DISTINCTION IN THE GIVING OF THE TWO LAWS
By D. M. Canright
WE have shown in a previous article that, in the nature of things, there is a distinction between moral and ceremonial precepts, the latter being made necessary by a violation of the former. And, while God himself spoke the decalogue, the ceremonial law was given through angels to Moses, who wrote it out in a book of parchment. Of this Paul says, “For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast,” &c. Heb. 2 : 2. Again: Of the typical law he says, “It was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” Gal. 3 : 19. The first formal law written regulating the typical service, the sacrifices, the altar, the temple, the priesthood, &c., may be found beginning with Ex. 25 and extending through the book of Leviticus. It follows immediately after the giving of the moral law. Moses went up into the mount and was there several weeks receiving and writing out this law in a book. Ex. 24 : 15–18. This is to the ceremonial system what the decalogue is to the moral. It is noticeable that the great moral law of ten commandments is first given and the covenant concerning it solemnly ratified. Ex. 19–24 : 8. Then the following chapters contain an epitome of everything relating to the typical system. Afterwards the Lord gave a great many explanations and illustrations of how this law was to be applied and carried out. The teachers and prophets from Moses till Christ, each added some further light and instruction touching the nature and design of these types, as the circumstances called them forth. Thus the Lord sends a message to his people through a prophet. Part of it relates to their moral duties, and a part to their typical service; as the occasion demands. The book of Malachi is an example. So, interspersed all through the teachings of the Old Testament are many and frequent instructions touching the ceremonial law. At the same time interspersed with these are many instructions relating to the carrying out of the moral law in moral duties. Almost every book in the Old Testament furnishes an example of this. A careless reader might class them all together as different parts of the same law. To illustrate: Here stands a large, thrifty apple tree, with heavy foliage, and much fruit. Growing up by its trunk is a large hop vine which has spread all through and over the branches of the tree. The hop vine is full of hops. A person who had not seen an apple tree or a hop vine would think that both were but one tree. But, though the limbs and vines are closely intertwined together in a thousand folds, they are all the time and everywhere entirely distinct. One is a tree, the other a vine. One is sweet, the other bitter. One is enduring, the other dies in a summer. The vine is supported by the tree. This will illustrate the connection between the moral and typical laws. The apple tree (the moral law) was planted in Eden. It then had but few branches and light foliage. Immediately after the fall the hop vine (ceremonial system) was planted by its side. At that time this was also small. Both grew together through the patriarchal age, every year adding to their growth. During the Jewish age both grew rapidly, each developing many new branches, shoots, and leaves, and bearing much fruit. Finally, the tree (the moral law) became overgrown and much encumbered by the vine (the ceremonial law). Then Christ appeared. At one stroke, by his death upon the cross, he cut up the hop vine by the roots, but watered the tree with his own blood. The vine now soon withered and died; the leaves faded and fell off; and the winds blew down the rotten vines. Then the apple tree appeared in all its beauty, and the tree was loaded with fruit. So, from Adam to Christ, both laws were continually being taught and enforced by all God’s servants. But, at the death of Christ the ceremonial ended and soon passed away; but the law of God, with all the moral precepts and teachings in the Old Testament branching out from it, was confirmed, received new life, and further explanations from Christ and the apostles. DISTINCTION IN THE GIVING OF THE TWO LAWS.
Now notice how differently the other law was given : 1. Moses went up into the mount alone, where, being instructed by an angel, he wrote it out with his own hand. See Ex. 24 : 15–30, 38; Deut. 31 : 9, 24. “And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests,” &c. And so Paul says, “It was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” Gal. 3 : 19. Hence also it is called “the hand-writing of ordinances.” Col. 2 : 14. For the same reason it is often called “the law of Moses,” Acts 15 : 5, not because Moses was the author of the law, but because the Lord gave the law through Moses. The Lord was the real author of the law, but Moses was the medium through which it was made known to the people. Hence it is sometimes called “the law of the Lord,” and sometimes “the law of Moses.” See Luke 2 : 22, 23, where both terms are used. Butmark this fact: The ten commandments are never in a single instance called the law of Moses. 2. Moses wrote the ceremonial law in a book of parchment. Deut. 31 : 24. 3. Moses spoke this law to the people. Deut. 1 : 3–5; 31 : 1; 32 : 45, 46. “And Moses made an end of speaking these words to all Israel. And he said unto them, Set your hearts unto all the words which I testify among you this day, which ye shall command your children to observe to do, all the words of this law.” Deut. 32 : 45, 46. 4. This book of the law was then put, not in the ark, but by the side, as Dr. Horne renders it. “And it came to pass when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, that Moses commanded the Levites which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying : Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant,” &c. Deut. 31 : 24–26. Thus we see that there was one law in the ark and another outside the ark; one law on the tables of stone, another in the book; one law written by God, another by Moses; one law spoken by God, another by Moses; one law relating to moral duties, and another to the ceremonial ordinances. Who will deny the existence of two laws when the distinction is so plain? And this distinction is everywhere kept both in the Old and in the New Testaments. Thus, in 2 Kings 21 : 8, the Lord says, “Neither will I make the feet of Israel move any more out of the land which I gave their fathers; only if they will observe to do according to all I have commanded them, and according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them.” Here the Lord makes a plain distinction between what he himself had commanded