Objections to the Sabbath Answered.
The middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile is broken down. Eph. 2:14, 15. Answer. Our opponents have surely hit on the wrong place for an objection, this time. Paul's words are as follows: “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 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.” Verses 13-15. A few facts are very plain by this language. There was something between the Jews and Gentiles which kept them apart, which Paul here calls a wall of partition. This wall was broken down by the death of Christ. It has now been removed. It was a certain law, and not the moral law, the tenth. The sections of the text, on the contrary, show149that law has been abolished, for so Paul declares. Now the only question is, Was this the moral law, or the law of ordinances? Paul is very particular in his language. He says, “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments.” If Paul stopped here, as he certainly ought to have done if there had been only one law, and it had been all abolished, then our opponents would have some show of proof. But he puts on the qualifying phrase, which shows beyond question that he knew that there were two laws of a very different kind, one which had been abolished, and one which had not. Hear how carefully he states this: “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances.” What law, Paul, is abolished? Answer: That one contained in ordinances. Was there a law relating simply to ordinances, and nothing else? Certainly, for so Paul declares in Heb. 9:10: “Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.” That this relates to the ceremonial law of the Jews, no one can fail to see. The very fact that Paul, when he states that the law was abolished, carefully qualifies this statement, by saying it is the law contained in ordinances, shows that he knew that there was another law not contained in ordinances, which was not abolished. To illustrate: Suppose a physician wishes to send his servant to his office for some medicine. He says, “John, go to my office and bring me an ounce of medicine contained in the black bottle.” This is virtually saying that there is other medicine contained in other bottles. If there was only one kind of medicine there he would simply say, “John, go to the office and bring me an ounce of medicine.” So in this case, when Paul says the law is abolished, he specifies which one, viz., the one contained in ordinances, thus virtually saying that that which was not contained in ordinances was not abolished. Are there any ordinances in the ten commandments? None whatever, but the ceremonial law related wholly to that. Contrast this passage a moment with the language of the apostle, in Rom. 3:31: “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid, yea, we establish the law.” The words, “make void,” in this text are from the Greek word katargeo, which is the very word rendered “abolished” in Eph. 2:15. Hence, in Rom. 3:31, Paul declares that the law is not abolished, but in Eph. 2:15, he positively says it is abolished. Now how can these two statements be reconciled? It is utterly impossible for Paul in both places to be speaking of the same law. But if we understand him to be speaking in one place of one law, the moral law, and in the other, of another law, the ceremonial law, his meaning is perfectly plain, and he harmonizes with himself. Here is the mistake that our opponents make in nearly every objection they raise to the law and the Sabbath. They apply to the moral law and God's Sabbath what the apostle says only of the ceremonial law and ceremonial sabbaths.