THE COMMANDMENTS.—PART 1.
By A. C. Spice
In the previous article it was concluded that there was a system of moral laws promulgated in Eden, and before man had sinned. This is evident, because there were transgression and sin there, which were sorely punished. Punishment is the penal sanction of law. Hence, penalty of necessity implies law, and “sin is the transgression of the law.” But “where no law is there is no transgression,” and “sin is not imputed where there is no law.” If, now, in the absence of law there is no sin, so, also, in the absence of law, there can be no obedience; and, if no transgression or obedience, then no moral action, no development of moral character, no responsibility, and no praiseworthiness or blameworthiness, and, of course, no punishment. Law, then, and the whole moral code—the ten precepts entire—(for anything less than the ten, substantially as engraven upon the tablets of stone, would have been incomplete, and hence imperfect as a rule of life for the development of character and a guide to holiness) was essential to man in his innocence, before transgression, as it is to us now. That law given to Adam, hence, must have been the moral law of the decalogue; for this law is “perfect” and “holy,” and “the commandment holy, and just, and good,” and this is the only perfect law. To suppose a law given to Adam less than the decalogue is to suppose an imperfection in the Divine Providence in time of man’s greatest peril and need, and hence it is an impeachment of Deity; while to suppose one given greater than this is to argue incompleteness in this, and hence imperfection therein. But the law of the decalogue “is perfect.” Hence it is again concluded that the ten commandments (substantially the same as rehearsed from Mt. Sinai) were given in Eden to Adam and Eve. This is further evidenced in this fact, that, notwithstanding the very brief Mosaic account, we find frequent traces of a knowledge of the moral law all along the annals of the ancient days. 1. Before the fall by sin. In the first chapter of Genesis (verses 28–30), brief as the record is, we learn that God definitely instructed Adam and Eve in respect to their relations and obligations to each other and to the animal creation, according to the principles of the decalogue, while, in chap. 2:23, 24, we learn that as soon as created, God definitely and carefully instructed them in the institution and relations of marriage, and the law of chastity and purity of character according to the principles of the seventh command of the decalogue. The first clause of the fourth command, referring to labor, we find in principle in Gen. 1:28, before transgression, as in 3:23, after sin by Adam; while from Gen. 2:3, we learn definitely, by specific statement, that the Sabbath institution, as enjoined, regulated, and protected by the fourth commandment, was then and there, in Eden, instituted and established immediately at the close of the work of creation. “God’s resting on the seventh day from all the work which he had made,” and his “blessing the seventh day and sanctifying it,” because that in it he had rested, clearly indicates and implies that then and there, in the presence of the race of man, God rested for the express purpose of giving man an example of resting from his labors and sabbatizing, and thus, then and there, set the seventh day apart from the other days, to be a holy day, and blessed and sanctified the day and the rest thereof to man. In Ex. 20:11, the word hallowed is used. But sanctified and hallowed must mean the same thing, viz., made sacred, made holy; set apart to sacred uses, to holy purposes; dedicated to sacred uses, consecrated to holy ends. Now, for what purpose was it made holy? to whom set apart for sacred uses? thus dedicated and consecrated for whose use or good? Christ answered these questions: “The Sabbath was made for man.” Mark 2:27. Now, does not the blessing, sanctifying, hallowing the day “for man” necessarily imply that it was then and there, in Eden, so set apart and dedicated to man’s use and good as a sacred, holy day of rest and worship, in man’s presence, and the language of dedication directly addressed to man, in the persons of Adam and Eve? Clearly, the meaning of the word sanctify implies this; and the act of sanctifying must have been a setting apart, prescribing rules and regulations for its observance, setting boundaries round about it by directions, rules, and laws, for its observance as a holy day of cessation from labor, and for sacred worship. Observe how the word sanctify is used in other places in the Bible, as in Ex. 19:10–23, where directions were given for the sanctification of the people and of the mountain, and where the act of sanctification is distinctly declared by God to be setting “bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves,” etc. Verse 12. “Set bounds about the mount and sanctify it,” Verse 23. And what absolute folly to argue that that sanctification, that setting apart the day as a Sabbath for man, during which he might rest from his labors in imitation of God’s resting from his creative works, and by its opportunities and sanctuary