The Two Laws | AdventAI

Publishing Committee · Saratoga Springs, N. Y. · Aug 5, 1851

The Two Laws.

It is of great importance that it should be distinctly seen that the Bible contains two laws which are styled the "law of God," and the "law of Moses." Those who teach the abolition of the Holy Sabbath find it very convenient for their position to confound these two distinct laws in one, so that they may apply to the commandments of God those expressions of the apostle Paul, where he speaks of the law of Moses, as in Gal. v, 4. "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace."

Now if our opponents can make it appear that there is but one law, that the ten holy commandments spoken by the Almighty and engraven in the tables of the covenant with his own finger, and that law of "carnal ordinances" which Moses wrote in a book, called the book of the covenant, were but one law, which was abolished at the cross, then they can easily convince those who look to them for light and truth that the commandments are done away, therefore the Sabbath is not binding. But let it be clearly proved that there are two distinct laws, one the law of Moses, a typical law, which finds its body or antitype in the "good things" connected with the gospel, the other the law of God, not typical but a law of commandments, of holy principles, which are as immutable as Jehovah who descended in flaming fire upon the smoking mount to declare them with an audible voice to his chosen people, then it will be seen that the ten commandments, with all their importance and force, reach on through all time; therefore the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath is a Christian duty. Here we will give the remarks of Bro. E. D. Cook on this subject, and the "answer" by J. B. C., which we copy from the 'Advent Harbinger' of June 7, 1851.

"I find something written by J. B. Cook, objectionable. Vol. i, No. 14, Sept. 22, 1849. Now, will Bro. Cook contend that there is but one law, when it is evident from Scripture that there are two laws: that is, the law of God, written with the finger of God on two tables of stone, Exod. xxxi. 18; Deut. v. 22, and the law of Moses, written by Moses in a book, Deut. xxx. 10; xxxi. 24-26, for the observance of the children of Israel, which was the schoolmaster to bring them to Christ. Bro. Cook is requested to read Gal. v. 4; iii., and 2 Cor. iii., all of which, except the last, is the law of Moses, and the last leaves something more glorious than that which is abolished.

Again, Bro. H. P. Crozier's reply to Bro. Pease. His whole argument against Bro. Pease is from the law, which I think no man doubts but that it was nailed to the Cross.

It now remains to get the truth upon this question. If there is no law binding except what is binding on us by the apostles, then no one can decide the point by the New Testament: but if there are two laws, though the one was nailed to the Cross the other is binding on us. I ask for light on this point. Also, for light on Rev. xiv. 9. (As time rolls on it will come out on Revelation.) But to make up our minds that the 4th commandment in the law of God is abolished, is giving toleration to observing no day. For the first day is not commanded in the New Testament as I can find."

ANSWER.

As to the two distinct laws, of which my respected brother speaks, I have heard it spoken of before. But were it so, it would have been easy for the Holy Ghost to have made it plain. Every great doctrine is plainly stated; but this so far as I could understand, was only inferred by those near me, who wished to make out their case. The usual apostolic phraseology is, 'The law'—not the 'two laws'—not laws—not the law of Moses and the law of God. No, Paul, speaking by the Holy Ghost, says, 'The law.' Rom. iii. 31 : Gal. ii. 16; v. 4; Heb. vii.; viii.; ix.

But on this point I will not 'contend.' I know that God wrote the law on two tables of stone—that Moses wrote a book by inspiration of God, &c. Now if this means that there were 'two laws,' very well. I know that Jesus speaks of 'the law of Moses; the prophets and the Psalms.' I have been accustomed to believe that this term 'law' embraced the Pentateuch—the five books of Moses. If so, and these books of Moses embrace 'the whole law,' given by God to Israel through Moses, then the doctrine of two laws is not sustained. It is God's one law given by Moses. It seems that the law 'written and engraven on stones' is spoken of, 2 Cor. iii., in utter contrariety to our brother's idea. But after stating these facts—after looking over my letter, Sept. '49, I need only add, that I cherish the sweet spirit of the Sabbath. I believe that God gave it in type—then further I believe that we shall have the antitype, in 'the Age to come.' This was confessed in my letter which called forth the above comment.

'The law was a shadow of heavenly things.' All the tabernacle was 'made according to the pattern shown to Moses, in the mount.' The antitypical High Priest must come out from 'within the vail'—gather 'his royal priesthood,' and 'restore the tabernacle of David'; then, we shall witness 'in mount Zion and in Jerusalem' the proper antitype of all those ancient types."

