Opponents of the law of God use every argument they can devise to gain their end. A present plan of attack is to declare that the moral and ceremonial laws are not two laws, but only one. From this vantage ground, "evidence" is then produced to show that all law is abolished. To the unwary, this sounds very plausible.
But if this moral and ceremonial one-law is abolished, say in Ephesians 2:15, then by the same reasoning, the one-law is established in Romans 3:31, including, of course, all its Mosaic regulations. And this by the same writer! For Paul to say that all law is both abolished and established would certainly disqualify him as a reliable witness. But it is not the apostle who confuses the issue. It is those who have no better ground for their no-law theory than this one-law approach.
Seventh-day Adventists teach that the law is dual in nature. On this basis Paul's testimony makes for both harmony and integrity. Indeed, for him to be consistent, he must be dealing with at least two laws of different nature and duration. There is no lack of evidence for this position on the law, first from the Bible, and then from the official doctrine of the major denominations. Besides this, there is an abundance of support from the statements of prominent theologians. But greater than all else and most telling in its effect is the testimony of Jesus. Since He is the Lawgiver, who could better interpret the law? Nor could anything else make the presentation of this doctrine more Christ centered than the words of Christ Himself.
Jesus is conspicuous for His brevity and clarity, as well as for His authority. While Paul is most quoted on the law, and usually from scattered texts in different Epistles, Christ happily brings the two laws together
into sharp focus. Within the narrow range of three verses of Scripture, He enables us to compare and evaluate both the ceremonial law and the moral law. These verses are found in Psalm 40:6-8. David is the penman here, but it is Christ who speaks: "Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; ... burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. Then said I, lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, 0 my God: yea thy law is within my heart."
Let us analyze what Christ says here. He begins by speaking of sacrifices and offerings. Paul quotes His words and then links these rites with the law. "Which are offered by the law," he says (Heb. 10:8). The sacrifices were inseparably bound to the ceremonial law that enforced and regulated them. As long as either existed, so did the other. The moment the sacrifices were abolished, the ceremonial law expired also. Paul did not fail to see this connection. Since Jesus mentioned the ceremonial system first, the apostle declares, "He taketh away the first . . ." (Heb. 10:9).
But when Jesus, by His death, so definitely abolished the ceremonial law, and all that it covered, did He do away with all law, moral as well as ceremonial? If He did, then the one-law argument is sound. If, instead, He makes a positive distinction between the two laws, who shall gainsay Christ?
Notice the outright contrast of the Saviour's words in the fortieth psalm. First, He speaks with disdain of the ceremonial system, "Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire." But immediately he expresses the deepest reverence of the law of God, "I delight to do thy will, 0 my God: yea, thy law is within my heart." To this, Paul follows with the conclusion, "He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second." As surely as Christ abolished the ceremonial law, so surely did He establish the moral law. By His atoning death, Christ met the demands of the law of God, to vindicate forever the equity of that law. By His life He delights to manifest its holy character, as enshrined within His heart. The life, death, and teaching of Christ combine to declare that the moral law and the ceremonial law are divinely separate in nature, purpose, and duration.
There is something majestic about the Ten Commandments. Even those who would abolish them are prone later to restore nine of the ten—all but the fourth. Logic tells us that if these nine commandments are good enough to restore, they are too good to repeal in the first place. But at least this expediency reveals the point of attack, the Sabbath commandment.
Here again, our advantage is in a Christ-centered approach. There are many facets of Christ's relation to the Sabbath. Jesus glorified the Sabbath in His creation, His life, His teaching, and His death. But another most convincing proof of the enduring nature of the Sabbath is in the testimony of Jesus as the Prophet of prophets. In this area, the element of time is decisive.
Only two references are needed. Jesus said, "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains" (Luke 21:20, 21). In the same prophecy, as recorded by Matthew, are the words, "But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day" (Matt. 24:20). As we put these texts together, two things are clear—that the enemy would besiege Jerusalem, and that the Sabbath would still be sacred. At that time, and by the admonition of Jesus, the early Christians were to pray that they might be unhindered in Sabbathkeeping.
Since Paul is almost always, if not invariably, the one quoted to overthrow the Sabbath, let us see what this evidence reveals in relation to him. It is generally agreed that he was a martyr by the edict of Nero, who died in A.D. 68. Jerusalem was surrounded by the Romans two years after the emperor's death. So then, the believers offered their prayers, regarding the Sabbath, after the last of Paul's Epistles, and even after his death. This being true, shall the apostle's writings be used to deprive the saints of the Sabbath, the very subject of their prayers? Or shall his Epistles be made to invalidate the prophecy of Christ, whom Paul served? By no means.
All of this shows that neither the crucifixion, nor Pentecost, nor the establishment of the Christian church, has abolished the Sabbath. For the sanctity of the day was preserved beyond all these events, and as late as A.D. 70, there is no reason to believe that any event of significance can be found to justify the change.
Here in the prophecy of our Lord is the most convincing evidence from the New Testament of the abiding sacredness of the seventh-day Sabbath.