them and what Moses had commanded them. The same fact is distinctly mentioned in Neh. 9 : 13, 14. “Thou camest down also upon Mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments and true laws, good statutes and commandments, and madest known unto them thy holy Sabbath.” We know that this refers to the ten commandments, for the Lord did come down upon Sinai and speak them from heaven while no other law was thus given. Notice the character ascribed to this law. It is called “right,” “true,” and “good.” After describing this holy law which God gave, then the prophet adds, “and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses, thy servant.” Here we have, first, one set of “judgments,” “laws,” “statutes,” and “commandments” spoken to them by the voice of God. Then, second, another set of “precepts,” “statutes,” and “laws” by the hand of Moses. This makes it certain that there were two laws given to the people. Turning to Eze. 20 we have still further proof of this fact. Says the Lord, “Wherefore I caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness; and I gave them my statutes, and showed them my judgments, which, if a man do, he shall even live in them.” Verses 10, 11. Then follows a rehearsal of how they rebelled and would not obey the law of God. “Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my Sabbaths (the fourth commandment), and their eyes were after their fathers’ idols (the first and second commandments). Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live.” Verses 24, 25. First, the Lord gave them a law by which they might live. They broke this; then he gave them, also, in addition, the one whereby they could not live, one that was “not good.” This shows that a second law was added to the first because of a violation of the first. While the first law is called “right,” “true,” and “good,” of the other law it is positively affirmed that it was “not good.” The careful observance of all the innumerables rites and ceremonies of the law of ordinances was always a grevious yoke to wear. The Lord himself says it was not good; yet their sins made it a necessity. Is the same law good and not good at the same time? Is the same law one by which they can live and by which they can not live? How absurd. No. There were two different laws, different in every respect, and so recognized in all the Bible. Thus the Lord says, through Jeremiah, “Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh. 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, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people.” Jer. 7 : 21–23. Turning back to where the Lord gave the decalogue, we find these very words used concerning it. Ex. 19 : 1–8. Afterward God gave them another law concerning sacrifices. In the New Testament we find the same distinction recognized. “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” Acts 15 : 5. Circumcision is the question, the law regulating it is called “the law of Moses.” But Paul says, “I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” Rom. 7 : 7. This law he immediately calls “the law of God.” Verse 22. Besides the two great systems of law above described—the moral and the ceremonial—notice should also be taken of certain special laws granted to the Jews for a limited time. They do not really belong either to the moral or typical laws. The Jewish government was a theocracy. God himself was their king, and hence they were supposed to be governed wholly by his moral laws; and in most cases they were, as an examination of their laws will show. See Lev. 19 as an example. But their manners and morals had become greatly corrupted by a long residence among a heathen people. Hence it was not possible immediately to reform them from all their heathen customs and bring them up in all things to a purely moral standard. Hence special precepts had to be made governing abuses which could not be corrected. Take the law of divorce as an example. Of this law Jesus says, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so.” Matt. 19 : 8. So they were permitted to own slaves, Ex. 21. But this was never pleasing to God. See Isa. 58; Jer. 34. These and other practices, such as polygamy, &c., were a violation of the moral law. Hence when Jesus came, the people being more enlightened, he summarily set all such precepts aside and brought every act strictly to the test of God’s moral law. See Matt. 5 : 17–48. We are now prepared to show that the law of Moses, the ceremonial law, relating to the whole typical system of the Old Testament, such as the priesthood, the sacrifices, circumcision, &c., &c., together with those civil precepts which God granted on account of their blindness and hardness of heart, of which I have spoken before, were abolished at the cross, and that, this is all that did end there. Every passage which speaks of a law219being done away always refers to these, never to the ten commandments or any moral precept or teaching of the Old Testament. The whole typical system pointed directly to Christ. Col. 2 : 14–17. When he came, in the very nature of things, it must cease. But why should any moral precept end there? There is neither reason nor scripture for such a position. We will take every passage in order which speaks of the abolition of any law. In Matt. 5, Jesus first teaches the unchangeable nature of the ten commandments, verses 17–28. Then he takes up some of the precepts of the civil law of the Jews, given to them by Moses, and emphatically sets them all aside. Thus: “It hath been said (this may be found not in the decalogue, but in the law of Moses, Deut. 24 : 1,) whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery,” &c. Verses 31, 32. It will readily be seen that this law is neither a part of the decalogue nor yet of the typical law. Is was really a violation of the seventh commandment. As we have seen the time had now come for these special precepts to be set aside. Hear Jesus further: “Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths, (this is found in Num. 30 : 2); but I say unto you, Swear not at all.” Matt. 5 : 33, 34. This again belongs, not to the moral law, nor to the law of types and shadows, but to the civil law of the Jews which was permitted them for a limited time. Jesus continues: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Matt. 5 : 38, 39. This is no part of the ten commandments, but is found in the civil law of the Jews. And so every item which he names as being done away is found in the law of Moses, relating either to the typical system or to those permissions granted them in the civil law. D. M. Canright. Stockton, May 10.