THE TEN COMMANDMENTS NOT ABOLISHED by Joseph Harvey Waggoner

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, California · Aug 30, 1877

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS NOT ABOLISHED.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

A REVIEW—BY ELDER J. H. WAGGONER.

(Continued.)

Rom. 10:4: “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. 5:17; and it is not made void, or abolished. Rom. 3:31. In James 5:11, and 1 Pet. 1:9, the same word is used where the sense is the object or design. And this is its meaning here. In Rom. 7:10, it is said the law was ordained unto life. Life was the object or design of the law. See Deut. 30:15, 16; Lev. 18:5; Rom. 2:13; etc. 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. 10:4, 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 commandments of God by their tradition; they will not keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. To such, Rom. 10:4 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.

“(4) In the days of the apostles, some said that believing Gentiles ‘must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, or they could not be saved.’ Acts 15. To decide this question was the object of the first general council convened at Jerusalem. The result was, under the direct teaching of the Holy Ghost, that the council decided that through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, they (the Gentiles) shall be saved even as we (the Jews). Four things only were enjoined on them: ‘To abstain from idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication.’ This, then, became, not the Mosaic law and condition of justification as such, but a Christian rule of action, enjoined by the Holy Ghost on believers, through this council.”

If the writer of the above really supposed that it would pass as an argument against the ten commandments or the Sabbath, he must have presumed greatly on the ignorance of his readers. It is enough to read that circumcision and the law of Moses were the subjects of discussion, to see the irrelevancy of the above argument. Does any one—even the writer of the above—suppose that the apostles and elders in council would gravely discuss and formally decide that the Gentiles need not keep “the ten commandments or any part of them?” Were they absolved from the duty to honor parents? and could they blaspheme, steal, kill, bear false witness, and break the Sabbath, and incur no guilt thereby? Yes; most surely; for the apostles said nothing about these things! Such is the conclusion of the no-law and no-Sabbath argument. Do not think, dear reader, that we misinterpret or misrepresent our opponents. Read for yourself: “FOUR THINGS ONLY were enjoined on them: To abstain from idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication.” This, and this “ONLY,” is declared to be “a Christian rule of action.” This not only does not mention any other duties, but it specifically excludes them. Therefore, whoever says that the Gentiles should not kill, or steal, or blaspheme, contradicts the decision of this council, according to the testimony of our opponents. We should think they would cease to advocate a theory so immoral in its tendency, for shame’s sake. And may it ever be a warning to us, as we witness how completely men are blinded and snared by the enemy when they oppose God’s law. We hold, and teach, in harmony with the council of Jerusalem, that circumcision and the law of Moses are not binding; and in harmony with the Saviour also, who said that worship is vain when it makes void the commandment of God.

“(5) Christ said, ‘I am not come to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill.’ Matt. 5:17. He did fulfill each jot and tittle, both in its preceptory and penal departments. He then cried, ‘It is finished,’ and gave up the ghost. John 19:28–30. He had fulfilled all its precepts, and for us he met its penalties. Thus he magnified the law, and made it honorable, and ‘nailed it to the cross.’ Col. 2:14. No jot or tittle of the law now remains in force as a rule of life, or condition of justification or salvation; ‘that being dead wherein we were held.’ ‘We are delivered from the law.’ ‘Ye are also become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another; to him who is raised from the dead.’ Rom. 7:4, 6. If we are become dead to the law by the body of Christ, and are married to another, what right has the old husband to control our action? We are bound only to Christ. Hence, when he sent his disciples to teach all nations, he said, ‘Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.’ It was not what Moses or the prophets had commanded that was to constitute a rule of life, but what Jesus commanded. He is our Lord and Master, and his commandments are not grievous.”

First, the Saviour’s words are quoted wherein he said he did not come to destroy the law, and then a labored argument is instituted to show that he did destroy it; thus making his action contradict his words. Can any one have confidence in Jesus as a Saviour, and in such teachings at the same time? Reference is also made to Isa. 42:21: “He will magnify the law and make it honorable.” Magnify, says Webster, is “to extol; to exalt; to elevate; to raise in estimation.” Do our opponents believe the Saviour did such a work as this? And if they do, who would ever gather it from their writings? Was it “elevated” by its abolition? Did he “raise it in the estimation” of the no-law theorists, who spare no pains to disparage it? But again he “will make it honorable.” This does not show that it was not honorable before, for we know it was; it therefore means that he will make it still more honorable; the same as to magnify it—exalt it, extol it, raise it still higher in estimation than it had before been held. Though every way honorable in itself, it had been dishonored by transgression, and he came to vindicate its claims, to suffer its penalty, thereby showing its sacredness and perpetuity, and to enforce it on men anew, yes, to write it in their hearts; so that instead of transgressing it, they might love it, delight in it, consent that it is holy, just, and good, and so worship God by obeying his law “in newness of spirit,” and not merely in letter. We believe the blessed Saviour does all this in taking away the carnal mind, which Paul says is not subject to the law of God, and giving us hearts of love and obedience. But how do our opponents say he magnified the law and made it honorable? By, 1, breaking it himself; 2, teaching others to do so; 3, abolishing it; 4, inspiring his apostles to denounce it as a yoke of bondage, &c. But the reader who loves reason, justice, and consistency, will see that the law that is magnified and made honorable is not the same one that is abolished; the one written in the heart is not the one nailed to the cross; the spiritual law is not a carnal commandment; the law which becomes a delight to the converted believer in Christ is not a yoke of bondage.

“No jot or tittle of the law now remains in force as a rule of life.” How different from the teachings of Jesus: “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law, till all [all things—Greenfield, in heaven and earth—Wesley,] be fulfilled.” So far from his teaching that it is not a rule of life, he proceeds to condemn those who break the law, or “any part” of it, and who teach others to do so.

The writer, arguing that the Christian is released from obligation to keep the law, quotes, “that being dead wherein we were held,” and applies it to the law. If this were a correct rendering of the original, the above application would still be a perversion of the text, for all the context shows that it is the sinner that dies—not the law. But it is not a true rendering. Paul never made any such declaration concerning the law. Probably the writer of the above knew that all authorities were agreed that the marginal reading was the true one; possibly he knew that the word apothanontes, from which “being dead” is rendered, was plural and therefore, could not refer to the law; but it was far from serving his purpose to recognize such facts. He had a theory to maintain, and oftentimes it happens that false theories may be as effectually advanced by concealing the truth as by promulgating an error.

Nor is the law represented by the husband in the illustration of Rom. 7. By reference to verse 4, it will be seen that the same individuals that died were afterward married to another, by virtue of a new life received through faith in Christ. The law is that by which a woman having two husbands is convicted of adultery. We prefer Paul’s application of this illustration to that of the no-law theorists, and there is a very wide difference between the two. The expression “dead to the law” is equivalent to that of Chap. 6:2: “dead to sin;” for it is only on account of sin that we die to the law. We have sinned, and the wages of sin is death and the law holds us under its condemning power until death takes place, because a state of sin is a state of condemnation. We need not, however, literally die; but to avoid this, “the old man is crucified,” “the body of sin is destroyed,” that “henceforth we should not serve sin.” Through faith in Christ we so change our relation to the law that we are freed from its condemnation. We die to transgression; the law does not die. We change our relation to the law; the law does not change at all. But if the law was abolished by the Saviour, how do we die to it? By what act, or in what manner, is our relation ever changed to a law which was abolished 1800 years before we were born? Will our opponents attempt to show? When they do, we shall be pleased to note their progress.

(To be continued.)