THE SABBATH QUESTION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23866, 21 July 1939, Page 15

THE SABBATH QUESTION

TO THE EDITOR Sir—your correspondent “J. R. 5.,” in your issue of July 15, thinks it strange that I fail to realise that we are under grace to-day. I can assure him that such is not the case, as for many years I have carefully investigated and studied every phase of the controversy —Law versus Grace There is a great deal of misconception in the minds of many well-meaning people just as to what is meant by the term “ law,” what part of it was evanescent and likewise what part perpetual The term “ law *' is translated from the Greek word ‘ nomos,” it is applied in the New Testament to the old covenant ind revelation in distinction from the new; the dispensation under the law in distinction from the dispensation under the Gospel; that by Moses and the i rophets in distinction from the dispensation of Christ. It was the title applied by the Jews to the first five books of the Bible—the Pentateuch. However, it is generally used as referring to the moral and ceremonial laws. The most eminent

Biblical scholars have pointed out that the Scripture when rightly understood differentiates between the moral and ceremonial or sacrificial laws. The sacrificial law came to an end by limitation when the true sacrifice for sin was offered. The law of priesthood changed when the priesthood was changed. But the moral law has no such limitation of time or purpose, for what is once right worldly is always right, and what is wrongdoing at any time is always wrongdoing. The first four precepts of the Decalogue deal with man's love to God, and the last six man’s relationship or love to his fellow man, and naturally as long as man exists on this planet will be necessary as a code of justice. The ceremonial law was “ added because of transgression." (Gal. iii, 19.) It was the shadow pointing to Christ, and ended at the Cross. There would never have been a need of this shadowy law if the previous law written on two tables had not been transgressed. In other words, the law that was transgressed could never be the law that was added. Why are the no-lawists so slow in grasping the true teaching ox Scripture or this point? Surely it is through iack of sufficient study or understanding. As “J. R. S.” may be a Methodist, I shall quote from John Wesley’s “Notes on the New Testament.” On Gal. iii, 19, he makes the following comment: “It”—the ceremonial law—“ was added ”—to the promise. “Because of transgression”— probably the yoke of the ceremonial Idw was inflicted as a punishment for the national sin of idolatry. Exod. xxxii, I, at least the more grievous parts of it; and the whole of it was a prophetic type of Christ. The moral law was added to the promise to discover and restrain transgressions, to convince men of their guilt, and need of the promise, and give some check to sin, and this law passeth not away; but the ceremonial was only introduced till Christ, the seed to, or through Whom the promise was made, should come. And it was not ordained byangels in the hand of a mediator. It was not given to Israel, like the promise to Abraham, immediately from God Himself; but was conveyed by the ministry of angels to Moses, and delivered into his hand as a mediator between God and them to remind them of the great Mediator. The moral law was spoken by God. was written by God on two “ tables of stone” and placed “inside” the ark, thus signifying its divine and perpetual nature. The handwriting of ordin- | ances contained precepts pertaining to sacrificial services as temporary atonement for sin, ceremonials, washings, etc. These were spoken by Moses written by Moses 'in a book ” and placed in a pocket outside the ark, thus likewise signifying its unenduring nature. Anyone who cares to study the works of the great scholarly commentators, such as Albert Barnes. Adam Clark. Henry and Scott, etc., or evangelical preachers such as Wesley, Spurgeon. Moody, etc., will find that all these able Bible scholars realised that many people mixed up the moral and ceremonial laws and so failed rightly to understand the Scriptures. Your correspondent “J. R. S.” quotes five texts which he asks me to explain. Well. Sir, the texts he quotes are all self-explanatory when we understand the nature of the moral and ceremonial laws and so differentiate, I fully realise there is no salvation in the moral law, but a moral and virtuous life is required of the true Christian. I agree with Dr Weymouth’s rendering: "For on the ground of obedience to law no man living will be declared righteous before Him Law simply brings a sure knowledge of sin” (Rom., iii, 20). “For as a means of righteousness Christ is the termination of law to every believer.” With these texts let us link up Dr Weymouth’s rendering of Rom. iii, 31; “Do we then by means of this faith abolish the law? No, indeed: we give the law a firmer footing.” Dr Weymouth is in harmony with Ferrar Fenton and all the great translators on these points. God through the law tells us what to do; our Lord Jesus gives the grace and power to do it. He is our High Priest. He was both Priest and Sacrifice and our forerunner (Prodromes—Greek text), I am glad that your correspondent “ Bereau ” has such a clear grasp of the two laws and stated the case so well. As for Mr C. E. Knight’s letter. I have not space to reply at present, and in any case he also fails to differentiate. Now, Sir, in closing, as the fourth commandment calls for the observance of the seventh day as a day of rest it cannot be set aside by grace and faith as they do not supersede the moral law. and Christ’s statement that the Sabbath was made for man (anthropos). a generic term for all mankind proves it to be still binding.—l am. etc..

W. Gardner, Dunedin, July 20. Church of God.