sabbath had been serving as Paul’s emanuensis he would have said, “Not so, brother Paul: you should say that you are without law, except that you are under the Decalogue, as well as the commandments of Jesus."

VI. Our sixth and last argument on the removal of the law, is founded on the opinion of the apostles and elders and the whole church at Jerusalem, in the council reported in Acts 15:1-41 chapter.

There were Judaizing teachers who taught the disciples that Gentiles could not be saved unless they would be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses. They went even as far as to Antioch teaching this doctrine. Paul and others withstood them, and finally it was carried up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders. And, after a full discussion, and the induction of the facts of revelation on the subject, they reached the unanimous opinion reported in Acts 15:22-31 :

"Then pleased it^- the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: And wrote letters by them after this manner, The apostles and elders, and brethren, send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia: Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you, with our beloved Barnabas and Paul; Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from, blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle: Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation." A Supreme Court decision on any disputed point of law could not be clearer and more satisfactory than this. They recognized only the law of Christ upon them. Even the burdens that seem to have any features of the law in them relate to what Advent­ists call the ceremonial law. And it is as evident as it can be that there is not a Sabbatarian in the whole land who would have agreed with that council if he had been present. He would have said: “Brethren, this is all wrong; while we are freed from the ceremonial law by the body of Christ, we remain under the Ten Commandments, and any decision which will not recog­nize that fact is heresy; not only so, but it will ruin the world, for unless men keep the Sabbath they cannot be saved."