The Sermon by J. H. Waggoner

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, Cal. · Jul 29, 1875

The Sermon.

By J. H. Waggoner

THE LAW OF GOD.—No. 9.

BY J. H. WAGGONER.

TWO LAWS—MORAL AND CEREMONIAL.

ONE of the most common methods of trying to evade the claims of the fourth commandment is to deny the distinction between moral and ceremonial, or positive, law, and to include the ten commandments in “the law of Moses,” or “the handwriting of ordinances,” which is done away. And while it is one of the most common, it is one of the most unreasonable and inexcusable.

Would it not be a truly singular fact that God should give a law as a rule whereby moral agents were to develop their characters, so unfitted for the end for which it was given, that he was obliged to send his Son to die and release us from the obligation to keep it? This is not only making God such an one as themselves, but it is bringing him, unchangable as he has declared himself to be, far below our sense of right and justice. But there is no such thing found in the word of God. “Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures.” Sin existed before the Levitical law. To say that Christ died to abolish the law of Moses, is like saying that the traveler pursues his journey expressly to pass the mile-stones. He travels to reach a certain destination, and the mile-stones must necessarily be left behind. That was a system of types and shadows—when the substance is reached we follow the shadow no further. But there must be a substance before a shadow can be cast. Christ was as a lamb “slain from the foundation of the world.”

Rev. 13:8. He did not come to die, merely because that system of types was instituted, and needed to be removed; but that was instituted because he was coming to die. The objection reverses the true order of things, by placing the cause for the effect; and must arise from taking a very superficial and false view of the work of our Saviour.

In connection with this, it has been said that the law which governed men under the former dispensation was faulty, and Christ came to take it away and introduce a better. This objection is raised from a perversion of Heb. 8, in making the “first covenant,” read first law. We have before shown that the term covenant is used in different senses, and the remarks of the apostle on the two covenants forbid the idea that any candid searcher for truth should be so mistaken. Before his death, the Saviour prayed, “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.” But it was not possible. He drank the cup prepared and embittered by our sins. But if our sins were the transgressions of an imperfect, faulty law, all must admit that the law might have been set aside, and the transgressor freed from its yoke, without the death of the Son of God. And, indeed, it admits of a query, whether the transgression of a faulty, good-for-nothing law is morally wrong. In such a case the fault need not be reckoned on the part of the transgressor, but on the part of the law-giver. If God gave man a faulty, imperfect law, which had a curse necessarily attached to it, as some claim, and man failed to develop a perfect moral character under it, and was thereby lost, where would the blame rest? And would not God, under such circumstances, be unrighteous in taking vengeance? Rom. 3:5. They who raise such objections cannot consider, so as to be aware of the dishonor they put upon the government of God. They need to pray in the words of David, “Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.”

That the law of moral precepts, the transgression of which occasioned the death of the Son of God, is distinct from that law of types and shadows which was instituted in view of his death, is so plainly revealed in the Scriptures, that it would seem impossible for any candid Bible student to deny it. Said the Lord to Moses, “Come up to me into the mount, and be there; and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments, which I have written.” Ex. 24:12. “The law” here referred to which God had written on the tables of stone comprised the ten commandments—neither more nor less—which God spoke with his own voice. It was thus distinguished from all other laws, by being spoken by the voice of God, and written with his own hand, and it was separated from all others by being put into the ark over which atonement was made for sin. It was also distinguished by express statement as in the following text:—

“Behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but have rejected it. To what purpose cometh there to me incense from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far country? Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me.” Jer. 6:19, 20.

This shows that the offerings of sacrifices was distinct from keeping the law. He wrote the law on tables of stone, but there was no more than the ten commandments on the tables of stone. Also he spoke the law with his own voice, but he spoke only the ten commandments with his own voice in the hearing of all the people. Of this distinction the Lord himself has spoken as follows:—

“For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice.” Jer. 7:22, 23. When they heard his voice, they heard only the ten commandments—he said nothing about offerings nor sacrifices. Thus plainly has the Lord separated between his law and all secondary matters.

The ten commandments are a moral law, which is the will of God, covering all our moral relations. There was a ceremonial law in the past dispensations, as there are positive laws in this.

The moral law existed before sin entered into the world, for where no law is there is no transgression; Rom. 4:15; the ceremonial law was enacted because sin had been committed, as it was entirely remedial.

There is one law to which the carnal mind is not subject, because the law is based on love, and the carnal mind is enmity; Rom. 8:7. But the other law is itself called the enmity; Eph. 2:15.

One law is spiritual; Rom. 7:14. The other was carnal; Heb. 7:16.