appointments be reminded each week, as the holy Sabbath recurred, that God was his Creator and the Creator of all things, and during which he might worship and adore that God who had made him, and thus sanctify himself and be sanctified and made holy, only in anticipation of its promulgation to man (as “made for him”) from Mt. Sinai, 2513 years thereafter, notwithstanding during all those long, sad centuries, sinful, dying, lost man never more needed, for righteousness’ sake, the instructing opportunities and appointments and sanctifying influences of the Sabbath to develop holiness of life, and aid to strengthen and sustain and fortify the character. Indeed, the Sabbath, with its sacred and sanctifying appointments for worship and instruction in righteousness as a necessary means of developing a holy character, must have been, then and there, in Eden, given to man. To construe the absence of express written commandments and laws from the very brief history of man before his sin (except as above indicated), as evidence that man was left uninstructed therein, is wholly unreasonable. Besides, subsequent history and revelation clearly indicate the contrary. 2. After the fall by sin. Immediately after the transgression, there is clearly indicated, in the synoptical record, in the direct personal dealing of God with the fallen, chap. 3:14–24, the presence of law and a knowledge thereof, not only, but the gospel is foreshadowed and the plan of salvation indicated, also, quite definitely, as in the language of God to the serpent (verse 15), “It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” “It shall bruise thy head”! Very brief, yet most comprehensive language! In it is contained the plan of salvation, the covenant of grace, and the gospel of glad tidings! The punishment for sin (verses 16–24) positively indicates the presence of the moral law and a knowledge thereof; for death, with all its long train of previous disabilities, was pronounced as “the wages of sin,” while sin is the transgression of the law. Cain and Abel were also evidently instructed in the precepts of the moral law, as primary, not only, but, also, in the secondary law of sacrifices for sin; for “by faith Abel offered unto God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain [Abel offered of the firstlings of the flock, which required the firstling shedding of blood, while Cain, in disregard of the instructions of God in respect to the type, made his offering from the fruits of the ground], by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts.” Heb. 11:4. Then Cain coveted the favor received by Abel, and his countenance fell; and after the murder he falsely used evasion and denial, thus evincing guilt and consciousness of wrong done; and God dealt with him as a sinner. From this narrative it is evident they must have been instructed in the principles of the precepts of the decalogue, obedience to which constituted righteousness; and Cain must have known the wrong of covetousness and of murder, for justice required that he must have been instructed in the law, or he could not have been held amenable to it; nor yet, without a knowledge of the law forbidding those acts, could he have felt or manifested guilt for a violation thereof, for where there is no law there is no sin, and, per consequence, no guilt. But Cain showed guilt and finally acknowledged the justice of his punishment by confessing, “Mine iniquity is greater than that I may be forgiven.” Chap. 4:13 (margin). Lamech evinced his knowledge of this law against life, and confessed his guilt for violating it, in this strong, definite language, “If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.” Chap. 4:23, 24. Of all the antediluvian generations, Enoch was the only man who did not die because of sin. He was translated without seeing death, “Because he walked with God and God took him.” Though the very brief synopsis of the history of the 1656 years from creation to the deluge contains only a comparatively few references to man’s knowledge of the moral law of God, yet then, because of sin—the grievous sins of the race—for “God saw that the wickedness of man was very great on the earth” (and this necessarily implies law, and a knowledge thereof), God proceeded to destroy man from the face of the earth, saving only Noah and his family, because “Noah was a just man and upright in his generation, and walked with God.” In 2 Pet. 2:5, Noah is denominated a “preacher of righteousness;” and Christ spoke of Abel as a “righteous” man. But we can form no conception of righteousness except as pertaining to character in conformity to moral law; and to “walk with God,” as is said of Enoch and Noah, must mean to walk in the commandments and statutes and laws of God. Then the moral law of God must have been known to Abel, Enoch, and Noah, to which they conformed their lives, as also to Adam, Cain, and Lamech, and to the whole sinful antediluvian world, to whom Noah, if no other one, preached righteousness, and for a period of one hundred and twenty years admonished them of their sins, and warned them of God’s displeasure and threatened wrath. A. C. SPICE.