ARE THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, OR ANY PART OF THEM, BINDING ON CHRISTIANS? by J. H. W.

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 21, 1868

“ARE THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, OR ANY PART OF THEM, BINDING ON CHRISTIANS?”

By J. H. W.

(Continued.)

“(4.) In the days of the apostles some said that believing Gentiles ‘must be circumcised, and keep the law of Moses, or they could not be saved.’ Acts xv. To decide this question was the object of the first general council convened at Jerusalem. The result was, under the direct teaching of the Holy Ghost, that the council decided that through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ they (the Gentiles) shall be saved even as we (the Jews). Four things only were enjoined on them: ‘To abstain from idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication.’ This, then, became, not the Mosaic law and condition of justification as such, but a Christian rule of action, enjoined by the Holy Ghost on believers, through this council.”

If the writer of the above really supposed that it would pass as an argument against the ten commandments or the Sabbath, he must have presumed greatly on the ignorance of his readers. It is enough to read that circumcision and the law of Moses were the subjects of discussion, to see the irrelevancy of the above argument. Does any one—even the writer of the above—suppose that the apostles and elders in council would gravely discuss and formally decide that the Gentiles need not keep “the ten commandments nor any part of them?” Were they absolved from the duty to honor parents? and could they blaspheme, steal, kill, bear false witness, and break the Sabbath, and incur no guilt thereby? Yes, most surely; for the apostles said nothing about these things! Such is the conclusion of the no-law and no-Sabbath argument. Do not think, dear reader, that we misinterpret or misrepresent our opponent. Read for yourself:—

“FOUR THINGS ONLY were enjoined on them, to abstain from idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication.” This, and this “ONLY,” is declared to be “a Christian rule of action.” This not only does not mention any other duties, but it specifically excludes them. Therefore, whoever says that the Gentiles should not kill, or steal, or blaspheme, contradicts the decision of this council, according to the testimony of our opponents. We should think they would cease to advocate a theory so immoral in its tendency, for shame’s sake. And may it ever be a warning to us, as we witness how completely men are blinded and snared by the enemy when they oppose God’s law. We hold, and teach, in harmony with the council of Jerusalem, that circumcision and the law of Moses are not binding; and in harmony with the Saviour also, who said that worship is vain when it makes void the commandment of God.

“(5.) Christ said, ‘I am not come to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill.’ Matt. v, 17. He did fulfill each jot and tittle, both in its preceptory and penal departments. He then cried, ‘It is finished, and gave up the ghost.’ John xix, 28–30. He had fulfilled all its precepts, and for us he met its penalties. Thus he magnified the law and made it honorable, and ‘nailed it to the cross.’ Col. ii, 14. No jot or tittle of the law now remains in force as a rule of life, or condition of justification or salvation; ‘that being dead wherein we were held.’ ‘We are delivered from the law.’ ‘We are also become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another; to him who is raised from the dead.’ Rom. vii, 4, 6. If we are become dead to the law by the body of Christ, and are married to another, what right has the old husband to control our action? We are bound only to Christ. Hence, when he sent his disciples to teach all nations, he said, ‘Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.’ It was not what Moses or the prophets had commanded that was to constitute a rule of life; but what Jesus commanded. He is our Lord and Master, and ‘His commandments are not grievous.’”

First, the Saviour’s words are quoted wherein he said he did not come to destroy the law, and then a labored argument is instituted to show that he did destroy it; thus making his action contradict his words. Can any one have confidence in Jesus as a Saviour, and in such teachings, at the same time? Reference is also made to Isa. xlii, 21: “He will magnify the law and make it honorable.” Magnify, says Webster, is “to extol; to exalt; to elevate; to raise in estimation.” Do our opponents believe the Saviour did such a work as this? And if they do, who would ever gather it from their writings? Was it “elevated” by its abolition? Did he “raise it in the estimation” of the no-law theorists, who spare no pains to disparage it? But again, he “will make it honorable.” This does not show that it was not honorable before, for we know it was; it therefore means that he will make it still more honorable; the same as to magnify it—exalt it, extol it, raise it still higher in estimation than it had before been held. Though every way honorable in itself, it had been dishonored by transgression, and he came to vindicate its claims, to suffer its penalty, thereby showing its sacredness and perpetuity; and to enforce it on men anew, yes, to write it in their hearts; so that instead of transgressing it they might love it, delight in it, consent that it is holy, just, and good, and so worship God by obeying his law “in newness of spirit,” and not merely in letter. We believe the blessed Saviour does all this in taking away the carnal mind, which Paul says is not subject to the law of God, and giving us hearts of love and obedience. But how do our opponents say he magnified the law and made it honorable? By 1, breaking it himself; 2, teaching others to do so; 3, abolishing it; 4, inspiring his apostles to denounce it as a yoke of bondage; &c. But the reader who loves reason, justice, and consistency, will see that the law that is magnified and made honorable is not the same one that is abolished; the one written in the heart is not the one nailed to the cross; the spiritual law is not a carnal commandment; the law which becomes a delight to the converted believer in Christ, is not a yoke of bondage.

