“ARE THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, OR ANY PART OF THEM, BINDING ON CHRISTIANS?”
By James White
A FRIEND sends us an article under the above head from the Advent Herald, as republished in a Campbellite paper, in Ohio, with a request that it be noticed in the REVIEW. There is not a point in it that has not been noticed at different times by different writers in our paper. But as many of our present readers may not have seen all the answers to these objections, and as it seems to contain a summary of the opposition to the Sabbath, we propose to notice the article as briefly as the subject and nature of the statements will allow. We remember the advice of a certain practical man that, when any object was before us, or any work to be accomplished, the first and great essential was to “take a position.” This we would heartily recommend to the several papers published by the first-day Adventists of America. We open one of these papers and find a score or two of “unanswerable arguments” (!) proving that the Sabbath is abolished. Another number, likely the very next, has an equally unanswerable argument that the Sabbath has been changed. We turn a page and read a report from a minister, more combative than spiritual-minded, giving time, place, and circumstances, of his utterly demolishing all the thesis of Sabbatizers; and the next column contains another report from another minister, stating where he held forth his peculiar gospel on a certain “Sabbath.” Another number of the same paper will give an excellent selection on the sin of Sabbath-breaking, together with a stirring argument from the editor, or some regular correspondent, clearly showing that you will certainly fall from grace if you keep the Sabbath! Job, when vexed with the groundless accusations of his professed friends, earnestly wished that his adversary had written a book, doubtless judging that it would be an easier task to meet their raillery if it were only made tangible, and given a permanent form. But, if his adversary had written a book as indefinite and contradictory in statement as the positions of the Sabbath opposers, he would have found therein no relief for his perplexity. Had they been as gifted in prophetic foresight as they were in talk, and looked down to these times and taken their cue from modern skeptics and fault-finders, they might at least have given his patience one more strain. No complaint will ever be lodged against these that they have not written; but their fault is that they have advanced and advocated so many contradictory statements, that we know not where to find them. Our petition is, Oh! that mine adversary had taken a position! We open the Advent Herald and find therein the advertisement of a book for sale at that office, wherein a certain proposition is “clearly proved,” (these are the words) “by showing that the ten commandments have been changed, or made complete in the Christian dispensation.” We have not entirely read the very voluminous work referred to above, the peculiar characteristic of Job not having descended to us in sufficient measure to ensure success in the undertaking, but we have read enough to gather definitely the ideas, the scope, and object of the work. But a few queries arise with us. Are changing, or making complete, the ten commandments synonymous terms; do they mean the same thing? If so, how much changing did they need to make them complete? By what scripture may we learn that they were incomplete, from the time they were spoken by the voice of God till the ushering in of the Christian dispensation? And seeing they were binding before this dispensation, is it because they are now made complete that no part of them is binding on us? If this is the reason, it is a very strange one, indeed; if it is not, will some one tell us what the reason is? As the article in question proceeds to negative the query placed at its head, and attempts to show that no part of the ten commandments is binding on the Christian, we will first briefly glance over that law, and in so doing will ascertain in what particular it must be changed to become complete. 1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Is this changed, and how? Is this “part” binding on Christians? Reader, need we weary your patience to quote in order the prohibitions of idolatry, profanity, murder, adultery, theft, false witness, &c., to show the tendency of such arguments? Are any of these changed? Did they need anything to render them complete? Oh, no. It was only the fourth commandment that needed changing to make it complete. Well, wherein was it incomplete? It contained a specified duty, plainly expressed; so far it was complete, and could not be improved. It says the seventh-day is the Sabbath, or rest of the Lord, which is truth. It says God made heaven and earth in six days, and rested and hallowed the seventh day. All this is true, and cannot be changed without being brought in conflict with truth. And it is all truth relating to works performed and facts existing, therefore resting on no contingencies or future events. Nothing could make it more complete. But to the argument on the above question, to show that no part of the ten commandments is binding on Christians. It opens as follows: “We answer, No. (1.) They were a part of God’s national covenant with the Jews, and were binding on no other people, or persons, unless they were circumcised and adopted into the Jewish nation.” The “No,” is the answer to the question. What follows is (1) of a series of reasons to sustain the answer. This reference to the position of people or persons in the past is irrelevant unless they sustained the same relation to the law that we do. Very well. But it asserted that “no part” of it is binding on us; or so, no part was binding on the nations. Was it wrong for nations or persons outside of Israel to worship idols, blaspheme, kill, commit adultery, &c.? Not at all—not at all, sir. If they should choose to become “circumcised and [be] adopted into the Jewish nation,” then these things would be wrong in them; not otherwise! Oh! blessed Gentile liberty! How much your privileges resembled those under this modern gospel! Is it for love of such “liberty” that our opponents advocate such a theory? Is Matt. xii, 33, applicable to this case? But let us apply a few scriptures to this reason. It avers that the ten commandments—every part—are binding only on those who are circumcised and adopted into the family of Israel. Well, Paul shows that Christians occupy that very position. That they are circumcised, see Col. ii, 11; that they are the adopted Israel, see Eph. ii, 11; “ye,” converts to Christianity, were, in time past, Gentiles, “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel,” verse 12; but now “are no more strangers and foreigners,” verse 19, but “fellow-heirs and of the same body.” Chap. iii, 6. There are, no doubt, many “of the synagogue of Satan which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie,” Rev. iii, 9, to whom Paul’s comments on the true Israel of God will not apply. They still occupy heathen ground, and on this ground claim exemption from God’s commandments! See also Rom. ii, 28, 29. But there is another testimony from the Apostle Paul which cuts off even this flimsy claim from those who are “uncircumcised in heart and ears,” and are still “Gentiles in the flesh.” He truly says to the Jew that circumcision is only profitable if they keep the law, “but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision;” that is, they heathenize themselves by breaking the law—bring themselves down on a level with the Gentiles, who wrought abominations in the sight of God. But, further, “if the uncircumcision,” that is the Gentile, “keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision;” that is to say, if he keeps the law, though uncircumcised, he shall be accepted in the sight of God, even as though he were circumcised. This places keeping the law above circumcision or any carnal ordinances, for “the law is spiritual;” Rom. vii, 14; therefore obedience to it is right worship. And this fully justifies the apostle in another expression; 1 Cor. vii, 19, “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.” (is something.—Whiting’s translation.) But, examined in the light of these scriptures, what does the above professed “reason” amount to? It is based on a misapprehension of outward circumcision, and like that circumcision it “is nothing.” We will examine the rest of the list soon.