This article about the ceremonial law follows the article of man's sanctification and good works, for the rule for that sanctification is the law of God. Now the law of God is dealt with in this article.

The word law is related to a Latin word, lex, which comes from a verb which may mean reading or the conditions of a contract or of an agreement. The Hebrew word for law, Torah, means instruction or guidance. And in the Greek you have the word nomos, which means direction. The word law is used in different meanings in the Bible. Sometimes it means the Holy Scrip­tures or the books of the Old Testa­ment. Sometimes it means just the first five books of Moses. Sometimes the word law stands in contrast to the word gospel, and then it points to the requirements of the covenant of works. Sometimes it is even used for instruction in the broader sense, the teachings of the gospel. So the word law can have different meanings.

We also know that there are three kinds of laws: the moral law, the civil law, and the ceremonial law. The moral law is the law of the Ten Commandments, written in stone, which signifies that it is an eternal law; it is not abolished. The civil laws were the laws about Israel's govern­ment, Israel's political daily life. The ceremonial law deals with Israel's worship. Those ceremonial laws also deal, in the first place, with holy or sacred persons, such as the high priest, the priests, the Levites, or the people who worked in the sanctuary. They deal, in the second place, with holy places, such as the tabernacle, the temple, the holy place, and the Holy of Holies. The ceremonial laws also deal with holy seasons, such as the feasts, the religious feasts which Israel had: Passover, Pentecost, or the Feast of Weeks, the great day of atonement, the Purim feast, and several others.

They also had ceremonial laws about the sacred things or objects, such as the ark with the golden mercy seat, with the cherubims on it, and the Lord speaking from above the mercy seat. All the furnishings in the tabernacle, such as the table of shewbread, were described by the Lord: how they were to look, their exact measurements, and whether they had to be of gold or shittim wood. The ceremo­nial laws also described the holy operations in the tabernacle and the temple: the washings, the cleansings, the purifications.

There are those who say, "The Old Testament is a very inferior part of the Bible when compared with the New Testament. It is very dark, and incomprehensible, and full of laws and prescriptions which we do not keep anymore, so why should we bother with it?" That is what this article addresses. It says two things. First, "that the ceremonies and figures of the law ceased at the coming of Christ." The High Priest had come; the true Lamb of God had been slain; the true Sacrifice had been brought. The Antitype had come, therefore it was no longer necessary that the types, ceremonies, and shadows be practiced. We no longer need priests, an altar in the church, and the washings and cleansings as described in the ceremonial law. The civil law of Israel is also not our rule anymore. It gives instruction, useful instruc­tion, but we are not ruled by the civil law. That was the law for Israel's nation, which was a theocratic nation: God reigned over Israel. These laws were for the old dispensation.

The only law which is still our guideline and which we still are to obey is the moral law or the law of the Ten Commandments. That does not mean, however, that those other laws do not have any meaning for us. All those prescriptions are still part of the holy canon of the Word of God, and they have much significance for us. They still are a rich pictorial gospel of the Old Testament. In the whole epistle to the Hebrews, especially in chapter 9, the author constantly uses that pictorial gospel and applies those examples to the New Testament dispensation. In that respect the ceremonial law is still very important for us. When we read that the Lord speaks from above the mercy seat, and what the mercy seat points to, then we are to think about the ark pointing to Christ. When we hear about the mercy seat as the place where the Lord rests in the blood of the Lamb, in the sacrifice being brought, and how it all points to the sacrifice of Golgotha, then we should never say that it is just some­thing of the old dispensation and but a shadow or a ceremony. It has a rich meaning.

The high priest in the Old Testament also has such a rich significance. For example, the high priest bore the breastplate, and in the breastplate were twelve stones, twelve names, one stone for each tribe. The breastplate was attached to two shoulder plates; in those shoulder plates were onyx stones, and in each stone were the names of six tribes. Together those stones carried all the names of all the tribes. What does that signify? It signifies that Christ, the great High Priest, bears the names of His Church, all of them, upon His heart, and He carries them upon His shoulders. Is it not a rich word and a rich gospel for weary and heavy laden ones that they are carried on the shoulders of the great High Priest, or, if they may see by faith, that they are written, as it were, on, or in, the heart of the High Priest Himself?

When we read about the Passover, the holy season, and what had to take place, how that a lamb had to be taken from among the other lambs and set apart for that purpose, we must think of Christ being separated for that specific purpose. The lamb had to be examined, and it had to be approved; it was to be without blemish; it had to be set apart for four days; and then it had to be slain, and the blood applied to the doorposts. Does this not also have a rich meaning? Does this not point to the Lamb of God slain on Golgotha and to the necessity of, and the safety behind, the blood on the doorpost of the human heart?