“No jot or tittle of the law now remains in force as a rule of life.” How different from the teachings of Jesus: “Till Heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all [all things, Greenfield, in Heaven and earth, Wesley,] be fulfilled.” So far from his teaching that it is not a rule of life, he proceeds to condemn those who break the law, or “any part” of it, and who teach others to do so.

The writer, arguing that the Christian is released from obligation to keep the law, quotes, “that being dead wherein we were held,” and applies it to the law. If this were a correct rendering of the original, the above application would still be a perversion of the text, for all the context shows that it is the sinner that dies—not the law. But it is not a true rendering. Paul never made any such declaration concerning the law. Probably the writer of the above knew that all authorities were agreed that the marginal reading was the true one; possibly he knew that the Greek word apothanontes, from which “being dead” is rendered, was plural, and therefore could not refer to the law; but it was far from serving his purpose to recognize such facts. He had a theory to maintain, and oftentimes it happens that false theories may be as effectually advanced by concealing the truth as by promulgating an error. Nor is the law represented by the husband in the illustration of Rom. vii. By reference to verse 4, it will be seen that the same that died was afterward married to another, by virtue of a new life received through faith in Christ. The law is that by which a woman having two husbands is convicted of adultery. We prefer Paul’s application of this illustration to that of the no-law theorist’s; and there is a very wide difference between the two. The expression “dead to the law,” is equivalent to that of Chap. vi, 2: “dead to sin;” for it is only on account of sin that we die to the law. We have sinned, and the wages of sin is death, and the law holds us under its condemning power until death takes place, because a state of sin is a state of condemnation. We need not, however, literally die; but to avoid this, “the old man is crucified;” “the body of sin is destroyed,” that “henceforth we should not serve sin.” Through faith in Christ we so change our relation to the law that we are freed from its condemnation. We die to transgression; the law does not die. We change our relation to the law; the law does not change at all. But if the law was abolished by the Saviour, how do we die to it? By what act, or in what manner, is our relation ever changed to a law which was abolished 1800 years before we were born?

Will our opponents attempt to show? When they do, we shall be pleased to note their progress.

Now, that we are dead is shown in that we are buried in baptism; but the apostle says we are not dead to the law, or dead to sin, while living in transgression; therefore they who are still living in transgression of the law are not proper subjects of baptism. No change has been effected in them, which is here represented by death; the “old man” is still alive; “the body of sin” or transgression, has not been crucified, but is yet alive and shows its life by endeavoring to crucify the law, instead of yielding to its righteous demands. In every respect such stand in direct opposition to the apostle’s teachings to the Romans. And if they have ever been buried in baptism, it was unscriptural and invalid, for no death to sin,—to transgression of the law—had taken place. They were not buried in the likeness of Christ’s death, for he died before he was buried. They are the very ones who are committing spiritual adultery, or making strong efforts to do so, by being united to “the body of sin,” Rom. vi, 6, and trying to be united to “the body of Christ,” chap. vii, 4, at the same time. The “body of sin” is the “body of death,” vii, 24; and the opposers of the law (the carnally minded) will find it so. And when they arose from baptism it was to walk in the same old life of transgression—not in newness of life.

A further effort is made by quoting the expression, “we are delivered from the law.” Here, again, are counter claims set up. We claim that by sin the law holds us under condemnation; that through Christ we cease to sin, receiving forgiveness for the past, and are thus released from its power to condemn. Our opponents claim that the law was binding on us, but by the faith of Christ we are delivered from its obligation, so that neither the law as a whole, “nor any part of it,” is binding on us to perform. We do not claim—we do not ask such a deliverance; we “delight in the law of God,” being freed from it so far as its power to condemn is concerned. Now we think we have plainly pointed out these two positions in the New Testament, and shown the tendency and the result of each. But we think also that both these positions are subjects of prophecy.

