The Two Commandments by W. N. Glenn

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, California · Jun 7, 1877

The Two Commandments.

By W. N. Glenn

An incident recorded in Matt. 22:35–40 is claimed as a stronghold of no-lawism. A lawyer, tempting Jesus, asked him, “Which is the great commandment in the law?” Jesus answered, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

The advocates of the no-law theory, as also the first-day Sabbatarians, cite the foregoing as authority for disregarding the original law of God, or for recognizing just such portions as suit them. It seems to me clear that this answer of Jesus is an impartial synopsis and endorsement of the law of God, commonly called the ten commandments.

Let us see if the law as here abridged can be honored in the breach of any of the precepts of the moral law. The first four commandments of the decalogue relate our duty to God; the last six set forth our duty to man, just as stated in the Saviour’s answer to the lawyer. Beginning with the latter duty, I ask, Can one love his neighbor as himself and desire to kill him? Certainly not. Nor can any one thus loving a neighbor be guilty of violating the seventh commandment to that neighbor’s injury. No one would think of stealing from a neighbor whom he loved as himself, or bear false witness against him, or covet his wife or his property. In regard to our duty to God, can any one love him with all the heart, soul and mind, and hold other gods in preference? I cannot; let others answer for themselves. No one can honestly claim to thus love God, and at the same time worship graven images, or take the name of the Lord in vain.

But now we encounter the great stumbling-block—the fourth commandment. Here the mass of professing Christians will dissent from the logical sequence of fair comparison. Here we meet the same inconsistency that always looms up at this point, approach it from whatever side we may. No one claims that we can love our neighbors as ourselves and violate any of the precepts of the moral law regarding those neighbors. No one is bold enough to assert that we can love God with all our hearts while other gods hold a higher place in our affections. No one maintains that we can so love God while taking his name in vain. But many, claiming to worship God in spirit and in truth, persistently argue that they can love him with all their hearts and souls and minds, while giving another day preference over his holy, blessed and sanctified day. They profess to love God thus intently, while honoring a day consecrated to idolatry above the day that the Creator set apart from the beginning as his own, and hallowed it. Here is exposed one of the tricks of the Prince of law-breakers to get rid of the moral code. He first attacked the second commandment (as popularly numbered), and induced the Catholics to set that aside; then he arrayed both Romans and Protestants against the fourth, and finally endeavors to set the whole world to war upon the remainder of the law, by teaching that the whole statute has been repealed by the Lord himself.

If, however, the law hangs on (or is embraced in) two commandments, as taught by Jesus in the scripture above quoted, and these commandments are in force under the Christian dispensation, how then is the law annulled? But the Saviour does not merely say the law hangs on these commandments, but all the law. If, therefore, all the law is thus hinged to that which is admitted by all professed Christians to be in force at the present time, how can any part of it be abrogated?

It is argued by those who desire to get rid of certain portions of God’s law, that Jesus, at the time here alluded to, reduced the number of the commandments from ten to two, virtually repealing the old law and enacting another. In support of this view, Luke 10:25–28 is quoted: “And behold a certain lawyer stood up and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He [Jesus] said unto him, What is written in the law? How readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself. And he [Jesus] said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.” This is cited to prove that men may keep but two commandments instead of ten and be saved. But I hold that in this instance also the entire principles of the moral law are concentrated in the condition of life.

But, returning to Matt. 22:35–40, bear in mind that there was no issue at that time as to what day of the week was the Sabbath. This point needed no special reference; the observance of the seventh day was regarded as a part of man’s duty to God—a duty that would not be neglected by any one who loved God with all the heart, soul, and mind. Brevity and comprehensiveness of speech were characteristic of Jesus. His discourses were brief, his commendations and rebukes were brief, and his illustrations were brief and pointed. In his accustomed concise style he gave the substance of the law in what he called two commandments.

It matters not so far as the integrity of the law is concerned, whether it be called ten or two commandments. There is no sacredness about the number ten. True, Moses in some instances termed the law the ten commandments, the more modern Jews are said by Josephus to have so divided it, and by common consent it has been handed down to us as the ten commandments. So there has been so much stress laid upon keeping up the number ten that some have supposed that to reduce this number is to annul part of the law, and others, that to retain the number may apologize for erasing some of the principles. The Romanists desired to evade certain portions of the law; they did so by striking out the objectionable features and trying to cover up their tracks with a redivision so as to preserve the number ten. Moses and Jesus are the only Bible personages accredited with numbering the commandments. Certainly the giver of the law had as much right to embrace it in two divisions as the receiver had to make ten. Neither was necessarily wrong, so long as the matter of the precepts was not changed. Take, for instance, ten verses of the Bible, erase the numbers and divide the matter into two verses; what harm is done, or essential difference made? Clearly, none. The second commandment as enumerated by Jesus is not the same as the second according to Moses, either in language or purport. Jesus mentioned but two, but his synopsis of these comprehends in a few words all the principles of Moses’ ten. The precedent for the number two may have been in the writing of the whole law on two tables of stone. If it is not stated in the Scriptures, what portion was upon one table or upon the other it seems natural to suppose that one stone contained the obligation to God and the other the duty toward man. Paul, in Rom. 13:9, couples the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth commandments together as one, and says that this (not these), in addition to any other, “is briefly comprehended in this saying, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” The apostle is particularly speaking of the duty to man, and rehearses the substance of that part of the law as one commandment.

In the 8th verse he still further condenses into this expression: “He that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.” Now if the law is fulfilled, there is certainly none of it disregarded or superseded. “Love worketh no ill to his neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” Verse 10.

The important question is not, Has the number of the popular divisions of the law been reduced in the present dispensation? but, Have any of the provisions of the code been repealed? Did Jesus, in the recital of the two great commandments, or in the declaration that the doers of these should live, make void a single duty enjoined in the moral statute as originally enacted? If he did, there is a stultification somewhere. Jesus had declared that he came “not to destroy the law,” and shall we think that he designed these two commandments to do the very thing he came not to do? Who dares charge the Lord with such contradictory intentions? But a majority of those who teach that the two commandments of Matt. 22 were designed to annul the law of God, at the same time teach that that law remained in force until the crucifixion, and was then and there blotted out by him who had declared that he came not to destroy, but to fulfill it. Verily, the stultification is on the part of the teachers. True, the commandments were grossly violated at the cross by the murderers of the Saviour; but the holy statute was also gloriously honored on that occasion by Him who there gave his life in its vindication.

How absurd to suppose that God would give his Son over to such an ignominious death to vindicate a law that had proved so faulty as to be immediately thrown aside after such a costly vindication. If the law was merely to be repealed, as falling short of its object, that could have been accomplished without the death of our Lord. But God’s unchangeable statute was to be preserved, and sinful men, who could only become sinners by a transgression of the law, were to be saved from the penalty and given another opportunity to secure eternal life by keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. W. N. GLENN.