p. 42 | THE TEN COMMANDMENTS by A. C. Spicer

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 3, 1876

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.

By A. C. Spicer

Part I.—In Genesis.

Christ said: “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” Matt. 19:17. “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.” John 6:63. The inspired wise man said, “In the way of righteousness is life, and in the pathway thereof there is no death.” Prov. 12:28. The prophet says, “If the wicked walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity he shall surely live, he shall not die.” Eze. 33:15. The disciple said to Christ, “Lord, thou hast the words of eternal life.” John 6:68. Again, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” John 17:3. Paul says, “For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.” Rom. 15:2; 8:6.

Everywhere the sacred Scriptures inform us that “in the way of righteousness is life.” But righteousness is not a passive quality. It is active, and pertains to moral character. It is uprightness of religious life. And this implies conformity to moral law, as established by the Author of the religious system, in harmony with the nature and relations of the Creator and his moral subjects. Further, character, including righteousness (holiness) is not a spontaneous unfolding, but must be developed by activities, by trials, by tests. Hence law, from the very first, as much as ever, was a necessity to our first parents. It is clearly inferable, therefore, that obedience to God’s law, as his expressed will, was the condition for the continuance of that life forever, which God gave to our race.

This is deducible also, from the fact that in the restoration (and it is understood that in redemption that life which was lost, with all its concomitant blessings and characteristics, is to be restored), obedience to the commandments of God, in faith, is the condition for the attainment to everlasting life. “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” Indeed, it is clearly seen in Genesis that obedience to some law of God—some commandments—was the condition for the continuance of life forever. Now then, is it supposable, remembering the known character of God, that those commands or that law was less than the ten holy precepts afterward formally given us by God? Indeed, is it even supposable that they were in any essential respect different from these which are based in the nature and relations of moral subjects to each other and to the Creator, and which are denominated, “holy, perfect, good,” &c.? Finally, is it supposable that the test of character in Eden (when the race was on trial, and when upon the issues of that trial hung consequences freighted with untold and inestimable value to man, extending through all time and reaching down into eternity) was less than, or different from, the whole perfect law which was to be the rule and guide of man’s life ever after, whether in obedience and consequent holiness, or in disobedience?

On this law man was tested. “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die”—“dying thou shalt die.” Death—death to the race was the penalty thereunto attached to the prohibition. But penalties are attached to established laws, and not to mere wishes or requests. And a penalty of this grave, this terrible character—death to a race with all the train of accompanying and following evils, extending through all time and down into eternity—could not have been attached to anything less than the whole perfect law of God, established and proclaimed as the constitution of God’s moral government on earth—as man’s perfect guide and rule of life.

But, “now the serpent [Satan, Rev. 12:9] was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made, and he said unto the woman, Yea [is it so that God hath said?], hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die; for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat.” Gen. 3:1–6. The serpent (Satan) understood that the effect of partaking of that fruit would be to “open their eyes,” and give them “a knowledge of good and evil.” Eve understood that it would “make them wise” to eat thereof. “And the Lord God said [after the disobedience], Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.” Verse 22. “And the eyes of both of them were opened.” Verse 7.

That disobedience of Adam and Eve was punished as sin, and with death. They were expatriated—driven from the garden—and doomed to suffer and to die. Gen. 2 and 3. And this penalty attached universally to the race. Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:21, 22. But universal penalty implies universal law. And a penalty that comprehended universal and eternal death could have been attached only to a law of equal magnitude, comprehending universal and eternal life. As the penalty comprehended the loss of all that was valuable to the race—even eternal life—the law to which it was attached, as such enforcing penalty, must have comprehended all that was valuable to the race, and hence must have been the whole perfect moral law.

This conclusion appears reinforced by reference to the following: “Sin is the transgression of the law,” 1 John 3:4; while “The wages of sin is death,” Rom. 6:23; “But sin is not imputed where there is no law.” Rom. 5:13. There must, then, have been a law promulgated, or there could have been no sin; and there must have been a knowledge of that law, or there could, in justice and reason, have been no responsibility therefor; for “by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Rom. 3:20. And surely they evinced a knowledge of sin at once, which they obtained by their disobedience, for they were afraid and “hid themselves.” Adam and Eve knew good, before; now, they knew evil, sin and its consequences. Thus were “their eyes opened.” In this law and these events were the environment of interest to all the race to all eternity.