1st. We delight in the law and claim that the law is written in our hearts. See Jer. xxxi, 33; Isa. li, 7. 2dly, Our opponents disclaim all connection with the law, and claim that they are delivered from obligation to obey any part of it. But the law forbids theft, murder, adultery, false witness, idolatry, &c. What say our opponents? They say, Not any part of the ten commandments is binding on Christians. Why not? Because Christ has delivered them from obligation to keep the law. Now we see where the prophecy applies. Jer. vii, 8–10. “Behold, ye trust in lying words, that cannot profit. Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not; and come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, WE ARE DELIVERED TO DO ALL THESE ABOMINATIONS?” The deliverance here claimed can be from nothing but from the law which forbids such things; therefore the prophecy is an exact representation of the position of the antinomian theorists. If they feel hurt that we should think thus of them, or apply such a prophecy to them, we reply to the first, that we have no confidence in human nature; it needs all the restraints that God’s holy law ever threw over it. To the second, we say, if you do not like the application of the prophecy, just change your position so it will not apply. But so long as you stand where it does apply to you, it is a small matter whether any make the application or not; the great day at hand will try every man’s work, and reveal every man’s true position.

The various texts under consideration have so often been noticed that we have no intention of going into an exhaustive examination of them at this time; but only to show the fallacy of the argument now under consideration. But we cannot consent to pass from the seventh chapter of Romans, without leaving an appeal to the reader in respect to the two opinions in reference to it. Our opponents claim, as before shown, that the law is dead—they have nothing to do with it, unless to denounce it. We claim that the sinner

must so die to sin that he will gladly keep the law. Here is a plain issue. Now Paul makes a number of statements in this connection which we propose to notice. And the reader will also bear in mind that when our opponents take up the first part of Rom. vii, we invariably meet them on the issue, and examine the texts; and when we read other texts in close connection which plainly contradict their theory, they pass them by without a notice. Why is this? Remember the harmony of Scripture is what assures us of truth. While we proceed to quote these expressions of Paul, let the reader apply them to the view of our opponents if he can harmonize them with that view.

Being united to Christ, we are to “serve in newness of spirit.”
The law convinced Paul of sin.
The law slew him. (Could a dead law slay him? or did he slay the law?)
The law is holy, just, and good.
The law is spiritual; (therefore, to be kept right must be served in newness of Spirit.)
The law became Paul’s delight.
The precept of the law is kept by us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. Chap. viii, 4.
The carnal mind is not subject to the law.

Will our no-law friends appropriate these expressions to their side of the question? We should be pleased to see the trial.

The seventh of the above on chap. viii, 4, is never noticed by our opponents; perhaps not well appreciated by many of our friends. We shall at least be excused for justifying our rendering. “That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us.” Common Version. The word rendered righteousness, is dikaioma, by Greenfield defined, “law, precept, statute, ordinance;” by Robinson, “decree, ordinance, precept.” The passage in Bloomfield’s Notes on the Greek is rendered, “the requisition of the law.” Whiting’s Trans., “the precept of the law.” Bible Union Version, “the requirement of the law.” Sawyer’s Trans., “the righteous ordinance of the law.” Comp. Com., “precept,” with the remark: “Slade, Locke, Taylor, &c., observe that this dikaioma being said to be done by us, not in us,* is an unanswerable argument against the antinomian dogmas.” They who, through faith in Christ, walk after the Spirit, “obey the requisitions of the law,” “fulfill the precept of the law.” The carnally minded, of course, are “delivered to do abominations,” contrary to the law.

“His, [Jesus’] commandments are not grievous.” This perversion of Scripture is so palpable that it needs no notice to expose it. Turn to 1 John v, and see throughout the whole chapter the distinction kept up between God and his Son, Jesus Christ. “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God; and every one that loveth him that begat, loveth him also that is begotten of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments; and his commandments are not grievous.” He who would so pervert the testimony of God’s word, so plainly stated, will not hesitate to do anything to accomplish his purpose. Of course John does not contradict Paul. It is to them that “love God” that “his commandments are not grievous.” The carnal mind does not agree to this; hatred is shown in all it does and says. May the Lord divest us all of this carnal mind. J. H. W.