ARE THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, OR ANY PART OF THEM, BINDING ON CHRISTIANS?
By J. H. W.
“(2.) The law of God ‘graven and written on tables of stone,’ 2 Cor. iii, 7, ‘was to be done away,’ verse 11, ‘which is done away,’ and verse 13, ‘which is abolished,’ &c. Please read the chapter entire.” Perhaps there is no passage of scripture which is oftener perverted to a bad use than that quoted or garbled as above. Mr. Anderson, author of a translation which is becoming very popular among Disciples (Campbellites), regards the expression in the first part of verse 7, (2 Cor. iii,) as elliptical, and supplies as follows: “But if the ministration of death by means of a covenant written and engraven in stones,” &c. Mr. Anderson does not pretend that the original contains the equivalents of these supplied words, as he places them in italics, but he, doubtless, does consider, and correctly too, we think, that the supply is necessary from the obvious fact that the word “ministration” cannot refer to that which was written on the tables of stone. The following is the full definition of ministration as given by Webster: “1. The act of performing service as a subordinate agent; agency; intervention for aid or service. 2. Office of a minister; service; ecclesiastical function.” That the priests ministered in respect to that which was written on stone, is truth, to which all must agree; that their service or ministration was written thereon, none can with any show of reason affirm. Now, we know that Moses was the first minister: and that it refers to the service or work of the minister is plain by the reference to “the glory of his countenance,” which alone was vailed, verse 13, and which represented that which was to be done away. It is said the vail was put upon Moses’ face, to hide its glory from the people, “that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished.” This cannot refer at all to the law on the tables, for they were not vailed; the glory of that abolished pertained to Moses, the minister—not to the law. But what do our opponents gain by this text to prove that no part of the ten commandments are binding on Christians? One part of that law is, Thou shalt not commit adultery; is this not binding on Christians? Other parts forbid murder, theft, falsehood, idolatry, and profanity; are these parts not binding on Christians? Do these people really mean what they say? How will they evade the inevitable conclusion drawn from their teachings? We know, that to avoid the Sabbath is the sole object of all such arguments, but is it not sufficient evidence that the cause is bad when such means have to be resorted to in order to sustain it? We leave the objection here with all its deformity and immorality apparent to every beholder. “3. ‘The law,’ embracing the whole Mosaic system, ‘was added because of transgression, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made.’ Gal. iii, 19. Christ was that seed. Verse 16. ‘The law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith; but after that faith has come we are no longer under a schoolmaster.’ Verses 24, 25. ‘Christ is the end of the law for righteousness, to every one that believeth.’ Rom. x, 4. ‘We are not under the law but under grace.’ Rom. vi, 14.” It is a very easy matter to quote scripture without reference to its connection and true meaning, when you have the prejudice of the hearer or reader already enlisted in favor of the construction you wish to put upon it. So the bigoted opponent of the doctrine of the second advent will quote, “Of that day and hour knoweth no man,” and walk off with an air of triumph, as though no other instruction was given on the subject. So the advocate of the temporal millennium will declare that Christ is to possess the heathen and the uttermost parts of the earth, but will not listen to the next verse which tells that he will dash them in pieces as a potter’s vessel. But they quoted scripture? Yes, and so did the writer of the above objection to “the law;” and with about the same propriety. Four texts are quoted, each one requiring a separate notice, which must be done too briefly to do them justice. In Rom. v, 20, the apostle says, “the law entered that the offense might abound;” “the offense,” then, must have existed before the “law entered.” A parallel to this is found again in Rom. vii, 13, “that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.” But sin is the transgression of the law, and no law could make an offense or sin appear sinful except the one transgressed; as it would be absurd to attempt to convince any one of the wrong of theft by quoting the law which says, Thou shalt not kill. This I believe to be the idea of Gal. iii, 19. This text alone may not give a very definite idea of the law referred to, but considering its context and parallels, the conclusion seems unavoidable. As an extended consideration is impossible here, I