When we look at the offerings, then we can say that one can also find the contents of the gospel or of the epistle to the Romans in the books of Moses. There is justification and there is sanctification, which are the main contents of the epistle to the Romans. You find justification in the sacrifices, in the sin-offerings and guilt-offerings. You find sanctification in the washings, in the cleansings. There was not only an altar of burnt offering; there was also a laver where washings were needed for the priests, signifying that we all need to be washed, otherwise we cannot enter into the presence of God. There is justification, but also sanctification.

It should be sufficiently clear that we must never minimize the value, the significance, of the old ceremo­nial laws. They are still a pictorial gospel. We must never say, as many do today, that the Old Testament contains another message than the New Testament, that the Old Testament is only law, and the New Testament is only gospel. There is also gospel in the entire Old Testament. The difference is this: the Old Testament (in the old dispensation) is, as it were, the blossom, and the New Testament is the ripe fruit. The old dispensation is the flower not yet budding out, but the New Testament is the flower flourishing. The Old Testament is the promise, the New Testament is the fulfilment. We need both. One can never understand the Old Testament without the New. The Old Testament points to the New Testament. So if one takes a text or reads a chapter from the Old Testament, he should always realize that this must be understood in the light of the New Testament. It points through the shadows to the New Testament revelation of salva­tion in the Lamb of God. But the New Testament should never be read without the Old Testament, for the Old Testament is, as it were, the illustration or the pointing to the gospel as it is revealed in the New Testament.

Therefore we believe that we need both Testaments and that also the ceremonial law has a rich meaning for us. When we go through the history of the church, we see that there always has been a tendency to return to those shadows. It seems that we like pictures more than the reality. It seems that man, especially in times of darkness when the Lord withdraws His Spirit, always clings to the form instead of to the essence. This is a warning also for us today. In the history of the church you see that, as in the days of Paul, the Jewish Christians clung to the old shadows. They could not believe that suddenly there was no need of circumcision, that all those feast days were unimportant, and that there were no laws as in the Old Testament regarding meat and drink, but that the Lord had abolished all these laws. They wanted the Christians among the Gentiles to be circumcised, and they wanted them to bow under those Old Testament ceremo­nial laws. Paul had a battle with them, and already in Acts 15 we see that they needed a council, a synod, to really make decisions about what the Christians, including the Gentiles, should obey and what would be applicable to them. They rejected these ceremonial ordinances, for this Judaism was a threat to the freedom of the church. Paul, in the Epistle to the Galatians, for instance, warns against returning to what the Lord had abolished when He rent the veil in the temple from the top to the bottom.

Later in the history of the church we see that the Roman Catholic church returned to all kind of rituals and to a superstitious ceremonial worship. They introduced the priests and the altar again. It seems that this was to them much nicer than the plain word of the gospel of the New Testament. Time and again they returned to the rituals and the ceremonies of the old dispensation. You see it also in the Episcopal churches. They still retain certain rituals in their services. It can also be seen in the liturgical movement, which wants to introduce all kinds of liturgical elements into the worship service, and the preaching of the Word then becomes less important. We believe that when the Lord withdraws Himself and it becomes cold and dry in the church, then there is a danger that we begin to fill up the gap with ceremonies and all kinds of human activities. Then we introduce choirs, solo singing in worship service, and other things which Calvin and our fathers never accepted. May the Lord keep us from these practices.

After the Reformation, in a seventeenth century there was the Sabbath controversy. There was a conflict about what is ceremonial and what is moral in the Ten Com­mandments. Coccejus was an able theologian of the 17^th century. However, serious errors can also be promoted by very capable and pleasant people, as we see with Arminius and Pelagius. Coccejus said that the fourth commandment was just ceremonial. Since the Lord had abolished those ceremonial laws, this fourth commandment about the Sabbath day was for the old dispensation. He taught that we do not have to observe that Sabbath day anymore; that is finished.

Voetius (whom we know from his four questions of Public Confession of Faith) was a contemporary of Coccejus and was used by the Lord to defend the truth against him. He stated clearly that the Sabbath commandment is not ceremonial, but moral. The Synod of Dordt stated this:

1. In the fourth commandment there is something ceremonial, but also something moral.
2. The ceremonial part is the rest on the seventh day after the creation (at the end of the week) and the strict observance of the Jews.
3. The moral part is that there is an appointed day, one day per week, for the service of God and for the worship service, and that there is as much rest as is needed for this worship and for holy meditation.
4. Since the Sabbath of the Jews is abolished, the day of the Lord must be kept and hallowed with solemnity, but also with spiritual joy, by the Christians.
5. This day was observed in the time of the apostles in the first Christian church.
6. Thus this day must be set apart for the service of God. We should rest from all slavish work, except from that which is required by the law of love and neces­sity; we also rest from all such recreation which hinders this worship of God.