One law was magnified and made honorable by the Saviour; Isa. 42:21. The other he blotted out; Col. 2:14.

One law he came not to destroy; Matt. 5:17. The other he disannulled; Heb. 7:18.

One law is holy, just, and good; Rom. 7:12. The other was not good; Eze. 20:25.

One is perfect, containing the whole duty of man; Psa. 19:7; Eccl. 12:13. The other had only a shadow of good things to come; Heb. 10:1.

One law in which the godly delight; Rom. 7:22; Ps. 119:24, 92, 97; Isa. 58:13. The other, called the law of Moses, a yoke which they could not bear; Acts 15:5, 10.

One, in the keeping of which there is great reward; Ps. 19:11. The other was weak and unprofitable; Heb. 7:18.

One which was established forever; Ps. 119:152, 160. The other was imposed on them till the time of reformation; Heb. 9:10.

One law is not made void, but established, by faith; Rom. 3:31. The other is abolished; Eph. 2:15.

In Matt. 5:19, the Saviour says that they who do and teach the commandments of the law shall be great in the kingdom of Heaven, while they who break them and teach men so, shall not; and in Acts 15:24, the apostles taught that the law need not be kept.

If one and the same law is spoken of in all these passages, then we may despair of ever arriving at correct conclusions from such contradictory statements. The Saviour spoke of the moral law—the law of universal and perpetual obligation, which is not made void; while we are explicitly informed that the apostles were speaking of “the law of Moses.”

If, as the opposers of the law say, Christ came to introduce a better law than that given in the Old Testament, then we may safely say his mission was a complete failure, for no such law is found in the teachings of Christ or his apostles. We are free to make the assertion that no new principle of morality is taught in the New Testament. It cannot be true that he altered or relaxed the law of God in any particular. But if that was abolished, what became of the first commandment? The answer to this question, as an opposer gave it, was, that only the ceremonial part of the law (the fourth precept) was abolished, and the remainder greatly enlarged—that the principle of the first commandment could be discovered in the writings of the apostles. Then in the former dispensation, it was fully declared in definite terms; in the present, we must endeavor to trace the principle in the writings of the apostles, who do not make any particular mention of it. An enlargement truly from definite to indefinite! Part of a perfect law abolished—other parts obscured, and thus it is incomparably better than it was before! But inasmuch as that is the only moral code ever given, and the New Testament brings to light no new principles of morality, but only ratifies and establishes those taught in the Old (see Matt. 5:17–19; Rom. 3:31; 2 Tim. 3:15–17), can those who say that the law was for the Jews only, show that any moral law was ever given to the Gentiles. Can they prove that the Gentile world was ever designed to be placed under moral restraint? And if the offense of the Jews, as has been shown from the Scriptures, was the transgression of that law, why are they not restored to the favor of God, if that law is abolished?

But if it could be shown that another law had been given in the New Testament, why should it be called a better law than that given on Mount Sinai? Could it be more just in its nature? That was perfect. Could it be more replete with moral obligations? That embraced the whole duty of man. Could its observance tend to better results? That was ordained to life. Rom. 7:10; Lev. 18:5; Eze. 20:11; Matt. 19:17. Is it contended that that produced the death of the transgressor (Rom. 6:23), insomuch that it is even called death (2 Cor. 3:7), because all have transgressed it? Rom. 3:23. We would then inquire, Has God ever promised life to the disobedient, even in the New Testament? Does the gospel justify all, without distinction of character? Our opponents boast of the gospel of Christ as though it was impossible for the most incorrigible sinner to die, since the ushering in of the present dispensation! But can they show that the law would ever curse those who obeyed it, or that the gospel will save those who disobey it? 2 Thess. 1:7, 8. The light of the gospel results in the condemnation of those who reject it. John 3:19. Jesus said, “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have no cloak for their sin.” John 15:22. Could not the Jews, therefore, claim, with equal propriety, that the gospel of Christ was a curse unto them? Again, Paul says of himself and fellow-laborers in the gospel (2 Cor. 2:15, 16), that they are unto God a sweet savor of Christ in them that perish—even the savor of death unto death. Why do not our opponents reject the gospel for all these things? On their line of reasoning we could prove the gospel to be faulty, because it will not save those who reject it.