The "answer" of J. B. C. does not satisfy us, and we presume that it does not convince Bro. E. D. Cook, or any one that has searched the Scriptures on this point, that there is but one law, and consequently that the ten commandments are a part of that one law that died at the cross. There are many serious objections to this view. We will here point out some of them.

1. It is not possible to harmonize the testimony of St. Paul with this view, "For not the hearers of the law are just before God," says the Apostle, "but the doers of the law shall be justified." Rom. ii, 13. The epistle to the Romans was written A. D. 60. This was 29 years after the abolition of the law of "ordinances" at the cross. Two years before this, which was A. D. 58, Paul wrote to his Galatian brethren as follows: "For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." Gal. v, 3, 4.

To assert that the apostle refers to but one and the same law in both of these texts, virtually charges him with contradicting his own testimony. He testified to the Galatians that they were debtors to do the whole law if they did a part of it, and in so doing they would fall from grace. Wretched condition indeed. Two years after this he testified to the Romans that the "DOERS OF THE LAW SHALL BE JUSTIFIED." Will those who teach that there is but one law look at this testimony. Here we would say that those who will examine will find that Paul is speaking of the ten commandments, the law of God, in Rom. ii, 13. The doers of that law "shall be justified." It may also be seen that he is speaking of the ordinances of the Jewish church in Gal. v, 3, 4, for he introduces the subject with circumcision. Those who turned away from the faith of Christ, to those ordinances that had been dead 27 years, would fall from grace.

2. If there is but one law including the ten commandments, and if by doing that law, or a part of it, we fall from grace, then he that dares to observe the Sabbath, or the other nine commandments will fall from grace. And he that observes all or either of the ten commandments, is "a debtor to do the whole" ceremonial law of Moses. If there is but one law including the ten commandments, then the whole or none of it should be observed. But to observe the whole

would be rejecting Christ, and to neglect the whole would be doing worse than the heathen.

But it may be said that the whole law was abolished, and then nine of the precepts of the decalogue were incorporated into the New Testament. Admitting this to be so, their nature is not changed; they are still a portion of the law, whether in the Old or New Testament, and to observe either of them would bring one under condemnation, if there is but one law. But the view that God abolished all the precepts of the decalogue at the cross, and at the same moment re-enacted nine of them by the same means that abolished the whole law—all this to get rid of the Sabbath, is a monstrous absurdity. We agree with J. B. C. that "every great doctrine is plainly stated;" but the doctrine that nine of the commandments were re-enacted at the cross, at the very time that all ten were abolished, is not hinted at in the New Testament.

3. It is not possible to conceive how the Apostle could speak of the law, as he did to the Romans 29 years after the cross, if there is but one law, and that law died at the cross.

"What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law; for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet: . . . For I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. . . . Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." Rom. vii, 7—12. The Apostle further adds in the same chapter: "For we know that the law is spiritual." "For I delight in the law of God, through the inward man." "I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God."

Paul is not speaking of a part of the law, but of the law—a whole law. If there is but one law, including the precepts of the decalogue, and that died at the cross, then it was a dead law that convicted Paul, of which he speaks in such high terms. And this one law theory virtually charges the great Apostle with the folly of calling a law spiritual, holy, just and good, that had been dead 29 years; also of delighting in and serving it. We know that Paul was not speaking thus of a dead law, but of one that was living, one that convicted him of sin after the law of Moses was abolished.—This could be no other than the ten commandments. These are some of the absurdities of the view that there is but one law. The scripture view that there are two laws is free from all such inconsistencies. With this view a harmony may be seen throughout both Testaments.

It is true that "every great doctrine is plainly stated;" plain enough for those who wish to follow the truth, though it may lead them to go "without the camp," bearing the reproach of Christ; but unbelief can always find a handle to lay hold of. Many rejected definite time, because the definite year for the Second Advent was not in so many words revealed. The same spirit of unbelief will lead men to reject the doctrine of two distinct laws, because the words "two laws," or "laws" is not used.

We will now state some important facts relative to the two laws, recorded in the Old Testament. First, God spake the ten commandments to Israel with an audible voice, and with his finger wrote them in the tables of stone. He did not thus speak and write only the words of the ten precepts of the decalogue. "These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount, out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice; and he ADDED NO MORE: and he wrote them in two tables of stone." Deut. v, 22. Second, the ten commandments are called "a law," and not a part of the law, as would be proper if they were only a part of the law of Moses. "And the Lord said unto 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, that thou mayest teach them." Ex. xxiv, 12. Third, this law of commandments God calls "his covenant." "And he declared unto you HIS COVENANT which he commanded you to perform, EVEN TEN COMMANDMENTS, and he wrote them upon two tables of stone." Deut. iv, 13.—"And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." Ex. xxxiv, 28. If there is but one law, and the ten commandments are only a part of that law, then the Omniscient Law-giver has certainly incorrectly called the ten commandments "His Covenant." In fact according to the one-law theory, they are but a very small part of "his covenant." But the truth is correctly stated, and plainly revealed, and the incorrect theory of only one law must fall before the word of God.

