ARE THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, OR ANY PART OF THEM, BINDING ON CHRISTIANS?
By James White
“(6.) But why keep the law, or any part of it? Is it simply for form? or for justification? To observe it for simple form is mockery. To observe it for justification is vain. For ‘by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.’ Rom. iii, 20. ‘Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.’ Rom. v, 1. ‘Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.’ Gal. ii, 16.” Our greatest wonder in reading the above is, that a person can be so utterly blinded as to find a reason therein for violation of the law. An explanation, we think, is found in the selfishness manifested in the first part. Only two ideas seem to present themselves to the mind of the writer, to wit: “form” and “justification.” Obedience to God, seeking his pleasure and glory, without regard to personal considerations, does not seem to be a motive with him at all. We are not surprised at this, however. We have long observed the same characteristic in those who set aside the law of God; their whole teachings and lives show that their religion is not founded on love to God—which inspiration says is the keeping of his commandments—but with them the gospel is a mere expedient by which to get to Heaven. Whatever will not “justify,” or directly result in their personal benefit, they find no use for in their system of theology. They have never learned that “to obey is better than sacrifice.” They find no medium between sacrifice and formality. They are well deserving of our pity. Now, we confess and firmly believe that we are not justified by the law. But what is the reason given in the text quoted why we are not justified by the law? It is this: “For by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Very well; and if this be so—if the law is that which convicts of sin—how can a person transgress that law and be sinless? Why will not our opponents notice this point? Paul before declared that “all have sinned,” and this is given as the reason, and the only reason, why none can be justified by the law. For he said again, “The doers of the law shall be justified.” Rom. ii, 13. This shows that the law is all right; that it contains all the elements of a perfect character—of justification—but all having transgressed it, are condemned by it, and all are alike dependent on Jesus Christ for redemption. But mark; the law continues to be the rule of right, for the knowledge of sin is by the law still. But, on the other hand, if the law is abolished, the knowledge of sin can be no longer by the law; for surely an obsolete, abolished law can convince no man of sin. Then, pray answer this, what does convict of sin since the law is abolished? Is it the gospel? If so, let us read the text according to that idea. “Therefore, by the deeds of the gospel there shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for by the gospel is the knowledge of sin.” Will this answer the purpose of our opponents? It is plain to see by the apostle’s argument, that the fault is not with the law, but with the transgressor. And notice the different conclusions drawn by our opponents and the apostle. They say, We are not justified by the law, but by faith; therefore the law is made void, and we need not keep it, nor any part of it. Paul says, We are not justified by the law, but we are proved sinners by it; that we are justified only by faith; but we do not thereby make void the law, but establish it. Are the no-law folks so ignorant that they cannot see the connection between verses 9, 19, 20, and 31, of Rom. iii? We doubt it. There is evidently some reason why they refuse to notice the relation of the apostle’s statements, and we have no idea that it will stand the test of the Judgment, to which this whole matter will soon be referred. “(7.) The Galatians received the gospel by Paul’s ministry, and afterward were bewildered, or bewitched, by some who insisted on salvation by the deeds of the law, beginning with circumcision. Paul wrote them, ‘O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you? I only would learn of you one thing.’ What was that one thing? ‘Did ye receive the Spirit by the deeds of the law, or by the hearing of faith?’ Of course they must answer, if at all, ‘by the hearing of faith.’ Well then, ‘Are ye so foolish, having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?’ Gal. iii, 1–3.” If any can now be found who have left the faith of Christ and vainly expect to be justified by the law, to them will the above apply. But we are not acquainted with any such; therefore a reply is not needed. But we shall show, however, before concluding this review, that our no-law opponents come nearer to occupying that ground than any other class of religionists in the land. Mark if we do not make this word good. “(8.) If not obedience to the law, but faith in Jesus Christ, is the condition of justification, why keep the law of Moses, or any part of it? To do it with the hope of justification, is to renounce grace, and depend on works. ‘And whosoever of you are justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace,’ by which ye were first saved.” This is but a reiteration of a former statement. It reminds us of a person who got up “ten unanswerable arguments” against the law—one to each commandment—but to make a greater show, re-arranged and changed the wording so as to swell the list to fifty! So this No. 8 seems to be thrown in—not to present a new idea, for it contains none, but—to swell the list and make a display. The ingenuity of the writer is equal to that of the man who, when tired of eating bread and cheese, took to eating cheese and bread for variety! “(9.) But is the seventh-day Sabbath abolished? Yes, utterly. When the law died, that died. When that glorious law, ‘written and graven on tables of stone,’ was ‘abolished,’ ‘done away,’ &c., it was entire. No vestige remains to dispute the right of obedience with Christ. The law of Christ is now the believer’s only rule of life. Nobody was ever under it till God gave it for a sign between him and Israel. Eze. xx, 20, and Ex. xxxi. Nor has it ever bound anybody since the substance or body which cast the shadow was reached. That it ended there, Paul teaches most clearly. Col. ii, 13–17. ‘And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days; which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.’ The Sabbath days, the whole of them, were then taken away, abolished, nailed to the cross, as well as meats and drinks, new moons and holy days. ‘So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, [Mount Sinai in Arabia,] but of the free, [the New Jerusalem].’ ‘Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again in the yoke of bondage.’ Gal. iv, 21, and v, 1. But is there no Sabbath now? No, not like that of Moses; that if you pick up a stick, or kindle a fire on that day, you shall be stoned to death.” 1. That part of the above which relates to the abolition of the law, has already been noticed. 2. The Sabbath was truly a sign between God and Israel, but for what? That they might know that he was the true God that made heaven and earth. See the texts. And it is such a sign still; it is yet true that God made all things in six days; that he rested the seventh day; that he blessed and hallowed the rest day; and that he commanded that it be kept holy. “The word of the Lord endureth forever.” 3. The seventh-day Sabbath is never spoken of as a shadow; and this very qualification of the apostle shows that the above is a perversion of the Scriptures. The sabbath days referred to in Col. ii, are defined to be “shadows of things to come.” There were yearly sabbaths in the law of Moses, which were shadows of the work of Christ, and to these the text refers; but the seventh day Sabbath being a memorial of a work in the past, and having no reference in its institution or commandment to anything future, is of course excluded from the text. Any person can see this at a glance. The candid must acknowledge it. 4. The freedom of the gospel is freedom from sin; but the intent of the above quotation is to prove that gospel freedom is solely freedom from obligation to obey the law of God! We invite the reader to draw anything else from the argument if he can. The Saviour said his Father’s law was in his heart, and he delighted to do his will; Ps. xl, 8. He gave the Father’s will as a test of the heavenly origin of his doctrines; Jno. vii, 16, 17. Paul further defined the will of God to be his law; Rom. ii, 17, 18; and shows that the gospel takes away the carnal mind, and restores us to obedience to the law, as we have already proved. But, judging from the argument now under review, the only bondage that the children of men were ever under, was the obligation to keep God’s law, and the only liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, is liberty to transgress his Father’s law at our will and pleasure! Again I say, such freedom we do not covet; we love the restraints of a holy law, and thank God for a rule that is so just, that convinces us of sin when we go astray, that leads us to look away from weak and sinful self to Christ for justification. We have no fault to find with the law; like one of old, we will leave our complaint upon ourself; or say with the apostle, ‘For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.’ Can our opponents place themselves along side of the apostle in this sentiment? They will not. There is a world-wide difference between them and Paul on this subject. (10.) But there is the first day of the week: the day of our Lord’s resurrection, which from that time has always been a day of rest and worship to his disciples. He has honored, owned, and blessed its observance, and put a mark of his displeasure on those who disregard and profane it. Constantine did not institute the first day of the week as the Sabbath; but he found it in universal observance among Christians, as a Christian institution, and threw around it the protection of law, that Christians should not be disturbed in their devotions and rest, just the same as most, if not all, the States of this Union have done. Whatever Christ saw fit to transfer from the Mosaic to the Christian system, he or his apostles brought forward and re-affirmed; and that is binding on Christians, but nothing more.” Thus closes the article; and seldom do we find more assumptions without proof, and without the possibility of being proved, than in the above. 