But if that law was perfect, embracing in its requirements the whole duty of man (and so it must have been, or the Scriptures are not true), then every principle of morality that could arise out of our relation to God or to our fellow-men must have been embraced in it. To suppose otherwise were to suppose that God did not require holiness under the past dispensation; but this supposition is contradicted by his word. Lev. 11:44. If all the moral duties growing out of our relation to God and to our fellow-creatures were included in that, then none remained to be added thereafter; and if that be abolished, and another substituted, the one so substituted must be as extensive in its requirements as that was, or else it would not include the whole duty of man, and hence would be imperfect; but such a law (an imperfect one) will not be contended for. Therefore we will consider it granted that the new law must be as comprehensive as the old one. But it is not possible to even imagine how such a thing can be, unless the two laws are exactly alike! We can no more comprehend the existence of two complete, perfect rules of moral action, both embracing the whole duty of man, yet different, than we can comprehend the existence of two supreme deities, both essentially holy in their natures, yet not alike. And we hazard nothing in saying that it is impossible for God to create two different complete rules of moral action. The requirement to be holy is based upon the holiness of God himself; for he said, “Be ye holy, for I am holy.” Therefore it is as impossible to create two different rules of holiness, for the perfection of the characters of moral agents, as it is to duplicate the attributes of Deity. A careful examination of this subject must convince any one that this declaration is correct.

It has been shown that we are required to be holy, because God is holy, and we are to be like him. So the Saviour said: “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect.” Matt. 5:48. And this is not an unreasonable requirement—only equivalent to that of loving God with all the heart. It is an acknowledged law of the human mind that man is assimilated to the object of his worship. If he worships a being of depraved character, the more he contemplates the character of that being—the more he loves it—the more degraded and depraved he becomes. Witness the heathen nations, who worship monstrous beings of various kinds, and themselves become monsters of depravity. On the other hand, if the object of his worship is possessed of a pure and lovely character, the more worshipful and devoted he is, the more lovely he will become in temper and disposition. An intelligent being, possessed of creative power—in other words, being supreme—must have the right to command the worship of his creatures; and if so, to prescribe also the form of worship (without which the command would be a nullity); his own character being an index to the form of worship prescribed. The character of God is declared in the passage referred to—he is holy; and also in 1 John 4:8, “God is love.” These declarations of the character of God are a sufficient guarantee that a system or form of worship, or rule of action, required by him, would be perfect, holy like his own character, the embodiment of love. For such a being to require the creature to love and adore him, is only to provide for the creature’s own best good—to point out the way whereby the created being may be like his Creator—pure, lovely, holy, and of course, happy. The idea of obedience of right laws tending to the happiness of the moral agent, has been beautifully illustrated by a late writer:—

“Happiness depends on the state of our minds, and the feelings which are prevalent there. Now the law of God prescribes exactly that class of affections, and that only, which invariably and necessarily produces enjoyment in the existence and exercise of them—love. ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength; and thy neighbor as thyself.’ And so ‘love is the fulfilling of the law.’

“Allow the imagination to bring such a state of mind before you as your own; just try the experiment of imagining how you would feel, if every selfish, unlovely emotion, had become utterly extinct, leaving no trace behind, and pure love to all beings animated your breast; the heart filled with holy love and reverence for God, so that you exulted in your relation to him, and delighted in all his will; love to God supremely, and to all his creatures subordinately—why, your cup would be full to overflowing, and you would be ready to shout aloud for joy. Thus admirably is God’s law adapted to secure the perfect happiness of every one that observes it. Thanks be to God for such a law!”—Dobney, pp. 46, 47.

That God designed that his creatures should be holy and happy, none can deny; and that obedience to his law was the appointed means to secure this very desirable state, is equally evident from the reasons and scriptures offered above, and other scriptures declaring that righteousness consists in keeping the law. Deut. 6:25. His law is the transcript of his own divine mind, the revelation of his holy will. The keeping of his law is his own prescribed form of worship; and no worship is acceptable without it. Therefore he says, “He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.” Prov. 28:9; see also, Matt. 15:9.

How can any one become like God—holy—without worshiping him? And how can any one worship him and not keep his commandments? These contain his own prescribed rule or standard of holiness. But if that law was the rule whereby man might become like God, holy, in the former dispensation, can any other rule be followed in this dispensation, and the agent still develop a holy character? Or, in other words, has God’s holiness changed in its nature? or is it the same that it was in times past? Thus we see there is a material point at issue. As God requires his creatures to be holy, he must give them a rule or standard of holiness. But if there are two rules essentially different in the two dispensations, then the holiness attained by the two rules must be essentially different: as it is impossible to arrive at the same point by going in different directions. Thus it is shown that a change of the moral law of God involves a change of the divine perfections, which is a manifest absurdity.

All that has been here said of the perfection of the law, of its completeness, of its being a way of life, a rule of holiness, &c., is, in the Scriptures spoken of the moral law, the ten commandments. But not one sentence of all this can possibly be referred to the ceremonial law, nor to any law of a positive nature. Surely the difference between the two laws is so plain that no one need to err in regard to them.