| Author | Message | ||
| jtree |
"Moral law," "ceremonial law." Adventists use these two terms as freely as though the Bible were full of them; yet, strange to say, the Scriptures make no such distinctions, and never once do we read of "moral" law and "ceremonial" law in the Bible. The place to find these terms is in Adventist literature. In the Bible the Old Testament is simply called "the law." Had the primitive Christians stood on the Adventist platform, when Paul and Christ were preaching concerning "the law," they would have been frequently interrupted with "What law?" "What law?" "The ceremonial or the moral?" But such questions were never asked, for all knew of but one lawóthe Pentateuch. Adventists severely criticize those who happen to use an unscriptural word or phrase; yet they themselves do that thing commonly, as in this case. It would be amusing to hear one of them try to preach on the "two laws" and confine himself to Bible language. He could not possibly do it. If there were two distinct laws given to Israel, so different in their nature, it is strange that there is no record of it, no reference to it in the Bible. If one was abolished and the other was not, strange that Paul should not make the distinction when he has so much to say about the law. Why did he not say, "we establish the moral law?" or "the ceremonial law was our schoolmaster"? No, he just says "the law," and leaves it there. He seems not to have been quite as clear on that point as Adventists are! "Neither Christ nor the apostle ever distinguished between the moral, the ceremonial. and the civil law, when they spoke of its establishment or its abolition."óKitto's Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, óArt. Law. Adventists have drawn up a long list of things which they claim are true of what they call the "moral law" and an opposite list which they apply to their "ceremonial law." These two they contrast and make out two laws. Thus U. Smith: "Moral law":ó"Was spoken from Sinai by the voice of God and twice written upon tables of stone by his own finger. Was deposited in the golden ark. Related only to moral duties."óSynopsis of Present Truth, page 266. Of course, this was just the Ten Commandments, nothing more, nothing less. So here we have their "moral law." Now here is the other one: "The ceremonial law": "Was communicated to Moses privately and was by Moses written with a pen in a book (Deut. 31:9)." "Was put into a receptacle by the side of the ark (Deut. 31:26)." "Was wholly ceremonial" (same page). H. M. Riggle, 1928 | ||
| Lynn W |
Thank you, jtree, for those quotes. I wholly agree. The distinction is man-made. | ||
| darrrell |
jtree, I agree with you that the "moral law" vs. "ceremonial law" distinction is not in the Bible, however, this did not originate with Adventists. For example, Martin Luther uses the terms in his commentary on Galations. Check out http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/galatians/About.htm for yourself if you are interested. By the way, let me tell you what "jtree" means to me. This is a slang name for the "Joshua Tree National Park" used by rock climbers (and others?). In Hebrew, Joshua and Jesus are the same name, so "jtree" means the cross, and the strange trees which give the park its name do sometimes resemble the cross. Is this what the name means to you? | ||
| Lynn W |
That was the first thing that came to my mind. And jtree's name is Joshua. Thanks for the reminder that Luther also believed in that distinction, but scripture still doesn't, & ML wasn't right on everything. (He's still a hero in my book, though). | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Don't you think it's still appropriate to speak of different aspects or features of the law? Here are some examples: 1. MORAL aspects, such as honoring Mom and Dad. 2. CEREMONIAL aspects, such as the Sabbath, whose ritualistic function it was to act as a SIGN of the covenant by being a SEAL on the law. 3. CIVIL aspects, such as this one: "Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together." Deuteronomy 22:11, NIV. I think it wise and necessary, especially when dealing with mystified people, whether Adventist or not, to ALWAYS distinguish the MORAL aspects of the law from all other aspects or features. Otherwise they will almost always accuse you of trying to "toss out" or "make of none effect" or "make void" those aspects or features of the law that form a part of the character and personality of Jesus Christ Himself: Do not murder, do not lie, do not steal, do not covet, do not commit adultery, etc. Jesus of Nazareth did not do these things. Therefore, CHRIST IS THE LAW. Holding this thought in mind, read the following: "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways [including the spoken/carved/written Ten], in these last days has spoken to us in His son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom He also made the world. And HE IS THE RADIANCE OF HIS GLORY AND THE EXACT REPRESENTATION OF HIS NATURE." Hebrews 1:1-3, NAS. (And you thought "the law is the transcript of God's character," with the Fourth Commandment boasting a special halo around it, as per EGW, didn't you?) For me, the most telling or winning argument is this one: CHRIST as the eternal Son of God, co-equal with the Father -- "For in Him all the fulness of the Diety dwells in bodily form (Colossians 2:9, NAS) -- IS HIMSELF THE LAW. He always has been the law, He is now the law, and He always will be the law. And he is now personified in the Holy Spirit who dwells within us. Jude | ||
| jtree |
about my "nick" I have always used a term from back in early computer years, I took on the name "Joshua Tree" it sounded good..from a "Rock group" ablbum called "The Joshua Tree". haha... | ||
| Lynn W |
Jude, I understand where you're coming from in trying to reach the Adventists. You know what works best for you, & I know God will bless you in that, but as for me, if I continue their rhetoric, I'm only causing them to miss the real picture. SDA can accuse me of whatever they want, but I've traded all of these laws, moral, civil, ceremonial, etc., for the Royal Law of love thy neighbor as thyself. (James 2:8) This is expounded throughout the NT by Jesus, Paul, John, & others. Any Adventist who accuses me of "using my liberty as a license to sin," just doesn't get it. Romans 13:10 sums it up nicely as does Matt. 7:12. If I follow the Royal Law and Gal. 6:2 to "work no evil to another," how can I murder, lie, steal, etc? Have you noticed that Adventists are so much like puppets trained to repeat the standard phrases they are taught without thinking through what they are saying? I can give so many examples if need be. I want to show them love, but I also want to challenge them to think. I'm not trying to help them improve their understanding of Christ & the Gospel, I'm trying to totally explode their old view so they can start from scratch. |
