The great point of difference between us and one class of our opposers, is the fact of the existence of two distinct and separate codes of laws during what is called the Mosaic dispensation. We are well aware that they can prove that there has been a law abolished. Hence if there is but one law, we must acknowledge that they have the advantage of us, inasmuch as they prove that one law has been done away. But if there are two laws, as we claim, then the fact of their proving the abolition of a law does not weaken our position, for we agree with them that one law has been abolished.
Our opponents with their one-law theory have never been able to harmonize the seemingly discordant expressions of the Bible. They must acknowledge that some of the scriptures are out of harmony on this great subject, or admit that there are two classes of scriptures which speak of two kinds of laws.
In Matt. v, 17, 18, the Saviour says, "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." He further states that "whosoever shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." But in Acts xv, we have the history of an apostolic conference, in which they decided to lay no greater burden upon their brethren than these necessary things: To "abstain from pollutions of idols, and fornication, and things strangled, and from blood." If the ten commandments are embraced in the law which was the subject of controversy in this chapter, then the apostles have released the church from under the obligation to obey any one of them, and thus rendered themselves "of no esteem in the reign of heaven." But if on the other hand Christ is speaking of one law and the apostles of another, all is plain.
Again, in Rom. iii, 31, Paul says, "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law." But in Eph. ii, 15 he says, "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances." With the idea that Paul is speaking of one and the same law in both166of these passages, we must decide that he is out of harmony with himself.
The phrase translated "make void," in Rom. iii, 31, is καταργεω [katargeo], the same as that rendered "abolished," in Eph. ii, 15; hence all the way to avoid a positive contradiction in the two passages is to say that one law is the subject of remark in one place, and another in the other.
In Rom. iii, 31, Paul not only meets the idea of abolishing the law with a "God forbid," but says: "We establish the law." The word rendered establish, is ἱστῶμεν [histomen], which Greenfield defines to "cause to stand firm, confirm, strengthen, establish." Then while one law is abolished, the other is caused to stand firm, strengthened, established, &c.
All must acknowledge that at one time there was a law which embraced ceremonies, and yet no one can deny that there was at the same time a law which had not a ceremony in it. When the above fact is proved, the two-law position is established beyond a doubt.
In Isa. i, 10, God commands his people to hear the word of the Lord, and give ear unto the law of our God. But in verse 11 he says, "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me, saith the Lord? I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats." Here God commanded them to hear the law, and at the same time declares that he would not accept of obedience to the very things commanded in the ceremonial law.
Now if there is but one law, God has commanded the people to obey that, at the same time refusing to let them obey it, declaring that "incense is an abomination unto him." But to allow that there were two laws, and that God would not accept of obedience to one while they were violating the other, produces a harmony that cannot otherwise be obtained.
In Jer. vi, 19, 20, we find the same ideas, but in different language. There God says, "Hear, O earth, 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 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."
Offering incense, our opponents claim, is obeying the only law that God then had. But God declares that they are rejecting his law while offering incense, and at the same time declares, "Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me." The above scriptures clearly teach that God had a law which could be obeyed without offering sacrifices. But the ceremonial law could not; hence it must be the one written on tables of stone.
That there is a law—a finished law—written on tables of stone, can not be doubted by the one who has carefully examined Ex. xxiv, 12. Here God says 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, that thou mayest teach them." There are two ideas in the above text, which I wish the reader to observe: 1. The idea of the law being written on the tables of stone; and 2. That it was a law which God had written. The proof of the first is an evidence of the latter; for when it is proved that God wrote on stones, and that God wrote his law, then it follows that God wrote his law on stones, unless it can be proved that God has written somewhere else besides on stones, which cannot be done. Our opponents will not claim that God ever wrote any where else besides on the tables of stone. But God says, "I will give thee a law and commandments, which I have written." Therefore the conclusion is unavoidable that God has a law written on tables of stone.
But when our friends see that the above shrinks the staves of their positions somewhat, they say that God used Moses as an instrument through which to write on stones, as well as in the book. Hence, when the Bible says that God wrote, it means that he wrote through the agency of Moses; and when it says Moses wrote, it means that he was the instrument through which God wrote. But in this our opponents greatly err. The Bible does not say that God wrote on the tables of stone by or with the finger of Moses; but it does say, "And he gave unto Moses when he had made an end of communing upon Mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the FINGER OF GOD." Ex. xxxi, 18.
In Ex. xxxii, 16, Moses says, "And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon them." It is argued by some that Moses wrote on the second tables; but this is a mistake also. God says to Moses, "Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first, and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, that thou breakest." Ex. xxxiv, 1. Again in Deut. x, 1-3, God said to Moses, "Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first, and come up to me into the mount, and make thee an ark of wood, and I will write on the tables the words that were in the first tables which thou breakest, and thou shalt put them in the ark." And Moses says, "I made an ark of shittim wood, and hewed two tables of stone like unto the first, and went up into the mount, having the two tables in my hand; and HE wrote on the tables according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which the Lord spake unto you in the mount, out of the midst of the fire, in the day of the assembly; and the Lord gave them unto me."
The above testimony cannot be harmonized with the idea that Moses wrote on the second table; for he positively declares that "God wrote them and gave them to him." Ex. xxxiv, 27–29 is often quoted to prove that Moses wrote the covenant of ten commandments; but the text does not prove it. It only proves that Moses wrote words, "after the tenor of which" a covenant was made with Israel. The personal pronoun he, in verse 29, where it says "And he wrote on the tables," applies to God. This relieves the text from obscurity, and there is no dispute between it and the first verse of the same chapter where God says, "I will write," &c.
The above clearly establishes the position that God wrote a law on tables of stone, and the Bible as clearly teaches that Moses wrote a law in a book. Hence the conclusion that there were two laws in the former dispensation is unavoidable. The expressions, "Book of the law," "Law written in this book," &c., are of frequent occurrence in the Scriptures. But if all law was written in a book, why thus distinguish it? This query our opponents have never been able to solve.
That it is distinguished, as above mentioned, is proved by Deut. xxviii, 58–66; xxix, 20, 21; xxx, 11–14. As before remarked, the law written in the book was not written by the finger of God, but by the hand of Moses. In Deut. xxxi, 9, we read, "And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests, the sons of Levi." Josh. xxiii, 6. "Be ye therefore very courageous to keep and do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, that ye turn not aside therefrom to the right hand or to the left."