An Argument for the Two Laws.
By J. D. Rice
MUCH has already been said upon this subject; and the array of evidence presented is such as must forever settle the question in the mind of every one who is capable of appreciating the clearest evidence when given, that the Bible recognizes two distinct codes of laws. But many have not had the opportunity of considering the facts which have been presented, and for the benefit of such, and all who may be in doubt upon it, I will give a few facts to show this distinction between "The law of God" and "The law of Moses." First, we will briefly notice a few texts bearing upon these two laws, by way of comparison. Let any one decide if they can possibly refer to one and the same law. For convenience I will call the law of God, No. 1; and the law of Moses, No. 2. Such expressions as quoted above must be accepted as evidence of one of two things; either the Bible is a mass of contradictions, or else it recognizes two codes of laws. None who believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures can hold to the former; they must of necessity accept the latter. Learned, godly men of the past, such as John Wesley, Dr. Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, and a host of others of almost every denomination, and I may especially mention the Baptists, have held to this position. Why do men of to-day try to destroy this distinction and confound the two? They do it that they may sweep away the law of God with the ceremonial precepts, in order to get rid of that part of the law which says, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy; six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, in it thou shalt not do any work," etc., and that they may keep a day of their own choosing instead; a day which has no higher authority for its observance than the edicts of pagan rulers and the mandates of the Roman Catholic Church. From the account given in the 15th chapter of Acts, of the Council of Jerusalem, we gather facts which must forever settle the question that there are two laws, and that they were clearly recognized by the apostles. First, consider who comprised this council. They were the apostles of Christ and the elders (Acts 15:6); the very foundation of the Christian church (Eph. 2:20); men that had been partakers of the "power from on high" at the day of Pentecost, and, therefore, fully competent to decide the question before them. Second, mark the time when this council was held. It was at least ten years after the resurrection of Christ, the pentecost, and the opening of the Christian dispensation in its fullness and purity. Therefore it is in the fullest sense a Christian council, and its decisions and recognitions must be considered the voice of the true Christian Church for the entire Christian dispensation. If they recognized two separate and distinct laws, so must we, and abide by the decisions which they made. Let us now consider the question before the council. It was whether or not it was necessary for the Gentile Christians to be "circumcised," and "to keep the law of Moses" (verses 1-6, 24). Circumcision was a part of the law of Moses, but is here specially mentioned, probably for two reasons: (1) because it seemed to be the prominent point urged by the Pharisees upon the Gentile Christians; and (2) it was not peculiar to Moses, but was given to Abraham, and was, therefore, "of the Father"; but it was incorporated into the "law of Moses" among the rest of the "carnal ordinances." (See Jno. 7:22, 23; Heb. 9:10.) So the question simplified is, Shall they keep the law of Moses? What was their decision? It was, "That we trouble not the Gentiles which are turned to God," nor "tempt God" by putting "a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear" (verses 10, 19). Thus they settled the question of the law of Moses. They further decide that four things are necessary for them, viz.: To abstain from meats offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication (verses 6-29). Is it not a "necessary thing" that the Gentile Christians shall "abstain from" murder, adultery, theft, false witness, covetousness, blasphemy, idolatry, and having other gods beside the true God? and is it not a "necessary thing" for them to honor their parents? All must admit that these things are "necessary." I say "must," because these same apostles, actuated by the same Spirit that was in Christ, and in harmony with His teachings, continually urged these principles of righteousness on the authority of the law—not of Moses, but of God, which contains them. (See Matt. 19:16-19; Rom. 7:7-25; 8:1-7; 13:8-10; Jas. 2:8-12, etc.) From the last reference we see that James, who presided in the council at Jerusalem, says, that he who kills is a "transgressor of the law;" and He that said "Do not kill" also "Do not commit adultery," and that he is guilty who offends in "one point" of the law. This same law says "Thou shalt not covet;" and Paul calls the law which contains this commandment "the law of God." Rom. 7:7, 22. James calls it "the royal law." Royal signifies kingly. The royal law is the law of God, the "King of Eternity." (Jer. 10:10, margin.) Paul says it "is spiritual" and those who are "spiritually minded," "who are in Christ Jesus," and "walk after the Spirit" that was in Him, and "not after the flesh," are "subject to the law of God," but the carnal mind is not; and "to be carnally minded"—opposed to the law of God—"is death." Rom. 7:14-25; 8:1-7. Now almost any child knows that that law, called the "law of God," which says, "Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not covet," etc., says also, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy," and "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work," etc. This is "one point" of the law, most assuredly. James says if we offend in one point of this law we are "guilty." The light has come. Let us then keep every "point" of that law which God himself spoke from Heaven. "God shall bring every work into Judgment" in the light of His law, and "He will in no wise clear the guilty." There are ten commandments in that law. Deut. 4:12, 13. Truly these things are "necessary." But were they mentioned with the four "necessary things," which the Gentile Christians were required to do, by the government over which James presided, and at which Paul was present? No. Does not James most clearly teach that it is "necessary" to keep every point of that law which says, "Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not commit adultery," etc.? Most certainly he does. Then what must we conclude from these premises? There is but one conclusion which can be drawn, viz.: That James, with all the apostles and elders assembled in that council, recognized a clear and decided distinction between the "Law of God" and the "Law of Moses;" and that in discussing the latter they do not include the former, though its precepts are elsewhere recognized by them as necessary to eternal life. The question may be asked, Why did the apostles urge those four things specially upon them? Doubtless because they were generally practiced among the Gentiles, the converts from whom would be in special danger on account thereof, this special counsel was given. Long before Moses, God had forbidden the eating of blood, as it contained the life. (Gen. 9:4.) In eating a "thing strangled" the blood would be, as it is thereby retained. Paul gives the reasons why we should not eat "meats offered to idols." (See 1 Cor. 8. and Rom. 14.) No good could come from it but harm, as it would tend to draw them back into idolatry; cause a "weak brother" to stumble; or to prevent those who might otherwise be won from idolatry. As "fornication" is not specifically named in the law of God, though included in the 7th precept, and as it was a common practice among the Gentiles, a word of caution and admonition upon this point was timely, and is a proof of their vigilance, and care for the church of God.
Oakland, Cal., Feb. 13, 1883.