DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE FIRST AND SECOND COMMANDMENTS.
By John Nevins Andrews
First Commandment.—“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Second Commandment.—“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.” The church of Rome holds that these two precepts are but one commandment. And as there are ten commandments, they make up the number by making two commandments out of the precept that forbids covetousness. Of course we cannot justify this division of the last commandment, to make up for the union of the first two. But what is the distinction between the first and second commandments? To the careless reader there is no proper distinction. For while the first commandment forbids other gods (which really shuts out all false gods of every kind), the second commandment is supposed to forbid the worship of gods made by men's hands. If this be the true idea, then the second commandment would become only an appendage of the first, or a lesser prohibition concerning a part of the ground embraced in the first. In other words, it forbids such false gods as are made with hands, while the first commandment forbids false gods of every kind or class. But the second commandment is not comprehended in the first. It guards an important principle not embraced in the first commandment. It occupies ground peculiarly its own. The design of the first commandment is to forbid the worship of any being in the universe but the one living and true God. The design of the second commandment is to forbid the making any representation of this true God. If Satan cannot get men to openly choose some other object or being for their god beside the Lord of hosts, then he will be well satisfied if he can induce them to make a representation of the true God, and pay their homage to this, as something whereby they may greatly honor God. It does not appear that Aaron in making the golden calf, designed to lead the children of Israel to the worship of some other god, but to give them a representation of that God who had led them out of Egypt. Ex. xxxii, 4, 5. And so of the church of Rome in our day. She holds to the one living and true God, though she represents his existence as that of three persons. Not content with making both pictures and images of the Son of God, and professedly honoring him by paying religious adoration to these things, she also represents, by pictures at least, both the Father and the Holy Spirit, and before these she teaches all her members to bow in adoration. No wonder she is no friend to the second commandment, and that she belittles it all that she can, making it in such works as she allows it to appear in a part of the first, and so construing it that it shall simply forbid that class of false gods made by men's hands but shall not bear at all upon such images as are adored in honor of the true. It is, however, too expressive a precept to be freely read by the common people, lest it should open their eyes to the nature of their usual worship. So in almost every catechism of that church, and in most of the books which circulate among the Romanists, the second commandment as given above, is entirely omitted. It stands indeed in their Bible, but these books from which it is stricken, are used instead of the Bible for general circulation. Jeroboam and Ahab, kings of Israel, give us in their acts a very clear idea of the distinction between these two precepts. God rent the ten tribes out of the hand of Rehoboam, and gave them into the hand of Jeroboam. This man, deceived by the Devil, thought in his heart that he should soon lose his dominion if he suffered his people to go up to Jerusalem to worship in the temple as they had formerly done. He therefore made two golden calves, and placed one in the northern extremity of his kingdom, and one near the southern, and said, “It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.” 1 Kings xii, 28. It does not appear that he designed to introduce another god beside the true one, but to prevent the people from going up to Jerusalem, by making in his own dominion two representations of that God which they had ever worshiped. But this sin of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, was the foundation of the final ruin of Israel. When Ahab came to the throne of Israel, some sixty years after this, “It came to pass as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam.” “He went and served Baal, and worshiped him. And he did more to provoke the Lord God of Israel to anger than all the kings of Israel that were before him.” 1 Kings xvi, 31–33. Ahab was not content to provoke the God of Israel to anger by worshiping him under the representation of a golden calf; he must set him aside entirely, and turn the people to another god, even to Baal. Elijah brought things to a test between God and Baal. 1 Kings xviii. Afterward when Jehu was raised up to destroy the family of Ahab, and to exterminate the worship of Baal, he did both with the most thorough and unsparing hand, but when he had thus destroyed Baal out of Israel, he himself cleaved to the sin of Jeroboam the son of Nebat. 2 Kings x. The sin of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, was that of making a representation of the God that brought Israel out of Egypt. He set aside the second commandment. The sin of Ahab was that of choosing Baal in the place of the God of Israel. This was a still more Heaven-daring crime. He set aside the first commandment, and with it the one living and true God. Jeroboam laid the foundation of Israel's ruin; Ahab carried their sin to its greatest height of rebellion. It is likely that the idolatry of heathen lands began like the sin of Jeroboam. Without designing to take other gods, it is likely men were led to make representations of the true God, and that from this they began to worship these things which their own hands had made, as gods in reality. J. N. ANDREWS.