The tables of stone in which the Almighty engraved the ten commandments only, are called the "tables of the covenant." Said Moses, "the Lord gave me the two tables of stone, EVEN THE TABLES OF THE COVENANT."

See Deut. ix, 9—11; v, 22. They were not the tables of only a very small portion of the covenant; but they were the tables of the covenant. They contained a complete and entire covenant, and that covenant is the holy "law of God," which is perfectly adapted to the wants of mankind in their mortal state throughout every dispensation.

The ark of the covenant was made purposely to contain the tables of stone in which was written the law of God. "And thou shalt put the mercy-seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee." Ex. xxv, 21. "There was nothing in the ark, save the two tables of stone that Moses put there at Horeb." 1 Kings, viii, 9. It was called the ark of the covenant because it was made purposely for, and contained an entire covenant, even the ten commandments.

The typical law of Moses was written by the hand of Moses in a book, and that book was called the book of the covenant. "And when they brought out the money that was brought into the house of the Lord, Hilkiah the priest found a BOOK of the law of the Lord, given by the hand (margin) of Moses." 2 Chron. xxxiv, 14. "And he read in their ears all the words of the BOOK OF THE COVENANT." Verse 30. See Deut. xxxi, 4—11, 24—26; 2 Kings, xxiii, 21; Neh. viii, 1—3; Heb. x, 7; Gal. iii, 10; Mark. xii, 26.

God has made the distinction between the two laws very plain. One he spake to the people, and wrote himself; the other he gave to Moses as he communed with him forty days, and intrusted him to write. One was engraven in the tables of stone, which were called the tables of the covenant; the other was written in a book, called the book of the covenant. These were not portions of a covenant, or of the law; but they were two entire distinct covenants, or laws.—Jehovah would not trust man to write his immutable covenant; therefore with his own finger he engraved the ten commandments in the tables of stone to make them sure, and to impress us with their perpetuity. The law of ordinances which was given to the Jews for a limited period, Moses wrote in a book; and when Paul speaks of "blotting out the hand-writing of ordinances," &c. he can refer only to those ordinances of the Jewish church written in the book of the covenant by the hand of Moses. That which is written in a book may be blotted out; but it is not possible to blot out engraving in stone.

Again, the special honor that God has bestowed on "his covenant" shows that it is distinct from that law of "carnal ordinances." An ark of shittim-wood was made on purpose to contain it, and that ark must be overlaid with pure gold within and without, and have a crown of gold round about it. The place for this ark was the "holiest of all," the holiest place on earth. Before the ark containing the law of God the river Jordan parted, and the waters rolled up and stood still, while Israel passed down through the bed of the river. The walls of Jericho also fell down before it, and for looking into this ark, and gazing upon God’s ten immutable laws fifty thousand and seventy of the men of Beth-shemesh were slain.

The New Testament shows the distinction between the two laws. Christ speaks of the "book of Moses," [Mark. xii, 26,] and the "law of Moses," [Luke xxiv, 44,] and Paul mentions the "book of the law," [Gal. iii, 10,] and the "volume of the book," [Heb. x, 7,] when speaking of the same law. This law was abolished and destroyed at the cross; but there was a law that Christ declares that he did not come to destroy and adds that "till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law." Mat. v, 17—19. Paul, speaking of the same remaining law, 20 years after the abolition of Moses’ law, says, "For I delight in the LAW OF GOD."

Says J. B. C., "I know that God wrote the law on two tables of stone," and in the same paragraph he adds, "I have been accustomed to believe that this term 'law' embraced the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses." Now will J. B. C. argue that there is but one law, and then tell us that "this term law," embraces the five books of Moses? If so, then how could he assert that he knows that "God wrote the law [five books of Moses] on two tables of stone?" If there is but one law, then the term law embraces the whole of that one law. We know that only the ten commandments were written on the tables of the covenant, [Deut. v, 22,] and God calls them, "a law." Ex. xxiv, 12.

