Objections to the Sabbath Answered.
“The priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.” Heb. 7: 12. In this change of the law, the Sabbath was doubtless left out. Answer. Here again our opponents make the same blunder that we have had to notice so often, viz., applying to the moral law what the apostle has spoken only of the ceremonial law. Look at the statement of Paul. The change of the priesthood, he says, necessitated a change of the law. Why? “For,” he continues, he of whom these things are spoken [Jesus] pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning the priesthood.” Verses 13, 14. By the law of Moses concerning the priesthood, no one could be a priest except he was of the tribe of Levi; but Jesus was not of the tribe of Levi, but of the tribe of Juda; therefore, that law of the priesthood must be changed, or Jesus could not be a priest. Was this the law of ten commandments? Certainly not. Is there anything in that law about the priesthood? Not a word. Therefore, we claim that this language has no application whatever to the decalogue. So verses 18 and 19 we understand to apply in the same manner to the ceremonial law, and not to the moral law. “For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope.” This was all true of the Levitical law of which the apostle was speaking, but not of the moral law. Of the latter law, the psalmist says, “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.” Ps. 19:7. This is directly the opposite of what Paul says of the other law. Indeed, the whole subject of the book of Hebrews is touching the priesthood, and the temple, and its ceremonies, which Paul compares with the priesthood of Christ, the heavenly sanctuary and its worship. Hence, it is the law relating to those things of which he is speaking, and not the moral law (except in chap. 8:10, where he brings the law into the new covenant), which says nothing about them. Chap. 10:1 may be taken as another illustration. “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually, make the comers thereunto perfect.” That this law was the one pertaining to sacrifices, any one cannot fail to see. There is not a word in the ten commandments about sacrifices, hence, that is not the law spoken of. The reader cannot fail to notice that in every passage where anything is said about the passing away of the law, it always speaks of that relating to circumcision, sacrifices, the priesthood, or something like that, but never once to the law against murder, adultery, theft, &c. This is an important fact which should be remembered.