Now, no mere wish, or request, no mere prudential domestic regulation in respect to any individual or special thing or event, could have been thus universal and comprehensive; for a special can never be universal. Nothing but that which provides for all the high and holy interests of the race, which prescribes all duties and obligations, and prescribes all disobedience—all wrong and all sin—could have been commensurate to the need in that great emergency.

Here, then, we ask, What other law than the ten commandments was ever designed to be thus universal? What other law was ever thus comprehensive—including all duties, all responsibilities, and all interests? No special precept, however valuable in its specific application, could ever have comprehended such universal consequences. But the ten commandments are thus universal and all-comprehensive. These were the universal, natural, all-comprehending moral precepts designed for man under all conditions of being in all time.

These are the only system of laws ever given to man of which it could be said, They are “perfect.” No others of this character were ever given to man, or known. And we ask, What others are possible? The Israelitish statute, or national law, and the Mosaic ritual or ceremonial laws, “added” to the moral law of ten commandments, “because of transgression until the promised seed should come,” were not of this character, however valuable they were. They were special, local, limited, secondary, and based on the ten universal precepts, as primary.

In all sincerity, it is asked, Does not the record clearly prove that the moral law of ten commandments was given to Adam and known by him in Eden before his sin? Paul said, “I had not known sin but by the law.” Rom. 7:7. Indeed, how clearly Paul teaches us in Rom. 7 that it was the law, transgressed, which “opened his eyes,” “made him wise” (in respect to sin), and gave him a knowledge of good and evil,” and finally, “slew him!”

Repeating a few thoughts, we conclude. Adam “was permitted to do everything that was right and conducive to his well-being and in accord with his Father’s pleasure; and in the doing of any and every good thing he was innocent; and in obedience to everything permitted, he was to receive his Father’s blessing and receive immortality, eternal life,” as the reward of obedience and virtue. He was forbidden to partake of—even to touch—evil, wrong, anything which would vitiate, harm the morals, mar the character, or make impure, anything which should in the least degree depreciate the highest spiritual worthiness and dignity of his being; he was enjoined to keep the commandments of God, to violate which would truly “open his eyes” to sin and its train of consequences; would, indeed, make him experimentally wise to a sad degree in respect to evil; would, verily, make him “as one of us,” “as gods,” in respect to a “knowledge of good and evil;” while as a reward for obedience he was to have life, with all its joys and blessings, continued forever; but as a penalty for disobedience, he was to die. In the record given us, the penalty—thou shalt surely die—is very brief; but it is very clear that far more than simply physical death was implied, and doubtless fully taught, as appears from the sentence pronounced after transgression.

Here, may it not be safely inferred from the known character of God, that he would not have permitted that very rigid test of character of our first parents which was laden with such terribly sad, far-reaching, and painful consequences to all posterity down to all eternity, except that they had been fully taught and had been fully informed in all the will and law of God, of which it is said, “It is perfect, holy, just, and good,” and thus have been as fully informed, strengthened, and armed to resist, as was possible?

It is concluded, hence, that the whole law of God—the ten commandments—in principle, and substantially as afterward rehearsed from Mt. Sinai, was promulgated by God, and carefully taught in Eden to Adam and Eve.

The fact, then, appears beyond all question that the law of God, substantially, as afterwards “engraven by the finger of God” on the tablets of stone, was taught in Eden, was understood by Adam and Eve, as subsequently by Abel, Enoch, Noah, and the God-loving patriarchs all along through the ages down to the enunciation of the law from Mt. Sinai which words were but a repetition (apparently for more emphatic enforcement and better instruction and for more permanent preservation) of what had before been taught and known, during the entire history of the race.

The conclusion is inevitable that the law of God was there and then, in Eden, taught and made known, applied, and enjoined to regulate the conduct of the parents of the race in that specific case, and that that was their great trial subject to that law, as the universal, perfect constitution of God’s moral government on earth.

If this be a fact, it is one of great importance; and if the fact can be established beyond successful contradiction, its bearing upon questions of present controversy in respect to the unchangeable perpetuity of the commandments of God—including the fourth—must be very important.

A. C. SPICER.