The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-03-30
Our Contributors.
Moral and Positive Laws.
No. III.
BY REV. T. A. HoYT, D. D., OF NASHVILLE,
TENN

former article as illustrating our Lord s
preference of the moral to the positive, is
thus related by the evangelists: On a
Sabbath day, Jesus walked through fields
of ripe grain and the disciples, being
hungry, plucked the ears Sf' wheat and
rubbing out the grains in their hands eat
them. The Pharisees murmured at this.
Had it occurred on any other day, no
fault would have been found, for the law
of Moses expressly gave them the right
thus to pluck and eat grain from the
fields of others. (Deut xiii: $50 The
act of the disciples was criticised because
it was done on the Sabbath day-when
according to Moses no work should be
done. Jesus was held responsible for
this violation of the law of the Sabbath
by his followers. Now here was plain
positive precept of the sacred law broken
by his disciples, in the presence and with
the appreciation of Jesus. Technically
and literally the Pharisees were correct
IN their comments. A positive law was
violated; yet Jesus justifes its violation.
How does he do this? By introducing
the moral precept and showing that it
overrides the other. The Pharisees had
stuck in the bark; he penetrates to the
heart of the matter There is the law of
the Sabbath and there is the law for the
preservation OF. human life. They come
into collision; which shall yield2 Jesus
says the positive must give way to the
moral; the law of the Sabbath must be
set aside in order that mems lives and
health may be preserved. He lays down
the broad principle that the Sabbath
was made for man, and not man for the
Sabbath" He recites the story of David,
who flying from Saul went with his hun
cry and fainting men to the tabernacle
and obtained from Ahimeleck the sacred
shew bread which none could lawfully
eat but the priests, and acting on the
principle of subordinating the positive to
the moral, eat it himself and gave it to
his followers. The argument is-If you
condemn the act of my disciples; then
you also condemn that of your great king
David, of whom you so much boast. But
ne plies them with still sharper weapon;
He cites the Mosaic law itself against
them: Have you not read in the law
Mum. xviii: 81, how that on the Sab
bath day the priests in the temple pro-
fame the Sabbath and are blameless ?"
How did the priests profane the Sab
bath? By doing work; what work I?
Offering sacri6ces-slaughtering, hewing,
burning the victims. The daily sacrifice
was not by the moral law omitted on the
Sabbath, on the contrary it was doubled.
Two lambs were offered daily-but on
the Sabbath, four. Thus the labor of
the priests instead of being suspended
was increased on that day. Yet the
priests were not charged with violation
OF the Sabbath; why? Because God,
who appointed the Sabbath and com
manded that no work should be done on
1T, made the exception, and ordained an
other law which should supercede the
ordinary law of the Sabbath. The high
est religious interests of the people re-
quired that the daily sacrifice should
proceed even on the Sabbath hence by
the will of God the law of sacrifice was
made to absorb the law of the Sabbath.
The argument of Jesus may be thus
summed up: If you understood your own
law, and the example of your illustrious
monarch; if you knew the meaning of
the Prophet, when he said, 81 will have
mercy and not sacrifice" you would not
have condemned the guiltless; you would
not have passed this severe judgment on
those who acted in accordance with the
spirit Of the law, the example of David,
and the word of the Prophet. But it
may be supposed that the disciples were
incapable Of this broad and elevated view
OF the subject; that they had not of them
selves evolved the distinction. between
laws moral and positive. This is no
doubt true; and hence our Lord assumes
the whole responsibility of both the act
and its justification. This He does in
the remarkable words, "The Son of Man