JOTS AND TITTLES by John Norton Loughborough

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Dec 5, 1878

JOTS AND TITTLES.

By John Norton Loughborough

BY ELD. J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.

It is evident to every careful reader of the New Testament that some law of the former dispensation was abolished by Christ, while it is just as evident that there are other laws which were not abolished. To claim that the texts referring to a law that has been abolished and those speaking of a law that has not been abolished all refer to one and the same law, only tends to confuse the mind, and to present the Bible as a book of contradictory statements.

Paul inquires, “Do we then make void [Gr. katargeo, abolish] the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law.” Rom. 3:31. Again, he speaks of the work of Christ as follows: “Having abolished [katargeo] in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances.” Eph. 2:15. If these two texts refer to one and the same law, then the law is abolished, and at the same time God forbids its abolition.

There are two laws mentioned in the Bible. One is a law of right and wrong, in which, as in a mirror, we behold a true representation of ourselves, and from which we learn our duty to God and men. Jas. 1:23. The other law was given to regulate the services of the typical system of offerings, and ceased to be of force when Christ was offered for the sins of men.

Some have asked, “How can we tell what law is spoken of in a given text?” We answer, By carefully noting the connection; by this means we can easily discover what law is abolished and what is not abolished. In this brief article we can only notice five different texts; these will serve to illustrate the subject.

1. In Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, we read, “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.” Eph. 2:14, 15. Here a law is said to be abolished, but the text carefully defines what law, and this of itself is proof that all previously existing laws were not abolished by Christ.

The law abolished is “the law of commandments contained in ordinances.” The ordinances were the ceremonies connected with the Levitical priesthood, as may be seen from reading Heb. 9:1. The word “ordinances” in this text is rendered ceremonies in the margin. The law abolished was the law regulating the ceremonies.

Again, the abolished law occasioned an enmity between the Jews and the Gentiles. This enmity was not on account of any distinction made between them by the moral law, neither was it because the Gentile might not repent of his sins, and have remission by faith in the Saviour to come; but by the regulations of the typical system certain privileges were granted to the Jew that the Gentile could not enjoy. Even when they came up to the temple to worship, the Jew could come one court nearer the holy place than the Gentile could. In that restriction there was a literal stone wall between them, as well as a spiritual wall of distinction that created the enmity.

A careful reading of the text will show that what was abolished related to the particular form of their approaching God. This distinction is now done away, so that we can all come before him alike. “For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.” Eph. 2:18.

2. Another text in which the abolition of the law of types is introduced is Col. 2:14: “Blotting out the hand-writing of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.” Here again it is plainly specified what law is taken away. It is “the hand-writing of ordinances”—ceremonies—the law regulating the sacrifices of the past dispensation. It was against us and contrary to us, in that it would be impossible for us, in this dispensation, to conform to its requirements. Take, for instance, the command found in Deut. 16:16: “Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before the Lord thy God in the place which he shall choose.” While this injunction might be observed by that peculiar people in the land of Palestine, and they might gather every year at Jerusalem, it would be impossible for men in this dispensation to go from all parts of the earth three times a year to Jerusalem; and so a command of that character, if still a living law, would be “against us,” and in our way.

Those laws requiring the sinner, when confessing his sins, to lay his hands on certain beasts, and commanding the priests to burn the bodies of these beasts in sacrifice and to sprinkle the blood before the veil of the sanctuary, would be “against us” in this dispensation when invited from every land to come humbly, by faith, to Christ, “without money and without price.” So these laws were “taken out of the way.”

The very fact that Paul is so particular to specify what laws are taken away and blotted out, is of itself proof that there are laws that are not included in this statement. To illustrate: I state that in 1878 the Indians crossed the Blue Mountains of Eastern Oregon, made an attack upon Cayuse Station, and massacred all the white inhabitants. The very fact that I say “white inhabitants” shows that there were inhabitants there of another color; and while those they destroyed were white, it would be apparent to every man that those not white were not slain. So if laws with certain characteristics were blotted out, those not of that character remain unaffected. When we consider Paul’s conclusion from the premises stated in the above text, we shall observe that he specifies just as carefully what things are affected by the blotting out of the law. “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, 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. 2:16, 17.