The time in which those statements were made was a very pre­cious and blessed time, in which there were many people of God. There was much good which would be desirable to have now. But yet, if we study the history, we see that, especially in the country, though not so much in the larger cities, there was a very weak observance of the Sabbath Day. There was much desecration of that day. There were public markets; there was loading of the ships in the harbours; there were country fairs; there were public games and feasts; all this was done on the Sabbath Day. It was some­times a sin day instead of a Sunday.

Our fathers did not make a long list of what you may do and what you may not do. In reply to the question as to why the Lord gave that day, they stated that it was for the worship of God and for holy meditation. One was to avoid all that draws him away from the worship of God, and use any opportunity he had to be in the house of God. One was not to say, "I went one time and I have done my duty," but to attend two times, or three, as much as he was able, as health and family situa­tions permitted. They said, "Do not seek excuses. If you can walk to God's house, do so. But if you cannot, then you may use your own boat or chariot; but come to the house of God diligently, frequently to attend the worship services. That should be central."

They also spoke of holy meditation, which does not mean that we should not do that on other days, but especially on the Lord's Day we should think and meditate, first of all upon Him who has instituted this day. Then we must go back to creation. The Lord worked six days and He rested on the seventh day. It is an ordinance which is already founded in creation. It is not an ordinance which came up among the Jews or from the ceremonial law, but it was founded in the creation in six days, after which the Lord rested on the seventh day. The observance of the Lord's Day upon the first day of the week is founded on the resurrection of Christ, and it should also be an object of meditation to think about the price which was required for Christ to pay such a debt.

What is the difference between the Old Testament Sabbath Day and the new Lord's Day, our Sunday? In the Old Testament there are first six work days, and then the seventh is the day of rest. This meant we had to work in order to come to the rest. Work, and if your work is completely finished, if it is accepted by God, you will come to the rest. Oh, how many are still working in that way today! It is also the experience of a soul whose rest is taken away. "Work! Work! Have patience with me!" and then they have hope that they will come to the rest, but they never come there. But Christ, the great Servant of the Father has worked, and He has accomplished the work. He has said, "It is fin­ished." He merited that seventh day, that day of rest. Therefore in the New Testament the first day of the week is the day of rest, and then there are six work days. But this is not work in order to come to the rest, but from the rest, from the work of God, from the work of Christ. God's people may work, not to merit, but as the fruits of it. In the Old Testament there were six work days in order to come to the day of rest, but now we begin with the rest. Oh, if there would be no rest, if Christ would not have said, "It is finished," no work could ever be accomplished by the believer which would satisfy God. But out of Christ, out of His blood righteousness, also flows the holiness, the sanctification, of the true believer. That is the work which flows out of the rest. We see that our fathers did not make a long list, but they said that everything which distracts from the purpose of hearing the proclamation of God's Word and of meditating upon the things of His kingdom should be avoided. No unnecessary work should be done. Voetius said that students should not study on Sunday, and a carpenter should not do his carpenter work. All our slavish work, that is the work of every day, should not be done. Our children should not do the homework of their regular subjects on Sunday. We should not say, "There are a few things they could not finish on Saturday; they will do them on Sunday." The work days should never begin to eat up the Sabbath Day. That would be a slap in the countenance of the Lord, who has given that day for us to rest, to meditate. The Sabbath Day is a gift. We are grateful for the men of the Second Reformation, such as Voetius, Lodestein, and a Brakel, who called the people back to a strict, but not legalistic, observance of the Sabbath Day.

How do we prepare for the Sabbath Day? Do we have a Saturday night in which we already read and meditate upon something? Or do we come home at 11:30 and are we so tired Sunday morning? How do we go up to the house of God? Do we seek His countenance? How is our family worship? Do we speak about the sermon when we come home? We know the theory very well, but what is our practice? Is there no God who can help us? The Lord has given us ceremonial laws and they are still a pictorial gospel.

May we, by the teachings of the Spirit, know the truth and substance of them. Then also the testimonies taken from the law and the prophets will confirm us in the doctrine of the Gospel. They will be used to regulate our life in all honesty, to the glory of God, according to His will. Then also those Scriptures would be precious to us. They would be a rich blessing for us and our families.