1. There is no proof that the first day was observed by Christians from the time of the resurrection. 2. There is no proof that he has “honored, owned, and blessed its observance,” or put a mark of displeasure on those who disregarded it. How shall we know this to be so? Must we take the writer’s word for it? Does not the word still remain, that “by the law is the knowledge of sin?” If it is sinful to “profane” the first day of the week, where is the law which proves it so? We know that in the book referred to in the beginning of this review, it is claimed that the law is so “changed or completed” as to enforce the keeping of Sunday. But how is a law which is “utterly abolished,” of which “not a vestige remains,” to enforce the keeping of the first day of the week? Is that the authority they find for keeping Sunday? When they undertake to wield the sword they should be careful as to which way it cuts. 3. Inasmuch as there is no law for the observance of Sunday, such observance is “will-worship,” and is denounced by the apostle to the Colossians. As was said by one of the past century, that is not obedience for which there is no commandment. 4. We admit that “Constantine did not institute the first day of the week as the Sabbath,” for neither he nor any other had yet called it the Sabbath at that time. He enforced it under the name of “the venerable day of the sun,” [Sun’s day—Sunday,] which was the only veneration paid to it at that time. And, says the writer, “he threw around it the protection of law.” Yes, and this was the first protection of the kind it had ever received; so says Alexander Campbell, and all history attests its correctness. But the scripture says, “where no law is, there is no transgression;” therefore, as there was no law for Sunday-keeping till Constantine, so the “profanation” of Sunday, spoken of above, could not exist till his decree went forth! If our opponents dissent, will they please point to a law which existed previously. Give us “the law and the testimony” for keeping Sunday and the controversy ceases at once. 5. Whatever Christ saw fit to transfer from the law93to the Christian system, is now binding, says the writer. Well, what did he transfer? He does not tell us, but perhaps he would say all of the ten commandments except the fourth. We could, however, disprove it by his own position on Acts xv, where he avers that they were not transferred or given to the Gentiles! But allowing them to take both positions, as they generally do, we would inquire, If the commandments, Thou shalt not kill, nor commit adultery, nor steal, are transferred into the Christian system, why do you keep them? “Is it for form? or for justification?” If for form, it is mockery; but if for justification, then it is vain, for justification by law is impossible. I challenge any one to show that a moral obligation can be so related as to justify a sinner. Again, I refer to Mr. Campbell, who declares it an impossibility to be justified by the same instrument which convicts of sin. In this dilemma our opponents are placed; seeking justification by these laws, or keeping them for form, if they keep them at all, which we should certainly doubt, from their own arguments. They have but one instrument to condemn and justify, to slay and make alive. The theology is consistent neither with reason nor justice, nor even with itself. Yet these men, throwing aside the holy law, which Paul abundantly shows, convinces of sin, and thereby proves to our awakened consciences that we need a Saviour, accuse us of denying Christ, the blessed Son of God, because, like him, we strive to keep his Father’s commandments! Read the following from Hiram Munger, published in the Voice of the West. “The second error is the Seventh-day hobby rock—a three-cornered concern, not easily approached with a gospel vessel; it must be the old law or nothing; and Christ is out of the question. Such are truly in prison.” Now the writer and publishers know better than to utter such things. It cannot be a mistake on their part; they know too well our trust and confidence in Christ. Have they forgotten that God in awful majesty declared with his own voice: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor?” But hold! we forget. “The ten commandments, or any part of them” are “not a rule of Christian obligation” with them. As there is nothing but the law by which is “the knowledge of sin,” we have no hope to convince them of the immorality of such practices, while they trample down the law without compunction. Here we close our comments on this article, with the remark that we contend for the harmony and unity between God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ. Our opponents place the Son in opposition to his Father. There is a conflict of authority between them, according to their theory. Next week we propose to examine a few texts of Scripture on this point, to show that the law of God is directly enforced by the Saviour in the work of the gospel. J. H. W.