The things mentioned all pertain to the system of shadowy offerings, of which Christ was the body. Meat and drink offerings and new-moon observances were not mentioned in the moral law, but were required by the Levitical law. The holy-day is not the Sabbath, but is the passover, as the Greek word heorte is translated elsewhere in the New Testament. The sabbath days mentioned do not include all sabbaths, but only those which are a shadow of which the body is Christ. In Leviticus 23 seven of these sabbaths are described, each occurring on different days of certain months, with meat-offerings, drink-offerings, everything upon his day, “beside the Sabbaths of the Lord.” Lev. 23:38. So we see this text clearly defines itself, as to what law is taken out of the way.

3. We have one text more of this character to notice. Paul in writing to the Hebrews says, “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.” If we did not notice the connection in which this text is found, there might be some reason in the plea of the man who said, “As the priesthood is changed from the Aaronic priesthood to that of Christ, the Sabbath has been changed from the seventh to the first day of the week to honor Christ and to commemorate his resurrection.” A careful examination of the next verses at once spoils this fine Sunday argument, and also explains what law is changed. “For he of whom these things are spoken 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 priesthood.” “For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.” Heb. 7:12–14, 18.

The simple facts in this case are, the law of the priesthood required the priests to be of the tribe of Levi, of the house of Aaron; but as Christ, our High Priest, is, after the flesh, of the tribe of Judah, there is made of necessity a change of the law concerning the priesthood; and this commandment, which would now be unprofitable if it still remained as a living law, has been “disannulled.”

As the texts already noticed so clearly present the typical law, and virtually explain themselves and show us what law is abolished, we will now call attention to two other texts which as clearly speak of a law that existed before Christ came, and which was not abolished.

1. In Matt. 5:17–19, we read: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven.”

A law is here mentioned that Christ found when he came, that is still to be obeyed and taught. This law is the law of ten commandments, as will readily appear as we look at his immediate illustrations of his subject: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill;” and again, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” These are two of the ten commandments. Then the moral law, of which these two commandments are a part, is to stand, every jot and tittle of it, till heaven and earth pass, and even to all eternity, as it is to stand “till all be fulfilled.” Not simply till all the law is fulfilled, but till all the prophecies are fulfilled.

This law is called “these least commandments;” least when compared with the two great commandments,—love God and love thy neighbor. Least because either of these great commandments, when separately considered, is greater than any one of the ten commandments. The law which says, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,” embraces the first four of the ten; and the one that says, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” comprehends the last six, which relate to our duty to our neighbor.

We claim that the law of least commandments mentioned here in Matthew, every jot and tittle of which is thus to stand, relates to a law which was in writing and in the Hebrew language, when Christ came. The word jot refers to the Hebrew letter yod (י), the smallest letter of this alphabet.

A tittle is a little point used on letters; or, to state more fully, several of the Hebrew letters are in pairs, and so nearly alike that they are only distinguishable from each other, in writing, by these points; for instance, beth ב and caph כ, he ה and cheth ח, daleth ד and resh ר. A mistake in copying manuscript by which one of these was substituted for the other would make a vast difference in the meaning of a sentence, or, as the Rabbins express it, “would ruin the world.”

In a Hebrew work called “Vayikra Rabba,” it is said that should any person change the daleth ד into resh ר (achar) in the words of Deut. 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is [achad] one Lord,” he would “ruin the world,” because while achad is the true God, achar is a false god. This change would make the text declare that the Lord our God is a false god, which sentiment, if accepted, would indeed ruin the world.

“Should any one in the words of Ex. 34:14: ‘Thou shalt worship no other god [achar],’ change resh ר into daleth ד, he would ruin the world, because in that case the text would read: ‘Thou shalt not worship the only true God.’”