would just remark that the abolition of a law, and the pardon of its transgression, cannot possibly go together. If the law is abolished, no pardon is needed. If pardon is extended, the perpetuity or validity of the law stands acknowledged. To redeem from the curse of the law, Gal. iii, 13, is essentially different from releasing from obligation to the law. To redeem the Gentiles from the curse of the law, Gal. iii, 14, is to prove that the Gentiles were amenable to the law, contrary to the objector’s “(1.)” This redemption being in order to confer on them the blessing of Abraham, verse 14, proves that the right to the blessing of Abraham is forfeited by transgression of the law. We contend that the relations of the law, and not the existence of the law, is the subject of the apostle’s discourse. Again, Gal. iii, 25, and Rom. vi, 14, both quoted, are parallel both in expression and sense. We are not under the schoolmaster, or law, because61“faith is come,”—we are “under grace.” But were we, or any others, under grace before we exercised faith in Christ? We were not. But if, before our profession of faith or conversion to Christ, we were not under grace, what were we under? Certainly under the law. What Paul says to the Romans and Galatians on this subject, must refer to them individually, and not only to them, but to all that are Christ’s. The objector evidently thinks so, too, for he refers the passages to Christians. But if the Christian was not under grace, but under the law, before he became a Christian, is the law abolished? If it is, he was not under it; and if so, he must have been under grace before he had faith in Christ! and if so, again, all the world must be under grace! for none can be under an abolished law. The Universalists ought to give our opponents a vote of thanks for this. It is as good an argument as was ever adduced for universal salvation. But having shown that it is subversive of the whole system of the gospel, and of every principle of law and of justice, we are willing to rest it with the candid reader. Rom. x, 4: Christ is the end of the law. In what sense? Does “end” here mean abolition? No; for he did not come to destroy it, Matt. v, 17; and it is not made void, or abolished; Rom. iii, 31. In Jas. v, 11, and 1 Pet. i, 9, the same word is used where the sense is, the object or design. And this is its meaning here. In Rom. vii, 10, it is said, the law was ordained unto life. Life was the object or design of the law. See Deut. xxx, 15, 16; Lev. xviii, 5, Rom. ii, 13; &c. But man, by transgression of the law, brought himself under condemnation, and Christ now works out the object or design of the law, by procuring our pardon, and giving us life. In this work, the carnal mind, which is enmity against God and not in subordination to his law, is taken away and the “body of sin” destroyed; of course the person on whom this is wrought is restored to obedience. And this is the full meaning of Rom. x, 4, for righteousness is not without obedience. “Unrighteousness is sin,” says the apostle, and “sin is the transgression of the law.” If unrighteousness is transgression of the law, its opposite, righteousness, must be the opposite of transgression, which is obedience. But none but the believer will obey; the genuine believer, too; for many profess to believe who will not obey; they say to Jesus, Lord, Lord, but do not the will of his Father; they make void the commandment of God by their tradition; they will not keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. To such Rom. x, 4, has no reference whatever. But if it be still contended that the perpetuity or abolition of the law is brought in question in this text, let us read it so. “Christ has abolished the law for righteousness, to every one that believeth.” Passing by the singularity of the “righteousness” which is accomplished by the abolition of a law that is “holy, just, and good,” we inquire, Does it affirm, with your own rendering, the abolition of the law to any but the believer? No. Singular again; a universal law abolished to some and not to others! Is it abolished to the believer before he believes? We wish our opponents would answer this, as their view involves principles of law with which we are not acquainted. But we will consider it answered in the negative, as the text refers only to the believer, which no man is, in a state of unbelief. Then suppose he should “fall from grace,” or deny the faith, or reject Christ and his gospel entirely, as many have done, does the law still remain abolished to him, or is it re-enacted in his case? Does anybody believe the Apostle Paul was ever guilty of teaching such absurdities as the views of the no-law theorists involve him in? We deplore their work; not that we particularly object to their erecting a monument to their own folly, for they are worthy of it, but we pity the blind who are being led by such blind leaders. J. H. W.