We really never supposed that the book of the law of Moses included the history of the creation, flood, &c., found in the book of Genesis. We see no reason why the term law, in any sense, should include this first book of the Bible. The book of the law included the law of the Jewish nation, the law of Moses. Much of the Pentateuch is the history of important events, such as the creation, flood, the plagues of Egypt, &c., and the giving of the law of the Jewish nation, which Moses wrote in a book, and the wonderful display of the power and glory of God, when he uttered his ten immutable commandments.

We are at a loss to see how a man can "cherish the sweet spirit of the Sabbath," as J. B. C. says that he does, and at the same time desecrate it every week, and teach that the fourth commandment is abolished! God "blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it" at creation. Jesus said that it was made for man. And those only who observe it, cherish the hallowed, "sweet spirit" of God’s sanctified day. Those only who cherish the true spirit of the Sabbath, who imitate the example of the holy followers of Jesus, the day following the crucifixion, when the law of Moses was abolished. "They rested the Sabbath-day according to the commandment." "If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath," says the prophet, "from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable; and shalt honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words; then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth." Isa. lviii, 13, 14. Such, praise the Lord, possess and cherish the sweet spirit of the Sabbath.

The thief may extol, and profess to admire, the law of theft while in the practice of stealing; so may the Sabbath-breaker talk of the "sweet spirit of the Sabbath," while his feet are treading down the fourth commandment. But those who turn away their feet from treading down the Sabbath, and keep it according to divine direction, will have its sweet spirit, and "ride upon the high places of the earth."

The law of God is not a typical law. Those ten commandments are all of the same nature and duration. None of them are types. We are aware that many cling to the tradition that the Sabbath is a type of the seventh thousand years; but we have seen no bible proof on this point. Says J. B. C., speaking of the Sabbath, "I believe that God gave it in type." We ask for bible proof. If it can be produced then we will believe also. But admitting the Sabbath to be a shadow, and the seventh thousand years, or the age to come, the body, then certainly it would seem very natural to have the shadow or type reach to the body or antitype. But if there is no Sabbath, and if the shadow ceased at the cross, then there is a blank space of more than 1800 years between the shadow and the body. The law of Moses was a typical law, which reached to the gospel. Says Paul, "the law having a shadow of good things to come." The law of Moses, as a whole, was the shadow, and the gospel with all the good things of the better covenant connected, is the body.—The shadow of a tree, or monument holds good until the body is reached; therefore if the Sabbath is a shadow of the age to come, it did not break off at the cross; but was to extend with all its force and blessing to the Second Advent. But as the weekly Sabbath extends, and is to be observed, to all eternity in the new earth, it has no body in which it is to be lost, as is the case with shadows.

"For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord." Isa. lxvi, 22, 23. We can have no idea of an eternal shadow. The Sabbath was instituted in Eden, before the fall, when man was holy, and certainly fallen man needs it now more than then. And in the new heavens and new earth we see it observed to all eternity. Then it will be seen and kept in its Eden purity. All flesh will then reverence this institution of Jehovah, which has never been the case since Isaiah uttered this prophecy, and never will be, until the voice of the Son of God calls forth the righteous seed that sleeps in Christ, and changes the righteous living. When that holy throng shall be led forth in immortal glory to view the work of God in its perfection, there will be no discord. No, "all flesh" will bow in sweet submission to the law of God, and keep his Holy Sabbath.

We would call the attention of the reader to the remarks of J. B. C. that "the proper antitype of all those ancient types" is to be witnessed "in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem," after our High Priest comes out from within the vail. The Bible sets forth the Sanctuary in Heaven, as the proper and only antitype of the Jewish Sanctuary; the great Sacrifice on Calvary, as the antitype of the beasts slain under the law of Moses; and the priesthood of Christ, as the only antitype of the Jewish priesthood. Paul did not mean that the "good things," of which the law was a shadow, had not then come when he says, "the law having a shadow of good things to come;" for he taught that the antitype was then being realized. He could only mean that the law contained a shadow of the good things of the new covenant, which were to come as soon as the old covenant ceased.

Wakefield’s translation of Col. ii, 16, 17, gives the true idea more clearly. "Let no one therefore, call you to an account about meat and drink, or with respect to a festival, or a new moon, or sabbaths; which are a shadow of what WAS TO COME." The Jewish festivals, new moon and sabbaths, with all the ordinances of the law of Moses, were but a shadow of what was to come, when they should cease at the cross.

We cannot close without warning the reader to beware of those fanciful and fanatic views, which wrest the Scriptures of truth from their true and simple meaning, and carry away in the future age those things indispensable to our present salvation. May God bless these remarks to the benefit of his humble children. Amen.