“Should any one in the words of Lev. 22:32: ‘Neither shall ye profane [techelew] my holy name,’ change cheth ח into he ה (tehelew), he would ruin the world.” While techelew means to profane, tehelew means to praise. So the text would read, “Neither shall ye praise my holy name.”

“Should any one in the words of Ps. 150:6: ‘Let everything that hath breath praise [tehelel] the Lord,’ change he ה into cheth ח, he would ruin the world.” The text would then read, “Let everything that hath breath profane the Lord.”

“Should any one in the words of Jer. 5:10: ‘And they lied against the Lord [beihovah],’ change beth ב into caph כ, he would ruin the world.” While beihovah means against the Lord, chiboovah means like the Lord. This slight change would make the text utter the awful sentiment, “They lied like the Lord.” Indeed it would ruin the world to teach that God was a liar.

“Should any one, in the words of Hosea 5:7: ‘They have dealt treacherously against the Lord [beihovah],’ change beth ב into caph כ, he would ruin the world. Such change would make the text read, ‘They have dealt treacherously like the Lord.’”

“Should any one in the words of 1 Sam. 2:2: ‘There is none holy as the Lord,’ change the caph כ into beth ב, he would ruin the world.” The text would then read, “There is no holiness in the Lord,”—an awful sentiment.

From these illustrations it must be apparent to all that there is great force in the tittles when the changing of one of them changes the entire sentiment of a passage.

To change the sentiment of a text it is necessary to change some of these tittles; but Christ declares that a jot or tittle shall “in no wise” pass from this law, neither by abolition of the law nor by change in the precepts. To change the fourth commandment so as to meet its obligation by keeping the first day of the week, would necessitate some very essential changes in the jots and tittles. To abolish the fourth commandment would destroy all the jots and tittles; but none of them

are to pass till heaven and earth pass, and then not to all eternity.

It seems to me these thoughts must impress all minds that the law thus spoken of is a very different one from that mentioned in the former part of this article.

2. There is another text I must notice which reduces this matter to a still finer point. The text is in Luke 16:16, 17: “The law and the prophets were until John; since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.” That the law here mentioned is the law of ten commandments is apparent from the fact that Christ immediately illustrates his subject by reference to the command against adultery. Some have quoted this text as proof that the law only existed to the time of John, and would have us understand that the people had the law and the prophets until the time of John, and that since that time we have the gospel in place of the law and the prophets. This is not the meaning of the text. The moral law of God showed the people that they were sinners. The prophets taught the people that there was a Saviour coming to take away their sins. When the Saviour came, his coming did not destroy that law nor diminish the force of the testimony of the prophets. When those things spoken of by the prophets concerning Christ were fulfilled, the prophecies were of greater force than ever before. The prophecies then became the great proofs by which the apostles set forth the mission of Christ. So, too, when Christ came, instead of relaxing in the least this law, the fact that he magnified it by his teachings, and died to obtain our pardon for its transgression, is one of the best of evidences that the claims of that law could not be set aside; and so reads this text, “And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.” So even the little points of letters in that law are firmer than the heavens and the earth.

When Archimedes discovered the mechanical power of the lever, to express his great confidence in its force he said, “If you will give me a fulcrum to place my lever on, I will turn the world over.” This was an important if, and we will add to it another. If all the mechanical, animal, and physical powers of our earth were combined in one great human arm, they could not move the earth one inch in a thousand years, because there is no place or means of applying the power; yet the power of the Almighty has been moving the earth thousands of miles each day since its formation, in more directions than one.

The force of this text is this, that nothing short of Almighty power can take even a single tittle out of this moral law of ten commandments.

I trust we have made clear the distinction between these two laws, so far as noticed in connection with these texts, and we conclude this article by saying to those who have accepted the position of the immutable nature of the ten commandments,—

How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord, Is laid for your faith in his excellent word.